This is interesting.
Hey folks,
Remember back on the Big Sunday Edition on November 28, 2010, I posted THIS in the Preview, Oregon Bomb Plot Suspect Arrested, Second Hand Smoke I said this. 
It's true. It is completely bogus folks. Well, that following Monday, it was all over the place. Rush Limbaugh talked about it on his show. Turns out, he has a Piece by the UK Telegraph - Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent in 1998 Get this.
Just like most Liberal Agenda Driven hype, you are not suppose to reason any of this out. No. You are not suppose to apply Logic or Thought to it. Just accept it. Smoking is Bad. You breath it in, it can kill you. Bad, bad, bad. But then you breath it out. {Gasp} First, we all know that the EPA has decided that just you breathing out, Carbon Dioxide, you are killing the planet and effecting others, now add that Evil Smoke? {Gasp, Thumping Chest} You ARE KILLING PEOPLE! You EVIL Smokers YOU. Those Evil, Greedy Tobacco Companies are Aiding YOU in Killing 600,000 people a year. BAN IT!! BAN IT!! SHUT THEM ALL DOWN!! What? wait, What? Speak up. I couldn't hear ya.
"I said, no. We can't. Where would we get all that money from? You know how much Tax Revenue we get? We can't ban it or shut them down."
Then WHAT is this all about?
"Control and Power. Don't you know that by know? Besides, it's not our fault you smoke. We have been telling you for years to quit. It's all your fault. We're not to blame. But we will enjoy the Taxes while you do it."
Peter
Sources:
Rush Limbaugh Radio Show on 112910 - In Flip, World Health Organization Claims Secondhand Smoke Kills
UK Telegraph - Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent in 1998
Hey folks,
Remember back on the Big Sunday Edition on November 28, 2010, I posted THIS in the Preview, Oregon Bomb Plot Suspect Arrested, Second Hand Smoke I said this. Now you know that I quit Smoking some time ago. I'm not a smoker anymore, nor do I have any allegiance to the Tobacco Industry. I do not advertise for them, nor receive any compensation of ANY kind for them. But stories like this just really tick me off.I was talking about this idiotic piece from the AP - More than 600,000 people killed by 2nd-hand smoke By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer Fri Nov 26, 1:29 am I said this.
Now if you just read the Headline, you can easily see why the Anti-Smoking Nazi Groups out there will be quick to jump all over this. Sound HORRIBLE does it not? Problem is, it's NOT real. It's NOT based on REAL Science, nor is there any ACTUAL PROOF that it is INDEED Second Hand Smoke causing the deaths.
It's true. It is completely bogus folks. Well, that following Monday, it was all over the place. Rush Limbaugh talked about it on his show. Turns out, he has a Piece by the UK Telegraph - Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent in 1998 Get this. THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.You read that correctly.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.So NOW, all of a sudden, over 600,000 people die from Secondhand Smoke? Complete Bunk folks. As I thought when I first saw this story. It's like saying that you live in an area where there is a Nuclear Plant. You die, as we all do, the PLANT KILLED YOU! No, maybe not. Maybe you just Died because it was your time. You Die in a Hospital, all those Sick People? THEY KILLED YOU. You were in the area with other Sick People. So forget REAL Science, we'll just say the Hospital Killed you because you were around other Sick People and some of them have contagious Diseases. Right?
Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."
A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.
A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.
"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.
The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.
UK Telegraph 1998
Just like most Liberal Agenda Driven hype, you are not suppose to reason any of this out. No. You are not suppose to apply Logic or Thought to it. Just accept it. Smoking is Bad. You breath it in, it can kill you. Bad, bad, bad. But then you breath it out. {Gasp} First, we all know that the EPA has decided that just you breathing out, Carbon Dioxide, you are killing the planet and effecting others, now add that Evil Smoke? {Gasp, Thumping Chest} You ARE KILLING PEOPLE! You EVIL Smokers YOU. Those Evil, Greedy Tobacco Companies are Aiding YOU in Killing 600,000 people a year. BAN IT!! BAN IT!! SHUT THEM ALL DOWN!! What? wait, What? Speak up. I couldn't hear ya.
"I said, no. We can't. Where would we get all that money from? You know how much Tax Revenue we get? We can't ban it or shut them down."
Then WHAT is this all about?
"Control and Power. Don't you know that by know? Besides, it's not our fault you smoke. We have been telling you for years to quit. It's all your fault. We're not to blame. But we will enjoy the Taxes while you do it."
Peter
Sources:
Rush Limbaugh Radio Show on 112910 - In Flip, World Health Organization Claims Secondhand Smoke Kills
UK Telegraph - Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent in 1998
1 comment:
The fear behind second-hand smoke wasn't "liberal hype." It was scientific misunderstanding.
The misunderstanding was itself understandable. Scientists and doctors knew for some time that smoking tobacco caused lung cancer (as well as a host of other cancers). Using inference, they assumed second-hand smoke would also cause cancer.
Epidemiological studies initially seemed to confirm this. What they didn't parse out, however, was that they lumped all people who were exposed to second-hand smoke into one category. We now know that exposure to second-hand smoke (breathing in someone else's smoke willy-nilly) is not a danger.
The danger is third-hand smoke. Yes, that's real.
Third-hand smoke usually occurs inside of buildings. If a smoker smokes inside of their home, that smoke builds up in the air vents, on the furniture, on the walls, and settles as dust everywhere else. Over time, that smoke dust becomes nitrated by the air, and that nitrated smoke dust is what's so awfully carcinogenic.
In fact, there's some strong evidence that third-hand smoke is just as dangerous, is not more, than first-hand smoke. Although first-hand smoke is bad (you shouldn't be drawing combusted carbon into your lungs, period), the third-hand smoke's nitrated nature makes it highly reactive and mutagenic, leading to cancer.
That's why smoking's been banned in nearly every building in this country. But you are correct: banning smoking in public, open spaces does not pose a health risk. It's just an annoyance to non-smokers.
Post a Comment