casual abortion

Well, like I said earlier, the science JUST ISNT THERE.

People get in all in a huff like they know something, they just dont. Back in 1996 (?95?) the EPA released a document from their "research" that said that second smoke causes up to 3,000 people to die of lung cancer a year. This is where almost all of peoples "information" comes from, rehashed, and reused. The fact is, in 1998 (97?) a federal court not only stated that their study didnt provide ANY link between second hand smoke and cancer, but that they intentially ignored data that contradcited their predetermined conclusion.

Aw. Bummer. Seems some people are talking out of their ass.
 
Again, I hate smoking, I dont smoke, and I hate being in bars where there is alot of smoke. But the fact remains, THE SCIENCE JUST ISNT THERE. Yeah it hurts your eyes, yeah it makes you cough, but there are close to no studies that show that second hand smoke causes cancer, sorry. Which means at the end of the day, the reason people are banning smoking, is because they dont like it, which of course, is not only unconstitutional, its idiotic.
 
Smoking is well overblown in our society.

In fact, Heart foundations do not actually consider you are a smoker if you smoke less than 6 cigarettes a day. Why ? Because that would ruin their statistics.

Lung cancer and Heart disease can happen even if you do not smoke. So if you get lung cancer from smoking a few smokes a day, or from second hand smoking, it is likely that you would have gotten cancer even if you didn't get exposed to that smoke.

Some people will just openly refuse to believe that, but it is true. My father is actually one of the top heart researchers in the world, if not the best. He has won many awards for his work and has been offered jobs from all over Europe for his credentials. I've had many discussions about the dangers of smoking with him. You'd be suprised what he thinks about it, considering he's a medical doctor as well.

We have actually reached a point where we think Smoking is more dangerous than it actually is. Statistically speaking.

That being said, there is no evidence to suggest that second hand smoking will increase the likelyhood of you getting cancer or heart disease. None. This may seem like a ridiculous claim, but it is true.

Genetics plays a more significant role in smoke-related diseases than most people give credit for. People who get cancer from second hand smoke are just as likely to get it from polution in our cities.

Another significant factor is nutrition and lifestyle. Japan has one of the highest smoking rate in the world, if not the highest. Yet, it does not suffer from the same heart problem percentages as other countries. The reason for this is people in Japan have a much higher intake of fish-oils and it prevents heart disease significantly.

I can rant on about how wrong the conception of second hand smoking is for another 20 paragraphs, but I doubt it wil convince anyone who has their minds set.

I will adress your post later on when I have more time CKava
 
This depends on the circumstances.

I am not saying people can only do that which they are instinctively desiring. Obviously people can put morals above most of their instincts, within the right circumstances.

I was not saying we cannot control it at all. We can. But we have limits.

Just because people aren't humping everything left, right and center, does not mean they are totally in control of their instincts. As long as society gives them enough chance to satisfy their urges, they will behave. As social animals, we balance Society vs Self as to best benefit ourselves.



If you made it impossible for people to have sex, and thus they had no satisfaction towards their instincts, I do believe people will start acting a lot more like apes. If someone is pushed hard enough, or their survival is on the line (and they are aware of it) all morals will go out of the window. If you don't agree, then we will have to settle on that.

As social animals, it is really a case of Society vs Self. Pleasing both in a balance to reach the best result for Self. If pleasing society will result in death/extinction, I will gladly give a nice big middle finger to society. As will any other intelligent Ape or animal.



On the contrary, most of that which I have read suggests the opposite. Human history (which we know a lot more about, than our ancestors) supports my point. The most comon template for families in the History of our species, has been one man, many woman. Pretty hard to refute that fact.

I have read some stuff on Dawkins and how he suggests we are monogomous, but I don't agree with everything he suggests. He raises interesting and good points, but I personally think the evidence is too overwhelming, and it is quite obvious that man prefers to sleep around.

Ultimately, man does what benefits him. That may be different from person to person. Some conclude that it is wiser to please society and gain from that, where as others think its best if they are the boss of everything. Either way, Man does that which he wants to do. So it is circumstancial every time.



Sources please ? As far as I am aware, they do just do that.

To say an Animal is monogomous because they rather please their social hierachy than do that which they selfishly desire, is like saying 'If a homosexual does not come out of the closit out of fear, then he is hetrosexual!' It just doesn't follow.



What evidence ? You didn't provide any. If you do, I might reconsider. All you did was talk about evidence, but failed to give any.



Huh ? Us ? Species ? How are they different ? Same thing at the end of the day.




See my previous post. "Bad effects on your body" may be true, but it is not significant or long-term. So it really does not matter much. It is simply annoying to non-smokers. Nothing more.
 
"Case-control study of passive smoking at home and risk of acute myocardial infarction"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9525549

"Unfavorable effects of passive smoking on aortic function in men"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9499325

"Acute exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and heart rate variability"
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1240375

"Passive smoking: the medical and economic issues"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1497002&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

I smoke btw....
 
Read what Siphus stated earlier.

Everything that is for the idea that Passive Smoking is harmful to a significant degree, is based on the one case which turned out to be entirely fictional.

All those studies that support the idea are not peer reviewed. They are not scientificly aproved or confirmed. You might as well provide links to articles out of cosmo magazine. It doesn't add much credibility to the fact that all those links are from the same source.

It is impossible to even construct such research because it is impossible to know what caused cancer in a patient just by diagnosing the cancer.

Statistically, 12% of lung cancer patients are non-smokers. So if they were smokers (which would have changed nothing in the end, as they still would have gotten cancer) they would have incorrectly added to the "smokers that got cancer" statistic.

You can only confirm that second hand smoking is harmful if you have the statistics to back it up. They do not exist, because the ones that do, do not take into account the rate of natural lung cancer cases, or the life styles of those patients.

If you take a guy that lives of Burger King, and then find out he has heart disease while being exposed to second hand smoking on a daily bases, you cannot simply conclude "Second hand smoking causes heart disease" because diagnosis in medicine (on a statistical level) is not so simple. Sorry.

Once again, the scientific evidence for harmful effects from secondhand smoking do not exist.
 
My thought is: since from the tone of your post is very clear your have a strong opinion on the subject, why the hell coming here and opening a can of worms?
 
What a crock, plenty of large scale studies have been done including ones which do correct the skew in exposure http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html, anyway Harmfull or not I am glad the right of smokers to polute my life has been impaired even slightly. If they can't controll their addiction - tough not my problem. People who refuse to accept the risks are doing the equivalent of sticking ther fingers in thier ears and going LALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING.
 
Easy answer to that one Razorkaine. If you care to look at the "Biblical Assumptions" thread also started by him you will notice that he is a preacher and I can imagine he wanted to find something else to clear all of us up about when he noticed no one was listening to him anymore on that thread.

Christian
 
Emm... BendzR that website PubMed seems to be a search engine for online articles from scientific/medical journals. So I would say contrary to what you suggest it actually adds quite a lot to the credibility of the argument.

MEDLINE is the largest component of PubMed, the U.S. National Library of Medicine's (NLM®) database of biomedical citations and abstracts that is searchable on the Web (http://pubmed.gov) at no cost. MEDLINE covers over 4,800 journals published in the United States and more than 70 other countries primarily from 1966 to the present.

Anyhow, I still don't say how you can possibly argue that secondhand smoking isn't "harmful to a significant degree". If you willing to accept that secondhand smoke does have 'bad effects on your body' then how can you possibly argue that it can't be significantly harmful? Something that produces bad effects in your body becomes significant if it occurs repeatedly. Heavy drinking isn't significantly harmful say once a month but three or four times a week and it is, same thing with passive smoking and the main issue I have with it that its just the price I have to pay for other people deciding they want to smoke. Have you ever worked in a bar? If you had I think you might have a different view on secondhand smoke.

Anyhow as for peer reviewed research:
(Journal of the American Medical Association- review of research- 1992) http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/1/94

From Wikipedia:
"In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:
These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.

Can you provide any peer reviewed sources that suggest secondhand smoke is not harmful? Beyond the highly controversial articles of Enstrom and Kabat which besides being financed by tobacco companies also do not deny the harmful effects of passive smoking but simply suggest they have been overestimated in previous research.

Anyhow about apes and humans mating habits :

This was my point but in your last post you seemed to suggest that our instinct to mate was stronger than any social instincts- which its not.


I've met quite a few seemingly well balanced celebate monks- how would you explain the phenomena of celebacy?

Agh gotta go out now I'll get back to the rest when I get time... thanks for the reply though BendzR.
 
LOL! Sweetie, I work in medical research. PubMed is the primary literature search engine for those of us that actually do the work and provides an abstract and reference to the published article. I suggest you ask your Daddy whether all the studies listed on PubMed are peer reviewed, since you obviously dont know enough about it yourself. If you look at the papers themselves and have a good reason why you dont believe them due to the set up of the experiments or whatever, fine, but I really do suggest that you have a better idea of how the system works before you go spouting off about stuff you clearly dont understand.

Kisses!
 
Sunshine, sweetie, etc.. Don't patronize me.

Although I admit I don't know the credibility of scientific sources by heart, I understand plenty about the scientific method and how it functions. I have written papers on Quantem Mechanices that were accepted by local Universities. So I don't need to ask anyone, nor do I need you to try and patronize or downsize my arguements with wordplay.

Hugs and Kisses. etc.

Anyways, if those sources are reliable then, please explain to me how any scientific study could possibly be done acurately regarding passive smoking.

If you can give me one single case of a person;
- over 5 years old,
- who did not have lung problems before,
- was living in a healthy life style (exercise and nutrition)

and then went on to get lung or breathing problems after being exposed to passive smoking.

If you can do that, I will admit I am completely in the wrong. Knock yourself out.

If my understanding of the scientific method isn't up to scratch, and for some reason science does not function in Biology as it does in Physics to my experience, then maybe I should drop it.

But really, if the best evidence you have for passive smoking being so harmful are those cases you provided, then you best continue using patronizing words to try sound convincing, because I imagine that is your best chance at getting anywhere.

CKava, I think you are misreading my points about Self vs Society. I think I pretty much summed it up in the point regarding someone who does not admit their homosexuality does not make them hetrosexual.
 
I fail to understand how the point I made (that you quoted) is a crock.

The percentage for lung cancer patients (to memory) that were non-smokers is roughly 12%.

Lung cancer is possible without smoking. It is possible without any exposure to any kind of smoke. There are chemical fumes which are far more damaging for you than even smoking yourself.

I opened the link you provided, which I stopped reading as soon as I saw EPA - who have the credibility of a shoe. But I am sure Ninja will come on here and tell me how I am not clever enough to understand the complexities of their ourtright lies.

Please explain to me why smokers who smoke less than 6 cigarettes a day, are considered non-smokers ? So, if that is how Heart foundations draw their statistics, what exactly is a passive smoker ? Are there degrees of passive smoking ?

I am going to be blunt, and say 99% of people in Australia (where I live) have been exposed to at least 30minutes of passive smoking by the time they are middle-aged. How many people a year die from it ?

The EPA have actually stated that 30minutes of passive smoking to anyone can be life threatening.

So once again, if someone can provide me a case of a person who died from passive smoking and it can actually be acurately shown that it was the passive smoke that killed him, I will gladly admit I am wrong.

I am curious, Ninja, since you are such an expert on the topic. How many studies have been done to see the damaging effects of petrol fumes.

I have actually once got incredibly sick from being exposed to about 0.2 seconds of a type of chlorine fume (cynuric acid mixed with chlorine). So I imagine petrol fumes can't be great for you. Surely, much worse than Passive smoking.

How many times a year do you get fuel from the gas station ?
How many minutes (added up) in the first 40 years of your life are you exposed to Petrol fumes ? I am sure it adds up to more than 30.
How many people have died from it ? Please enlighten me.

Cheers.
 
LOL, chill out snookums, dont get your knickers in a twist!

It's just a bit difficult to take your 'statements of fact' seriously when you made such a glaringly obvious mistake about PubMed. If you really dont know anything about it, dont pretend because you WILL get found out.

It's not up to me to tell you whether the research is valid or not, you should go look at it yourself. I simply provided you and everyone else with some refererences so that you could go and do so. I'm not really interested one way or the other what you believe and I'm not making any statements about the validity of the research one way or the other. Dont piddle about asking me about this case or that case, GO READ IT FOR YOURSELF and then you can come back with an informed opinion. If you dont like they way they did the study then you'll know exactly why its a load of crap, but if you dont bother to read it you have no argument one way or the other. Dont expect me to do your donkey work for you by suofftopicrising the results, I'll have my own interpretation. Only way you'll get the whole story is if you do it yourself.

Congratulations on your Quantum Mechanics papers by the way. I assume that they were peer reviewed and are published, so if you can give me a link I'd be interested in having a look, although I admit that I know bugger all about quantum theory and most of it would be over my head I'm afraid!
 
Jeez dude, GO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! If you wanna know about all this stuff go to PubMed and download the papers youself! Its 4.30 on a sunday afternoon and I've had 3 hours sleep, I dont wanna have to think about work until tomorrow and I'm certainly not gonna spend the rest of my weekend wading through a load of papers just because you cant be arsed!

If you're really interested in the subject and can quote me a couple of papers that you think are flawed I'd be happy to take a look at them and discuss them with you, who knows we might even agree! But I'm not spending my last precious day off reading stuff just so I can argue with someone on the internet, sorry.
 
No just because at 6 cigarettes a day even if you smoked for about 60 - 80 years the chances of you getting cancer etc are still rather low. If you smoke from the age of 9 to 30 at a rate of I htink 15 a day you become impudent, oops


Possibly but the fact is the process was sped up by the smoke, you have gained cancer which (no matter what you say) you may well not have had in the first place


Wow, nobody cares. Would this doctor be called Blooming_Lotus by perchance?
 
I did read your pubmed links. I did come to my own conclusions. I don't think those studies stand up to logical reasoning. They simply do not take into account every important factor.

I stated this initially, to which you spawned an logically fallacious arguement by appealing to authority, without actually adressing any of the points I made.

You responded a second time. Once again, simply using fallacious arguements and not adressing points I made.

"DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH" - you clearly missed the point to the questions I were asking. I already know the answers to them. I was asking you to attempt providing answers, because if you did, your arguement would break down. Alas, you simply side-stepped them and failed to actually do any constructive discussion.

So once again, continue appealing to authority and I will continue believing that passive smoking can only harm people with already existing lung problems, or children.

It took me 3 seconds in Google to find some resources - from what seems like decent reliable health foundations - that support the idea that Passive smoking only does harm to those who are within the right circumstances.

As for my paper, I do not have access to it online. If you are ever in the area of Western Australia, give me a yell when you stop by at Murdoch University.
 
I agree. What relevance does this have to what we are talking about here ?




Good point. But statistically speaking it is irrelevant.




I wasn't appealing to authority. I was explaining why I actually question comon concepts of passive smoking being so harmful. I can actually give you a name, and you will get a few hundred results from a simply google search, but I'd rather not. But hey, you don't really care, so no point.

Apologies for showing pride in my family. I'm such a jerk.

People just simply don't like smokers. They think passive smoking is annoying. So my stance here defending their right to actually do what they want, even if it annoys all of us, is obviously getting people all pissed off. So I think I will leave it at that. It's not like anyone here has actually bothered to adress any of the points I have tried to make in the posts that are just piling up.

I am just wasting my time. So, good night.
 
as I said you are going LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I'm not listening, the link I provided gave several studies proving a statistical link. They cannot prove totaly what caused any non viral cancer, but they can say it was a high statistical probability. By the time someone dies of cancer the originaly affected cells are long dead so even a cell by cell autopsy would not show what caused it.
 
Bendz - we get it. you think smokings ok and doesn't cause passive smoking. trouble is almost everyone in the medical world and many respected scientists have proven that passive smoking does increase the risk of various diseases.

Are you denying that smoking in itself causes harm? are you then claiming that the harm can only be caused by inhaling directly (through a filter) rather than throught the second hand and primary (unfiltered) smoke?

But frankly who cares. No-one has "the right" to smoke around other people. If the objection is purely because I find it annoying and that it stinks one would have as much right to complain. If someone started burning insence next to me on a train or in a pub i'd tell them to *beep* off, just because smokers are addicted to their pointless little ritual doesn't mean they have any more right to indulge in it. Especailly as there is considerable evidence (and no real reason not to believe) that smoking is a cause of disease.
 
Back
Top