quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:

quote:

Why, if there is signifigant evidence against it, would you want to believe that SHS is harmful?

Because it does in fact trigger asthma attacks for me, which have become life threatening at times. I would say, at least in my case, it is dangerous to be around.

That is a function of your asthma, not of the smoke. Peanut allergies are deadly also, but it's not a restaraunts responsibility to protect against things like that either.

quote:

Why, if there is signifigant evidence against it, would you want to believe that SHS is harmful?

Because it does in fact trigger asthma attacks for me, which have become life threatening at times. I would say, at least in my case, it is dangerous to be around.

quote:

smoking should be controlled and limited, advertising of cigerettes should be banned on all levels

Everyone is already well aware of the risks, and as long as the advertising is not directed at children, there's no reason that advertising should be that severely restricted.

Educate the public of the risks, regulate the product so that additives are reduced and minimize the deleterious effects, and let the product be sold like any other regulated substance. Total advertising bans would be ridiculous. In the US I believe the ban is TV and radio, possibly billboards. Magazine ads are still allowed, and I think that is totally reasonable.

smoking should be controlled and limited, advertising of cigerettes should be banned on all levels

(how is this in the US? in the UK its banned on tv+radio and i think now billboards as well)

there needs to be greater education to the risks, even of smoking only socially...to children of a younger age, my parents drilled it into me that smoking kills when i was young and now i have had no desire to smoke, except for nargile(sheesha to some) and the occaisional cigar..

quote:

So wait, 3,000 lives aren't valuable? They aren't significant? Why are people out protesting the war when only 2,000 people have died in a three-year span. Sheesh, what is this world coming to?

The 3,000 lives number is based upon the flawed findings, therefore I reject that number.

quote:

As of July 26, 2005, the EPA has not updated their information on the topic. If you really feel so inclined to protect the rights of smokers, go ahead and tell them.

Yeah, I'm sure I or anyone else, barring some sort of national scandle, would change that.

And as to the sites being "related to" other tobacco sites: Surprise surprise, they list some tobacco sites, which are relative to the topic. Junkscience and numberswatch are NOT tobacco sites, that should be obvious. The other supports a few links, but that in no way changes the facts that it presents. Facts that you can find repeated on many other sites, since they are taken directly from the studies and court papers.

Really think about this: Why, if there is signifigant evidence against it, would you want to believe that SHS is harmful?

quote:

the EPA’s findings were ruled null and void in 1998 by U.S. District Judge William Osteen who found that the Agency manipulated the data in order to arrive at a desired and predetermined conclusion.

I can acknowledge this.

Maybe I did miss that "significance" issue before... Sorry.

I would like to point out, though, that most of the subsites you are distributing are in some way, shape or form related to direct tobacco sites, especially tobacco.org, which I found a lot of information displayed via the RJ Reynolds Company. And I wonder why... *SARCASM*

As of July 26, 2005, the EPA has not updated their information on the topic. If you really feel so inclined to protect the rights of smokers, go ahead and tell them.

So wait, 3,000 lives aren't valuable? They aren't significant? Why are people out protesting the war when only 2,000 people have died in a three-year span. Sheesh, what is this world coming to?

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
Please provide information revealing what a medical society would consider "insignificant" because you keep bringing that topic up, but never mention what level a correlation must be at before it is considered.

"For these reasons most scientists (which includes scientifically inclined epidemiologists) take a fairly rigorous view of RR values. In observational studies, they will not normally accept an RR of less than 3 as significant and never an RR of less than 2."

Found Here.

The EPA study found a RR of 1.19.
That is why it is insignifigant, I've said the same thing before, you must have missed it.

quote:

Yes, the EPA "cherry picked" because they felt they needed to in order for a proper, unbiased report. Did you even consider that? Or are you still on your throne about your "rights" as a smoker?

I am not a smoker. I am, however, concerned about bas science like this being used to influence society and our rights.

More importantly though a scientist does not "cherry pick" data in order to arrive at a conclusion. The very phrase "cherry picked" implies that there is a bias in selection, which is bad science.

Try and read this with an open mind.

You're talking about judiciously selecting data that is actually good. That's a fine assumption but it is highly unlikely given the nature of the EPA's handling of the data.

The data selection, as well as the two studies which that page DOES mention, is irrelevant as the EPA study still does no show any scientifically sound correlation.

I thought it was fairly obvious that I don't. There are reasons people do things like excluding certain information; your friend's website, as I will say again, did not include information found about the other two studies. Yes, the EPA "cherry picked" because they felt they needed to in order for a proper, unbiased report. Did you even consider that? Or are you still on your throne about your "rights" as a smoker?

Please provide information revealing what a medical society would consider "insignificant" because you keep bringing that topic up, but never mention what level a correlation must be at before it is considered.

quote:

Mind you, that's true for both sides. Whistle-blowers have been threatened by the tobacco industry. Take Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, for example, whose life was in danger at times for his statements. Or a less serious example, Victor DeNoble, whose laboratory was shut down and he was fired when he started talking about the serious effects of nicotine.

That is completely irrelevent and not what I was talking about at all. The EPA's selection of data for the meta analysis appeared to be cherry picked. They manipulated the data analysis to try and get a pre-determined conclusion. And to top it all off, after all this failed to gain a satisfactory result, they took the satistically insignifigant correlation, (which is actually proof of NO INCREASED RISK AT ALL) and sold it as a dangerous risk to the American people. It's unscientific, it's unethical, and it's lead to law after law that unjustly infringes upon personal and individual property rights.

But I've said all this. Freedom, do you acknowladge that the EPA study, which the vast majority of anti-smoking ads and anti-smoking legislation is based off of, is flawed and misleading?

quote:

It is fine if you want to smoke, but not fair to put it into other peoples lungs. At least if smoking isnt in all public places, the smokers can still smoke, and the nonsmokers dont have to. Think of another extremely popular drug: alcohol. It is still sold to those of age, but it doesnt mean people can just drink on the streets.

That is because public drunkeness is a threat to order and saftey. Second hand smoke is not correlated to either of those.

SHS is not signifigantly dangerous to the vast majority of the population. Inconvience to asthma sufferes does not warrent bans on the scale that currently exists.

quote:

What the EPA did was use the public's lack of knowladge of statistics and science to use the "slight" correlation they found (with tainted data and data analysis mind you) and spun it to come up with what amount to totally fabricated numbers.

Mind you, that's true for both sides. Whistle-blowers have been threatened by the tobacco industry. Take Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, for example, whose life was in danger at times for his statements. Or a less serious example, Victor DeNoble, whose laboratory was shut down and he was fired when he started talking about the serious effects of nicotine.

quote:

think of us with athsma and other lung problems too

Yeah, some of my friends have athsma and when we are walking past smokers, it really makes them wheeze and cough...its a bad situation for everyone.

I think there should be a smoking ban in all public places Well this is actually already true where I live. I, personally, have never smoked and don't plan on it simply because I dont find a reason to. On the other hand I dont think that a complete ban on tobacco sales is a good idea. Wheather or not it is banned, lets face it, people will still buy it somehow. Also the fact that it has always been sold in our lifetime, a total ban now almost seems unfair to those who unfortunately we have made addicted to the drug by selling it. The reason I think a ban in public places is a good idea though, is the fact that this drug affects others around the smoker - you all know about second hand smoke. It is fine if you want to smoke, but not fair to put it into other peoples lungs. At least if smoking isnt in all public places, the smokers can still smoke, and the nonsmokers dont have to. Think of another extremely popular drug: alcohol. It is still sold to those of age, but it doesnt mean people can just drink on the streets.
Anyways, I think its a fair arrangement - its not like you have to stop smoking if you are a smoker and all of us nonsmokers (think of us with athsma and other lung problems too) wont have to.

quote:

Smoking is the number one leading cause of death--or at least way up there---so I feel it should be banned completely.

Well lets just ban unhealthy eating and over drinking also. Lets ban any unhealthy decision a person can make that might make them more prone to disease. Just because smoking might be a poor choice doesn't mean it should be banned.

Smoking is the number one leading cause of death--or at least way up there---so I feel it should be banned completely. Sure people smoke anyways and they know how bad it is, but when there's such a widespread epidemic regarding smoking and when there are well-noted unscrupulous acts done by the tobacco industry, this is where we have to put a stop to things. My dad just had a strok dut to primarily smoking and the rest of my family has health-related problem because of the same cancer stick. I was lucky to have never started due to my bro blackmailing me (long story), but I'm sure my second-hand sm oke detector is off the meter (if that makes any sense). Smoking is worse than AIDS.

quote:

I mean, what calculations are you using? Because they did tell the truth, in my belief, though it may be interpretted by some that the correlation is low, if existent.

The Relative Risk assesment is a statistical tool used in medical science and other fields. A simple, very slight correlation may not mean anything because you never get the exact mathematically probable outcome due to the massive amounts of variables in the real world. Therefore you need not only a slight correlation but a strong correlation before you can say there is any actual risk at all.

What the EPA did was use the public's lack of knowladge of statistics and science to use the "slight" correlation they found (with tainted data and data analysis mind you) and spun it to come up with what amount to totally fabricated numbers.

Point being: The EPA's study does not hold up to scientific peer review. Not only are there some questions as to the data, the conclusions drawn from the data have been shown to be grossly unscientific.

Scientific truth does not work on what you "think is the truth". A RR of 1.19 does not suddenly become a good correlation because you think it does. It's well below the minimum limits and if you were testing anything else no correlation could, in good conscience, be declared.

quote:

I think you're totally missing the point. The key issue is not those two studies, it's the EPA data itself. Did you read the whole site? The EPA blatantly sold relative risks that were FAR below any respectable standard as "hard proof".

I did read the site. You're using phrases that really make our government programs out to be terrible. "sold"? "FAR"? "respectable"? I do know what you're getting at, and I don't agree with the way you're doing it, most of all. How are you to measure the "distance" between relative and actual risk? I mean, what calculations are you using? Because they did tell the truth, in my belief, though it may be interpretted by some that the correlation is low, if existent.

quote:

Well in Georgia here there is a NO SMOKING BAN.

Ooh, my 1000th reason why not to go to the South. Excellent...

quote:

Originally posted by rugar:
Well in Georgia here there is a NO SMOKING BAN.

Georgia is in southern America.

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
But what I'm saying is, what if the Brownson and Kabbat actually had found some correlation but the EPA decided their studies were somehow bad; yes, I read your wonderful site, but without proof he's not credible.

I think you're totally missing the point. The key issue is not those two studies, it's the EPA data itself. Did you read the whole site? The EPA blatantly sold relative risks that were FAR below any respectable standard as "hard proof".

But what I'm saying is, what if the Brownson and Kabbat actually had found some correlation but the EPA decided their studies were somehow bad; yes, I read your wonderful site, but without proof he's not credible.