IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags smoke , hand

Reply
Old 25th February 2003, 10:08 AM   #41
Aoidoi
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,654
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2nd Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally posted by Valmorian
*Sigh* Apparently it eludes you. Penn and Teller often make it a point to bring up that they don't drink unsolicited. I've seen them do this quite a few times. When smoking, however, the only time I ever see them mention why they seem to have a hypocritical stance on drugs is when they are specifically questioned about it.
Sorry to butt in uninvited... but I believe the objection P&T have to alcohol and most other drugs is that they impair your ability to reason and/or function. Smoking has a number of effects but I don't believe they are of the same sort of mental effect that P&T object to.

Perhaps a case of not all drugs being created equal (for sillier examples, I doubt they object to Cipro or Rogaine either). I may be misrepresenting their stance, but it seems a logical explanation to me.

btw, I really dislike smoking. I hate coming home after playing pool reeking of whatever crap somebody decided to light up. It tends to keep me out of bars and some restaurants. I know several people whose allergic reactions keep them from going out much at all. Health problems aside, I basically just find it annoying.
__________________
"The priests used to say that faith can move mountains, and nobody believed them. Today the scientists say that they can level mountains, and nobody doubts them." - Joseph Campbell

We cannot defend freedom abroad by abandoning it at home. —Edward R. Murrow
Aoidoi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 10:33 AM   #42
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2nd Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally posted by Valmorian


*Sigh* Apparently it eludes you. Penn and Teller often make it a point to bring up that they don't drink unsolicited. I've seen them do this quite a few times. When smoking, however, the only time I ever see them mention why they seem to have a hypocritical stance on drugs is when they are specifically questioned about it.

I find their stance on cigarette smoking to be hypocritical, basically. You don't agree, apparently. To which I say: So what?
I just think it's a bit much to conclude that based on one scene in a fictitious movie.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 10:36 AM   #43
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by RichardR
My response would be "no". (See my anecdote, above.) I forget who it was who said "having a no smoking section is a restaurant (or a plane) is a bit like having a no p*ssing section in a swimming pool", but I think he had a point.
I don't. I'm extremely allergic to cigarette smoke, and the only time I had a problem with a no smoking area in a restaurant was when it moved during the meal and all of a sudden I was in a smoking section. I definitely let the manager have an earful there. I find cigarette smoke very easy to avoid, except in cases I've already mentioned.

Quote:
You have a more developed sense of smell than me, then.
Developed sense of smell??? I said it was visible!!!

Quote:
Here in CA there are some buildings where they forbid you to smoke within 50 feet (or something), of the doorway. I think this is a bit silly, but that's what they are doing.
Yeah, it's going to ridiculous lengths. And, this surprises anyone?
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 10:38 AM   #44
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by spoonhandler
It amazes me that as a non-smoker, I am supposed to feel bad for asking a smoker to move away or stop. They feel permitted to impinge on the life and comfort of non-smokers and resent having any restriction on their choices. I don't choose to be an asthmatic.
But you do choose to go into the restaurant. If the restaurant doesn't have adequate ventilation for the non-smoking area, don't go to the restaurant and let the management know why.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 10:41 AM   #45
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Supercharts
True Story:
Went to a play last weekend. One of the characters in the play smoked. Sign out front stated that the character smoked Herbal cigaretts. BFD.
Non-smoking actors smoke herbal cigarettes on stage and the screen so that they don't become addicted. I don't know why someone would want to advertise that fact, though. (Well, unless it's the herbal cigarette makers.)
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 12:25 PM   #46
voidx
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,479
hmmm interesting comments to say the least from chapka and luceiia. I'll try and find out if a similar study was done in Canada. The Canadian health department ads state very clearly that long exposure to SHS does cause certain types of cancer if I remember correctly, as the tag line of the whole ad campaign goes to the effect of SHS kills! In that regard its focus seems to differ from that of the EPA study.

Also I find it a little alarming that even though people say off-handed that they don't like the fact that the study may have been done incorrectly, that they don't much care either as they hate coming home smelling of smoke and have no sympathy for smokers. Lets do try and stay objective. Your personal feeling of hating to come home smelling of smoke, while valid on one level, should not be a justification for thinking its ok that a study may have been done and quoted incorrectly. As Shanek stated, you choose to go to whatever restaurant it is you went into. So be objective and tell them honestly that you do not appreciate it and would much more consider going to their restaurant if it was non-smoking, or if a properly ventilated smoking area was provided. In some area's it is still legally up to each individual restaurant or bar or what have you to decide if they wish to be non-smoking or not. If they've chosen to support a smoking clientele, you can object and suggest they do not. If they still continue to support that clientele, then don't go.

That is why I'm so interesting in these studies and whether their findings are accurate. If smoking causes long-term health problems, and potentially cancer, then yes, it makes sense to move to a policy of enforcing non-smoking environments. If it merely is an irritant, causing bad smell, and in more sensitive people watering eyes, burning throat sensations and the like, well then I think its more up to the business to decide what type of clientele they wish to cater too. I'm a non-smoker myself, and like many of you, would prefer not to come home smelling of an ashtray. But I've never in my experience been in a restaurant that made within minutes my eyes water and my throat burn. I think some people when they get emotional exaggerate just how much smoke affects them and how quickly. Perhaps I'm not overly sensitive to cigarette smoke, who knows, but regardless I think more people need to cut out their personal feelings and try and look at the issue objectively.
__________________
V O I D X ' S S I G N A T U R E
voidx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 02:26 PM   #47
Morchella
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 158
I can remember when the tobacco companies would trot out a 90 year old that chained smoked all his life and said, "Looky here". Selective data mining can always come up with results that confirm your prejudice. I believe that Penn and Teller could be trying to justify their habit by selecting the studies that back up their preconcieved notions. The studies that confirm that second hand smoke is harmful are overwhelming. I wonder where P&T get their info? I doubt their resources are credible, Probably financed by the tobacco companies.
I think they are probably bringing this up because Nevadans are discussing a statewide anti tobacco law. You can imagine all the resistance to it with all the all night casinos and bars in Nevada. Already there are a few non smoking casinos and the airports are non-smoking too. It won't be long before they follow Californias' lead and ban smoking indoors. I welcome it. Separate smoking sections never worked especially for the people that had to work there.
So nyaa nyaa all you drug addicts. Take your disgusting habit out of my air space.
__________________
Dog be with you.
Morchella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 02:31 PM   #48
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by Morchella
I believe that Penn and Teller could be trying to justify their habit by selecting the studies that back up their preconcieved notions.
What habit? They're both nonsmokers!

Quote:
So nyaa nyaa all you drug addicts. Take your disgusting habit out of my air space.
Your air space??? Since when is the area inside a PRIVATELY-OWNED bar or restaurant your air space???
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 02:35 PM   #49
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
I had this experience a couple of years back when I went to Utah. I made a faux pas at a restaurant when I habitually asked for a seat in non-smoking, only to be met with a strange look. I didn't know at the time that Utah had banned smoking in all restaurants etc.

I was in Orem at the time, over at Novell (before they consolidated their offices in Provo) and was talking with some of the guys there about it. We were in a break room with large windows facing the mountains to the north, where an industrial area squelched out a permanent brown haze obscuring the mountains. So when they bragged that they were in a "clean air state," I just gestured northward and said, "Good job!"
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 03:00 PM   #50
spoonhandler
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iconoclast wrote:

Quote:
If your life has been changed immeasurably, then how can even you tell it's changed at all?


You're absolutely right - that was a piece of artistic licence that should not be permitted to go unpunished.

My life improved by a measurable amount - I'm just not sure what units I should use to express it and how they are measured.

Negative number of wheezes? Positive units of Smile? Where did I point that damn Quality Of Life tape measure?

And Shanek: Does a smoker leave a venue when they see their choices affecting others? Do they see their choices affecting others? I admit though, I do avoid venues where I know smoking is permitted and I do what I can to avoid smokers. I've moved tables, chosen other places to eat and changed paths into and out of the building to do so.
  Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 05:04 PM   #51
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by spoonhandler
And Shanek: Does a smoker leave a venue when they see their choices affecting others? Do they see their choices affecting others?
The point is, it should be up to whomever owns the property. If you don't like it, don't give them your business.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 06:55 PM   #52
spoonhandler
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
The point is, it should be up to whomever owns the property. If you don't like it, don't give them your business.
Accepted and agreed.
  Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2003, 07:03 PM   #53
Morchella
Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 158
Shanek
Over 4000 posts? Get a life lard ass. Update your postscript too. It's a bunch of drivel just like your writing.
__________________
Dog be with you.
Morchella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2003, 02:02 PM   #54
Thumper
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 234
Summary

So, from what I've read so far, we have a metastudy from the EPA that is flawed and isn't flawed showing there is a non-cancer danger to second-hand smoke with no appreciable danger of getting cancer from SHS. Is this correct?

Then why do smokers get cancer if they are breathing the same stuff SHS breathers are breathing and not getting cancer from?
Thumper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2003, 02:18 PM   #55
Torlack
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 130
Re: Summary

Quote:
Originally posted by Thumper

Then why do smokers get cancer if they are breathing the same stuff SHS breathers are breathing and not getting cancer from?
Because smokers have been kind enough to already filter most of the bad trash out of the smoke by using THEIR LUNGS?
Torlack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2003, 02:29 PM   #56
Thumper
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 234
then what's burning on the end of the cigarette away from their mouth? non-cancerous material?
Thumper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2003, 02:43 PM   #57
Torlack
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 130
Are you also saying that standing 5 feet away from someone who farts is a bad as having them fart with their butt in your face?
Torlack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2003, 02:55 PM   #58
chapka
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 37
Re: Summary

Quote:
Originally posted by Thumper
So, from what I've read so far, we have a metastudy from the EPA that is flawed and isn't flawed showing there is a non-cancer danger to second-hand smoke with no appreciable danger of getting cancer from SHS. Is this correct?
Not exactly.

There is a report by the EPA. One section of the report, a metaanalysis of cancer studies, has been criticized. The critics say that the data is inconclusive. The EPA, and the scientists who performed and reviewed the study, say that it does indicate that secondhand smokers get cancer.

The rest of the report is very clear and has not been challenged; it says that secondhand smoke does cause many noncancer health problems in those regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thumper
Then why do smokers get cancer if they are breathing the same stuff SHS breathers are breathing and not getting cancer from?
Because lung cancer is rare overall and often doesn't occur until long after exposure, it's difficult to study it, and difficult to get statistically significant results in humans. But the question you ask is exactly why the EPA used a laxer standard, called a one-tail analysis. The rationale is: we know that there are carcinogens in nonsmokers' lungs, we can be fairly sure that it's not reducing their cancer risk, and therefore even a smaller statistical result is more likely to be significant. EPA also boosted the reliability of the study by examining the exposure level data in those studies that drew distinctions on how much smoke someone was exposed to.

Even the study's critics can't plausibly claim that ETS has been proven not to cause cancer. They can only say that it hasn't been proven to cause cancer, which is not the same thing.
chapka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2003, 03:09 PM   #59
Marvel Frozen
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 237
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, the World Health Organization, and the United States National Toxicology Program have all done studies that concluded that Second hand smoke is a health hazard. (Although the tobacco industry has harshly criticized the studies done by the EPA and the WHO)

I found the study done by the CEPA to be particularly interesting. They did a study to determine the levels of toxic materials in "sidestream smoke" (basically the smoke from the burning end of the cigarette). The found high levels of acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, nicotine, and other hazardous materials. You can read more about the study here :


http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/resnotes/notes/96-2.htm
Marvel Frozen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2003, 04:45 PM   #60
Valmorian
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 260
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2nd Hand Smoke

Quote:
Originally posted by shanek


I just think it's a bit much to conclude that based on one scene in a fictitious movie.
Since this response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, I'll simply repeat my previous post:


*Sigh* Apparently it eludes you. Penn and Teller often make it a point to bring up that they don't drink unsolicited. I've seen them do this quite a few times. When smoking, however, the only time I ever see them mention why they seem to have a hypocritical stance on drugs is when they are specifically questioned about it.

I find their stance on cigarette smoking to be hypocritical, basically. You don't agree, apparently. To which I say: So what?

----

Let me spell it out more clearly: Penn and Teller ACTIVELY emphasize that they don't drink. They do so without any prompting on numerous occasions. The only time I've ever seen them say anything about smoking is when they are specifically questioned on the point.

Now, whether this is because they selectively choose to aim their derision at mind-altering substances, or whatever, it comes across as hypocritical to me. Both are recreational drugs that cause harm to the user.

This has little to do SPECIFICALLY with the movie Penn and Teller get killed.
Valmorian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2003, 05:25 PM   #61
scribble
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,686
Quote:
Originally posted by shanek


The point is, it should be up to whomever owns the property. If you don't like it, don't give them your business.
Amen.

Just a few things that occured to me while browsing this thread:

"Having a no-smoking secton in a restaurant is like having a no-peeing section in a pool!"

I was just having a similar conversation with a friend last night, and he told me a humorous anecdote that makes shanek's point. He said he was at his office, enjoying a cigarette, when some kids fromt he local highschool yearbook came in to ask him to buy some advertising space in the back. They saw him smoking and one says to the other, "Hey, look, there's someone smoking in public!"

To which he responded: "In public? Funny that, I thought this was MY office."

He bought the advert space, too. Heh.

If I were a bar or restaurant owner and The Man wanted to pass legislation to tell me how to do business -- well, that's antitheticl to capitalism, isn't it? But then there's plenty of ridiculous laws like that on the books already... I love what America is supposed to stand for, I'm so disappointed in how it often doesn't.

Anyhow enough rambling. If it matters, despite my best efforts to quit about a year ago, I'm a smoker.

-Chris
scribble is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th February 2003, 06:27 PM   #62
Thumper
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally posted by Torlack
Are you also saying that standing 5 feet away from someone who farts is a bad as having them fart with their butt in your face?
lol

only in a matter of degrees. The same chemicals are there floating in the air, they are just not as concentrated.

But you have a good point, let's illegalize farting in public.
Thumper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 07:13 AM   #63
Occasional Chemist
Muse
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 513
Quote:
Originally posted by scribble
If I were a bar or restaurant owner and The Man wanted to pass legislation to tell me how to do business -- well, that's antitheticl to capitalism, isn't it? But then there's plenty of ridiculous laws like that on the books already...
Do you feel that way about all laws that affect how a restaurant can be run, or just some?
__________________
Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2) in /usr/local/apache/htdocs/vbulletin/admin/db_mysql.php on line 38
Occasional Chemist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 08:28 AM   #64
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
 
UnrepentantSinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 26,840
As an unrepenatn smoker, I hate to admit my cat coughs as lot more than she should than would be caused by hairballs.
__________________
I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.
UnrepentantSinner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 08:59 AM   #65
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
My wife's children were for years back-and-forth between a house where everyone smoked and one where no one smoked. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind about the effects of second-hand smoke; there was a dramatic difference in the kids' coughing, number of colds, bronchitis and overall health.

For the last four years they've lived with me and my wife in a smoke-free house and their health problems are gone. Only when they spend time with their father, a heavy smoker, do they come back coughing or otherwise sick.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but convincing to me. I'm disappointed in Penn and Teller; whether the thoery is proven or not, it's hardly woo-woo material.
  Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 11:07 AM   #66
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: children and second hand smoke

Quote:
Originally posted by kittynh
I knew my daughters pediatrician always asks parents if they smoke. She also asks if the family uses a wood stove. Then she writes it in the kids file. She claimed when I asked her that kids in smoking households have more upper resp. infections. But, I just took her word for it, and didn't ask for proof
I've had more than one doctor tell me that if they see an infant with bronchitis, they can be certain there is a smoker in their house.

I don't take any chances around my kids. I smoke outside.
  Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 11:12 AM   #67
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,791
"There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind about the effects of second-hand smoke; there was a dramatic difference in the kids' coughing, number of colds, bronchitis and overall health."

Do you realize the value of anecdotal evidence in this forum?

"Anecdotal evidence, I know, but convincing to me. I'm disappointed in Penn and Teller; whether the thoery is proven or not, it's hardly woo-woo material."

Yes, the psychic believers use the same type of reasoning.

I don't care for smoking, but since I don't like doesn't mean I'm going to try to legislate that everyone to stop doing it.

If anyone knows a person being treated for second-hand smoke, please present the medical documents.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 11:17 AM   #68
shanek
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,990
Quote:
Originally posted by sundog
My wife's children were for years back-and-forth between a house where everyone smoked and one where no one smoked. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind about the effects of second-hand smoke; there was a dramatic difference in the kids' coughing, number of colds, bronchitis and overall health.

For the last four years they've lived with me and my wife in a smoke-free house and their health problems are gone. Only when they spend time with their father, a heavy smoker, do they come back coughing or otherwise sick.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but convincing to me. I'm disappointed in Penn and Teller; whether the thoery is proven or not, it's hardly woo-woo material.
Except that P&T were talking about cancer specifically.
shanek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 11:17 AM   #69
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
"There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind about the effects of second-hand smoke; there was a dramatic difference in the kids' coughing, number of colds, bronchitis and overall health."

Do you realize the value of anecdotal evidence in this forum?

"Anecdotal evidence, I know, but convincing to me. I'm disappointed in Penn and Teller; whether the thoery is proven or not, it's hardly woo-woo material."

Yes, the psychic believers use the same type of reasoning.

I don't care for smoking, but since I don't like doesn't mean I'm going to try to legislate that everyone to stop doing it.

If anyone knows a person being treated for second-hand smoke, please present the medical documents.
Years of observation by a competent observer is "anecdotal evidence" of a rather high quality.

Whether you agree or not, a discussion of the effects (or non-effects) of second hand smoke is not mystical in any way, and is not a woo-woo topic.

I'm surprised at your heat. I am simply telling you my observations.
  Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 11:43 AM   #70
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,791
Quote:
Originally posted by sundog


Years of observation by a competent observer is "anecdotal evidence" of a rather high quality.

Whether you agree or not, a discussion of the effects (or non-effects) of second hand smoke is not mystical in any way, and is not a woo-woo topic.

I'm surprised at your heat. I am simply telling you my observations.
Again, if you have a medical diagnosis of someone that is suffering from second-hand smoke, please come forth with it. The effects of second-hand smoke is woo-woo.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 11:47 AM   #71
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Again, if you have a medical diagnosis of someone that is suffering from second-hand smoke, please come forth with it. The effects of second-hand smoke is woo-woo.
Exactly why? Exactly what is your definition of woo-woo?

This is a medical and scientific subject that may or may not be true. You cannot point to a single "supernatural" thing about it.

Again, I feel free to share my personal experiences here, just as you feel free to ignore them. That doesn't invalidate them in the least.

You are being unscientific. My experiences are of course not conclusive, but neither are they completely dismissable as you seem to think. Doctors don't diagnose constant bouts of bronchitis as having been caused by second-hand smoke, so your request that I provide such evidence is just silly. But by the way, one of the questions the doctor always asks is "Is there a smoker in the house?"
  Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 01:13 PM   #72
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,791


Exactly why? Exactly what is your definition of woo-woo?


Belief in ******** is woo-woo.

This is a medical and scientific subject that may or may not be true. You cannot point to a single "supernatural" thing about it.

Except for these mysterious many of people that have died from second-hand smoke. Where are they? Who are they?

Again, I feel free to share my personal experiences here, just as you feel free to ignore them. That doesn't invalidate them in the least.

Support your observations with some valid facts. Your dislike of smoking is more likely the cause of your observations than actual events. I don't like smoking either, but get real.

You are being unscientific. My experiences are of course not conclusive, but neither are they completely dismissable as you seem to think.

You have no data as back up your assertions, nothing substantial, that is.



Doctors don't diagnose constant bouts of bronchitis as having been caused by second-hand smoke, so your request that I provide such evidence is just silly.

Why? Why don't doctors diagnose people have suffering from second-hand smoke?

But by the way, one of the questions the doctor always asks is "Is there a smoker in the house?"

Yes, second hand smoke has been known to irrate people with lung conditions.. pre-existing conditions, but there is no evidence of second-hand smoke actually causing ailments.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 01:29 PM   #73
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Exactly why? Exactly what is your definition of woo-woo?


Belief in ******** is woo-woo.
I'm not trying to prove anything by my observations - they are just that, observations. There are entire branches of science which depend upon pure observation. It's hardly defensible or scientific to dismiss them entirely.

I am troubled by your definition of "woo-woo". (Why am I suddenly flashing to that lecture scene in High Anxiety?) That seems very broad.

Although I have no intention of doing so, I could make a case that it's a woo-woo belief that the nonsmoker is somehow magically protected from the very same chemicals that make the smoker sick. I don't seriously make the point of course; I'm just pointing out that if there's any "woo-woo" involved, it's in the other direction. By what mechanism are nonsmokers protected from things known to hurt a smoker? It's an interesting question. Do you know of any research in that direction?

You contend that studies fail to reveal a connection. I accept that. I also know that scientists might change their mind next week about this, and that it's simply premature to label it "bs".

I reserve the "bs" label and the "woo-woo" label for things that are downright unscientific. This is a simple difference of opinion over a medical question; it is not worthy of either side to dismiss the other's opinions as bs, in my opinion.
  Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 05:58 PM   #74
chapka
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[b]

Except for these mysterious many of people that have died from second-hand smoke. Where are they? Who are they?

(...)

Yes, second hand smoke has been known to irrate people with lung conditions.. pre-existing conditions, but there is no evidence of second-hand smoke actually causing ailments.
Yes there is. Go to:

http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/ets/etsindex.htm

Download chapter 7.

Among other data, a 1986 Surgeon General's report concluded that children of smokers are 20%-40% more likely to be hospitalized with bronchitis and pneumonia. Dozens of studies have been done, and nearly all of them show positive correlations between secondhand smoke and health problems including lung infections, ear infections, athsma, and crib death. As far as athsma is concerned, the evidence is that ETS actually causes athsma in children who would not otherwise develop it. There's no scientific basis I'm aware of for the idea that secondhand smoke only affects preexisting medical conditions.

In addition, many health conditions are diagnosed by doctors based only on patient or family observation; for example, food and drug allergies. If the effect is repeated and has a plausible mechanism, a doctor will take it seriously. If A happens after B once, it's likely to be a coincidence. If B happens every time A happens, it's possible there's a connection. Isn't observation the basis of science?
chapka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 08:08 PM   #75
NWilner
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 56
Chapka is correct in almost every detail, and has presented the secondhand smoke issues in depth.

The "bull" in the debate comes from interested parties, i.e. the tobacco industry.

I fought the tobacco boys in court for years. They are liars. They are not capable of telling the truth about anything.
They said the same thing about active smoking that they now say about secondhand.

Don't buy it.
__________________
Norwood S. Wilner
NWilner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2003, 10:04 PM   #76
Aoidoi
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,654
I just saw the P&T episode. They confined themselves to smoking laws in restaurants as an infringement on individual rights and that no study demonstrates that second hand smoke is a cancer risk.

I do not recall them arguing smoking is healthy (or non-damaging) or anything about the effects of smoke on children, their argument seemed limited to the government using passing anti-smoking measures due to their popularity rather than sound science.

They did also explicitly state they are non-smokers and dislike second hand smoke personally.

I was mildly annoyed when they trotted out the old "I've worked as a bartender for 40 years without any problems from the smoke" guy, I mean that was just the definition of anecdotal evidence. The most convincing argument was from the libertarian radio guy... arguing that it's not the business of the government to regulate this sort of behaviour seems a much better argument than just showing there's no demonstrated carcinogenic effect from second hand smoke (at least to me).
__________________
"The priests used to say that faith can move mountains, and nobody believed them. Today the scientists say that they can level mountains, and nobody doubts them." - Joseph Campbell

We cannot defend freedom abroad by abandoning it at home. —Edward R. Murrow
Aoidoi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2003, 12:15 AM   #77
voidx
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,479
Sundog, your were the first one to use the term woo-woo, so it seems a tad silly to keep insisting on thaiboxerken to provide a definition for it. You used it yourself, you tell us what it means. Just an observation

I'd also be careful about your statements about the value of observation. Any scientific thesis based solely on pure observation wouldn't be very well founded. It could be a component of a larger testing procedure, but cannot be taken entirely on its own merit. For example the basis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test was pure observation, and look at how vague, and situation specific it often is. A more in depth look:

http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

Obviously Chapka has quite an in depth knowledge of the studies done, which is much appreciated, it has shed some light on things for me. And has been careful to point out the focus of the study, just as others have pointed out the focus of the P&T episode so lets have everyone realize that. Obviously smoking is bad for you, and any effort to get people to quit smoking is a valid effort, one which I'm sure any logical person would not disagree with. However, I find it unethical and alarmist to boost any portion of any study in an effort to either guilt, or scare a certain demographic into a course of action. Inhaling SHS obviously isn't doing you any good, and from what I'm seeing here it has the potential to exasberate certain conditions and making recurring ailments such as bronchitis and asthma more likely. But as Chapka mentions, because the effects of SHS insofar as cancer is concerned do not become visible until much later, if they can be proved to be the cause at all, its hard to draw a conclusive link between SHS and cancer. It appears likely, and that seems logical, but its not concrete. So for an agency such as Health Canada to be issuing ads stating conclusively that SHS causes cancer and kills, well that is irresponsible. In my opinion. Check this link:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media...2002_64bk3.htm

and find it interesting that when it comes to Cancer they mention 'and Other Cancers". One would think they would take the opportunity to educate the public on just what types of cancer it can cause. I know I for one would love to know for sure.
__________________
V O I D X ' S S I G N A T U R E
voidx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2003, 06:38 AM   #78
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,791
" By what mechanism are nonsmokers protected from things known to hurt a smoker?"

Dose makes the poison. The dissipation of smoke into the air is the mechanism that protects a non-smoker from the smoke. Maybe if you locked lips with a smoker that exhales, you'd have the ill-effects of second-hand smoke.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2003, 06:39 AM   #79
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,791
I reserve the "bs" label and the "woo-woo" label for things that are downright unscientific.

The studies that conclude that second-hand smoke is harmful have been shown to be unscientific.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2003, 08:09 AM   #80
chapka
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The studies that conclude that second-hand smoke is harmful have been shown to be unscientific.
By whom? This isn't even anecdotal evidence; it's bare assertion. Provide some evidence or go away. Have you even read any of dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies you're dismissing as "unscientific"?

Again, even the tobacco industry has only claimed that one aspect of one metastudy was "unscientific." There have been literally DOZENS of studies, and at least two other U.S. metastudies, which conclude that secondhand smoke causes diseaase, including cancer.

The cancer studies speak for themselves, even without the metaanalysis. Almost every study, even if it doesn't reach statistical significance (because it's a difficult disease to study), has a small positive correlation, and every study which distinguishes between levels of exposure shows a correlation between cancer occurrence and exposure. If you put enough of these studies together, you can be pretty sure it's not a fluke. And to be clear, I'm not disregarding the metaanalysis because I think it's flawed, but because arguing about it is the tobacco industry's way of distracting people from the overall conclusions of every large study ever done. I think this study, and the other large-scale studies, provide plenty of evidence to link ETS to lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Some people also seem to be dismissing noncancer risks, as though they wouldn't justify nonsmoking laws on their own. So let's be clear. The EPA estimate is that about 3,000 people will die of lung cancer this year, but that literally MILLIONS of children will develop infections, including hundreds of thousands of lung infections, thousands of which will require hospitalization. In addition, 26,000 children who would otherwise be healthy will develop athsma. Finally, 2,000 to 3,000 infants will die in their cribs because their parents smoke. If that doesn't qualify as a health risk, I don't know what does.

I respect the hardcore libertarian position, although I disagree with it. But if you agree with workplace health and safety laws in general, I don't see how you can justify making an exception for tobacco. Or is this like how throwing a candy wrapper on the ground is littering, but throwing a (equally non-biodegradable) cigarette butt on the ground doesn't seem to be?
chapka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.