Safe Speed Forums

So you choose to inhale highly carcinogenig diesel fumes then.



The probability of someone, somewhere in the country winning the lottery is almost unity - someone usually wins it more than once a week.
The probability of me winning the lottery is practically nil - even if I lived several hundred lifetimes I probably wouldn't.

And the risk is still zero if it was zero in the first place.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Someone does win the lottery every week. I don't understand your arguement. OK so only a very few people will die of passive smoking.
I agree the risk is small, and I don't give it a second thought myself. I still think the risk is real.

Originally a physicist. Nowadays I write computer software in order to keep myself out of mischief and off the streets. Oh, and oddly, I also have a degree in Law..


Maybe, but to look at the subject from a reasonably rigorous "scientific" viewpoint, you scupper your own case with the honest statement that there has never been a statistically significant result in any study on ETS. Indeed, many of the studies when viewed at the P<0.05 confidence level bracket unity - consequently it's not completely beyond the bounds of reason to suggest that ETS might even be good for you - indeed, the WHO study's only statistically significant result was that exposure to ETS in children actually reduced their likelyhood of developing lung cancer in later life.


I think that Pete has already quoted Paracelsus on this one..

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Had to come in here, too tempting by any standards!!

My son was 'diagnosed' with asthma a year ago, the GP indicated that it was 'probably' down to cigarette smoke (even though I don't smoke in the house). I don't even believe a full diagnosis was carried out. Even the lung tester he blew into was conducted sitting down rather than standing and the difference in results was quite substantial. He was wheezing and coughing but not so much that in my opinion constituted longterm medication. I was also concerned about his medical records containing astma, especially serious if he ever wanted to join the forces etc.

He was chucked onto an inhaler and other medication in my opinion without a full consultation or without further investigation. Having looked upon the internet, I found that most asthma in children is caused by the common housemite. I disposed of his carpet and relayed it with wooden flooring, guess what? no more wheezing+coughing= no more asthma and this has been the case for 8 months.

Perhaps if some GPs were to investigate more cases rather than chuck kids on medication then more would benefit. Instead everything has to be fought with a drug or medication, is it any wonder that children's immune system's are under developed.

[quote="pogo"]Maybe, but to look at the subject from a reasonably rigorous "scientific" viewpoint, you scupper your own case with the honest statement that there has never been a statistically significant result in any study on ETS. Indeed, many of the studies when viewed at the P<0.05 confidence level bracket unity - consequently it's not completely beyond the bounds of reason to suggest that ETS might even be good for you - indeed, the WHO study's only statistically significant result was that exposure to ETS in children actually reduced their likelyhood of developing lung cancer in later life.

[quote="fergl100"]

This is a possibility, after all one or two glasses of red wine are good for you, a couple of bottles is bad. But cigarettes are in a different league being full of carcinogens and irritants. I therefore think in the fullness of time passive smoking will be shown to be harmful in a small way.

Every substance on this planet, even the most toxic of substances, has a level below which there is no toxic effect, and in many cases a beneficial one. Why should cigarette smoke be different?
In what way is cigarette smoke different from smoke from barbecues, fireplaces and cooking on stoves? Are we to ban all of those as well?
Cigarette smoke contains one, maybe two, known carcinogens - and these are weak and readily oxidised. Other 'harmful' chemicals in cigarette smoke are probably at similar levels in a smoky pub to what they are in a couple of pints of tap water.

I seriously doubt that there has been even one death recorded as being cause by passive smoking.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

The air is full of carcinogens and irritants, just in very small quantities, why should fag-smoke be any different? The statistical "evidence" on ETS is far weaker than that used to "support" speed cameras - why should it be treated with such uncritical approval?

ETS may be shown to be harmful in the future, but as of now there's no significant proof whatsoever. I have an open mind on the subject - as I've said, I'm not a smoker - but I find the PC-inspired vilification of ordinary people indulging in a perfectly legal act to be somewhat repugnant.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Can we take it then that Brunstroms next target will be Crematoriums??

1 or 2 carcinogens? Try 50 or 60 and you don't have barbecues in enclosed spaces.
There is a link between cot death and smoking in the home, probably caused by respiratory distress from irritants. I think, in my opinion, a link will be found with passive smoking and an increase in some cancers. Would this stop me going in a smoky pub? No way.

My wife is a cofirmed smoker, but refuses to smoke in the house, and will not smoke in a room unless it is specifically set aside for smoking.
This is because of the harm we have seen it can do to those who are more sensitive.
Likewise when our younger son was in a pushchair, we were warned by the hospital to take care in streets where traffic was heavy, because as adults we stand head and shoulders above the worst pollution, while kids in pushchairs are right down amongst it.
One advantage of old fashioned prams I guess.

When can we move on to peanuts and peanut butter?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

oh, I have no doubt of that - too many epidemiologists wanting to make a name for themselves, and with their lack of statistical rigour they can really prove that anything causes anything.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Well, I smoke.

It is a dirty, disgusting addiction, there is no doubt about it. Second hand smoke is not good - certainly at high levels.

I do not smoke in the house, or around anyone who expresses a complaint.

Saying that though - whats worse, being in a smoky pub with some carcinogens, or sat in a traffic jam with particulates and carcinogens being emitted by lorries, buses etc?

I would rather be sat in a smoky pub myself.

As to Brunstrom - what he is doing is no different to any other kind of discrimination against things like weight problems or any other issue. Is he going to ban any officer over a certain BMI from carrying out other duties? Doesn't mean they are not capable!

This man needs to be taken away immediately, and all his poisonous ranting policies along with him

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

[quote="Pete317]

reminds me of this.....

Dangerous Properties of Di-Hydrogen Oxide

...he was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide." And for plenty of good reasons, since:

1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients.

He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical. Forty-three said yes, six were undecided, and only one knew what the chemical was. The title of his prize winning project was, "How Gullible Are We?" He feels the conclusion is obvious.

I love junk science http://www.dhmo.org/

Very good hobbes.

You must be a fan of this site then: http://www.junkscience.com/

The nonsense of passive smoking being harmful will run and run because people want to believe it. They believe the bad smell makes it harmful. The human brain is programmed to accept anything that smells bad is bad.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.