+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    589

    2nd hand smoke not harmful?

    Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

    Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
    Published In: Environment & Climate News
    Publication Date: July 1, 2008
    Publisher:

    The Heartland Institute
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23399

    Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.
    Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.
    Federal Government Reports
    A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.

    A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.
    In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

    The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.
    Flawed Assumptions
    EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.




    Oh really....does anyone feel there is any truth to it? :rasta:
    Last edited by krazy12982; 08-31-2008 at 07:57 PM. Reason: fix url
    Now quit your yappin!! :2gunsfiring_v1:

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,120

    Re: 2nd hand smoke not harmful?

    There is no truth to this bogus report. If you are in the room with chemical in gas form, you are going to breath it in no matter what. Difference is only in how much you are inhaling comparing to direct smoking of cigarette. Its like comparing first degree burn with second degree burn.

    To give you another analogy. How much exposure do you need from asbestos to get cancer? Do you need it on your skin, or small enough amount in the air/ground/walls will be enough? I think you know the answer.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    589

    Re: 2nd hand smoke not harmful?

    Quote Originally Posted by borisf96 View Post
    There is no truth to this bogus report. If you are in the room with chemical in gas form, you are going to breath it in no matter what. Difference is only in how much you are inhaling comparing to direct smoking of cigarette. Its like comparing first degree burn with second degree burn.

    To give you another analogy. How much exposure do you need from asbestos to get cancer? Do you need it on your skin, or small enough amount in the air/ground/walls will be enough? I think you know the answer.
    Thanks for the input!
    Now quit your yappin!! :2gunsfiring_v1:

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,840

    Re: 2nd hand smoke not harmful?

    Sure it is HARMFUL. If I am near a person smoking INSTANT HEADACHE FOR ME.... that is because the smoke exudes carbon monoxide and that is a POISON. I do not know how anyone smokes, their homes reeks of it, their clothes reeks of it, If they could see the color of their LUNGS, say their face showed up like their LUNGS, it would be so BLACK in color. THey must of choked trying this habit out, but this stuff is bad news. Look into their homes the color of the walls are tinged with yellow. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++W HAT IS ALARMINGLY HARMFUL is eating CANOLA OIL, this OIL is not edible it is cheap and they have to HEAT it at high temperatures to get the STENCH OUT. This oil was pushed by CANADA, to use in foods and in pets foods, DO NOT BUY IT, it causes in pets and people and other animals CANCER OF THE LUNGS, read your labels they are PUTTING THIS TOXIC NON- EDIBLE OIL IN EVERYTHIG, it causes BLINDNESS, It causes HEART PROBLEMS because it is a HYDROGENATED OIL.. look into the ARCHIVES I put out a good article. READ YOUR LABELS, that food you woud consume. Read all dry pet foods, complain to the CAT and DOG FOOOD COMPANIES. There should be a PETITION AGANST CANOLA OIL. It will kill people and your pets wil GO BLIND. THIS IS A SICK WORLD WE LIVE IN

Similar Threads

  1. another Rightie lie goes up in smoke !!!
    By rodney walker II in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-31-2014, 06:04 PM
  2. C B O says "Obama stimulus harmful over long haul
    By brucefan in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 05-16-2012, 08:49 PM
  3. 9/11, US, religion and corporations hand in hand
    By digiart in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-20-2011, 10:58 PM
  4. Go out and smoke DMT in the woods.
    By Paladine in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 10:12 PM
  5. Left hand, Right hand
    By bogie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-07-2007, 05:01 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •