Lmao, do a search on google, the study you have was from 1998, you dumbass. You know back in 1970 they still didnt see any harm in inhaling grey smoke.the hell is "man health"? i can't remember what country's structure of language translates into that garbage.
if you click on the link that i provided, you'd see the conclusions of a real study as aversed to an online pamphlet translated from euroslavia. second hand smoke can't kill you unless you smoke backwards. if you do actually smoke with the lit end in your mouth then chances are you need an adult.
You do know kids start smoking because of talk like that...i really couldnt care less if you liek to smoke yerself in the grave. But please dont be a selfish bish and say what you say to make it look right for yerself cause you're taking innocent children with you...
C'mon you haven't shown anything but you're own ignorance, say what you like i couldn't give a f every sensible person knows im right.
/t Lich you have 2 kids, say all you want about how it doesnt matter, just close you're eyes and your fine.
anyone with brain knows that inhaling smoke isn't good for you. however, people forget that without excess, it isn't well linked with being bad for you. campfires have more toxic smoke than ciggarettes yet everyone considers a bonfire to be great fun. go figure. i linked that study because it seemed to take into consideration, factors that are often skipped over in other studies. also, i linked it because it was a study, as aversed to an uncited paragraph in a pamphlet/webpage/article/blog. while it may be five years old, it was well done in the first place. you need to take more into consideration with studies then when it was published. there is bias abounds in this area of research and you got to ask questions sometimes.
now in addition to studies being bias or woefully inadequate, they tend to jump to logically unsound conclusions without skipping a beat. it boils down to correlation and causality. the two are different. i will give two examples. one you will recognize, and one you will laugh at.
1. a remarkable amount of persons growing up in homes where one or more parents smoke go on to develop cancers that are characteristic to that of smoker's. therefore, enviromental smoke the causal factor in these cancers.
2. a remarkable amount of pedophiles grew up drinking fruit drinks high in dyes and sugar. therefore, high sugar and dye fruit juices are the causal factor for pedophilia.
correlation is not causality.
then there are also the abundance of factors that studies routinely forsake even before jumping to conclusions. such as what kind of smoke are they being subjected to, where are they being subjected to it, how long on average per day, for how many years, if it's ceased then for how long, occupational hazards, other enviromental smoke a person is subjected to.
moving on there are also problems to be found in sample size. the questions listed above all represent different outcomes with a different relevance to the study. it's not just "cancer" and "not cancer". in a relatively small study the conclusions can be completely worthless if all the relevant factors aren't weighed porportionally. if 300 out of 600 nonsmokers were surveyed in a refinery town that burned toxic chemicals each night (i've lived in one of these), the study would be completely worthless without identifying and isolating cases that could be attributed to other types of smoke or inhaled toxins. just as it would be worthless to have a study of 12 friends whose parents smoke. the sample would be too small to be any use at all.
then there's survey errors. people do lie. i bet you've lied on a survey also. i have. it's fun. some people don't lie, but just can't remember correctly for retrospective questions. "how many hours were you around smoke last week?" that can be quantified into a monthly or yearly average where a one or two hour error could dramatically skew a survey either way. then consider the size of the survey and it could be absolute crap when you consider the margin of error if everyone couldn't get it close enough.
winding up here, i'll link a study that was well done, and simple. the meat of the matter is this "There is a publication delay for passive smoking studies with nonsignificant results compared with those with significant results". which means that studies that don't come to sensational conclusions are tougher to get published. well duh, but it does go a long way to explain why so many people accept those conclusions without question. it's been engraved on your forehead. while the study was smaller than i would like it does give credibility to what has been always obvious in publishing.
now lastly, does it even make sense? does it make sense that someone who inhales a fraction of a ciggarette 5 days a week to get cancer as result of it? not really. risk should increase with exposure. compare ETS studies to smoker's studies. compare passive smoker studies to ETS studies. some times there are some seriously screwed up results. if a people who inhales 1/5 of a ciggarette through ETS develop emphysema at the same age as heavy smokers, ask yourself: does that make sense? there's probably something wrong with the study, and it's probably covered in one of the paragraphs above.
and for the record. if kids start smoking because someone tells them inhaling the smoke from burning embers isn't bad for you... well then they're retarded and once again "need an adult". smoking is bad for you. no arguement. second hand smoke won't kill you. you can hang out with people who smoke. it's ok. unless you hang out with them in an unventilated box for several hours a day over the course of several decades, chances are you'll be fine. however, if you do... i'd put money on the both of you suffocating rather quickly. in the end, i think second hand smoke is a common sense issue. it could be harmfull in extreme situations, but most people aren't going to be in that kind of situation, and are probably smart enough to avoid them.
Edited by dognapot, 18 August 2004 - 04:44 AM.
