Commies Want To Ban Smoking in Cars and Language Suggests Your Home Might Be Next.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Stop lying, Paul.

read further. There's never been a singular conclusive study that proves anything.

They've done multiple studies, many have which have not been conslusive on their own, but they think adding studies together gives them the conclusion they want.

Again, I dare you to tell me how the hell everyone in my generation, the generation prior, etc.. dares to live in secondhand smoking enviroments and come out healthy as can be.

For every person you MIGHT be able to bring forward who MIGHT have been effected (this of course if they have no other underlying health conditions), I can produce 100 people that I know that were not.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

read further. There's never been a singular conclusive study that proves anything.

They've done multiple studies, many have which have not been conslusive on their own, but they think adding studies together gives them the conclusion they want.

Again, I dare you to tell me how the hell everyone in my generation, the generation prior, etc.. dares to live in secondhand smoking enviroments and come out healthy as can be.

For every person you MIGHT be able to bring forward who MIGHT have been effected (this of course if they have no other underlying health conditions), I can produce 100 people that I know that were not.

You sound like one of the seven dwarfs in front of Congress. Contrary to your earlier assertion, the EPA is very clear on their assessment of the health risks posed by secondhand smoke. It's a group A carcinogen - just like asbestos. There's no ambiguity here whatsoever.

Looked further down the text - which you obviously did not. Come to find out that you're worse than the seven dwarfs.

How Big a Lung Cancer Risk for Adults?

The evidence is clear and consistent: secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer in adults who don't smoke. EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk. Even though the lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking, unlike a smoker who chooses to smoke, the nonsmoker's risk is often involuntary. In addition, exposure to secondhand smoke varies tremendously among exposed individuals. For those who must live or work in close proximity to one or more smokers, the risk would certainly be greater than for those less exposed.

EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year among nonsmokers in the U.S.; of these, the estimate is 800 from exposure to secondhand smoke at home and 2,200 from exposure in work or social situations.

The Risks to Children are Widely Acknowledged

The conclusion that secondhand smoke causes respiratory effects in children is widely shared and virtually undisputed. Even the tobacco industry does not contest these effects in its media and public relations campaign.

EPA estimates that every year, between 150,000 and 300,000 children under 1-1/2 years of age get bronchitis or pneumonia from breathing secondhand tobacco smoke, resulting in thousands of hospitalizations. In children under 18 years of age, secondhand smoke exposure also results in more coughing and wheezing, a small but significant decrease in lung function, and an increase in fluid in the middle ear. Children with asthma have more frequent and more severe asthma attacks because of exposure to secondhand smoke, which is also a risk factor for the onset of asthma in children who did not previously have symptoms.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You sound like one of the seven dwarfs in front of Congress. Contrary to your earlier assertion, the EPA is very clear on their assessment of the health risks posed by secondhand smoke. It's a group A carcinogen - just like asbestos. There's no ambiguity here whatsoever.

Looked further down the text - which you obviously did not. Come to find out that you're worse than the seven dwarfs.

again you ignore what I said before. Prove to me that otherwise healthy individuals are effected by it?

Involuntary exposure is the key in their terminology as well. Show me children who die from second-hand smoke induced lung cancer. Please go ahead, do it. Show me a healthy child who has been plagued by this. Who has been killed by this.

They "estimate" as in they have no fvcking clue what they are talking about and are just looking for an "excuse" as to why someone might or might not develop lung cancer.

Of course there have been a few studies showing that cancer isn't "caused" by anything and is alrady in our bodies waiting to be "activated" under certain conditions. Of course we cannnot know ( as of yet ) who may or may not hold the cancer in their genetic makeup, but hey we're getting there.

None of this excuses smoking bans, bans around children, etc.

Do you support the government demanding that in the privacy of your own home that you are not allowed to smoke in front of your kids? It's the same thing as a car at the end of the day. It's private property. Just like a business is.

[SMOKE 1,426]

are you just being arguementative or are you dense as hell?

its wrong to subject children to anything that stinks & MIGHT harm them. its also rude to think everyone should accept & be subjected to something that stinks & MIGHT harm them. when you could show a little respect & not smoke in the same room as a non smoker.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

again you ignore what I said before. Prove to me that otherwise healthy individuals are effected by it?

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't know how much clearer this can be formulated.

The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a designation which means that there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only secondhand smoke has actually been shown in studies to cause cancer at typical environmental levels.

You want to ignore it, that's your choice. But that doesn't negate the demonstrated and established causal association of secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The harmful effects of secondhand smoke on childrens respiratory systems are so well established that not even the tobacco industry - which still denies that nicotine is addictive - questions it. You live in some sort of an alternate reality.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

are you just being arguementative or are you dense as hell?

its wrong to subject children to anything that stinks & MIGHT harm them. its also rude to think everyone should accept & be subjected to something that stinks & MIGHT harm them. when you could show a little respect & not smoke in the same room as a non smoker.

PROVE that it's harmful to a healthy child. PROVE IT. There is NO PROOF. As I said, show me a child that has died from second-hand smoke. Show me a child who has cancer because of second-hand smoke. Please produce one for me, go ahead.

The problem with the anti-smoking crusaders is they can't prove jack #######. They don't like the smell of smoke, don't ilke being around it, so they try and find ways to regulate it. They find people with lung chancer (with ZERO proof second-hand smoke caused it) and assume that "well, you know they were around it a little bit, so that just has to be the cuase" even though there is no concrete evidence to point to second-hand smoke exposure as a direct link to lung cancer in otherwise healthy human beings by itself.

As I said as well, just because you think it's "rude" doesn't mean it should be regulated, especially on private property. Period.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm not ignoring anything. I don't know how much clearer this can be formulated.

You want to ignore it, that's your choice. But that doesn't negate the demonstrated and established causal association of secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The harmful effects of secondhand smoke on childrens respiratory systems are so well established that not even the tobacco industry - which still denies that nicotine is addictive - questions it. You live in some sort of an alternate reality.

bullshit. As I said, I can produce 100 people for every 1 you MIGHT show me that was effected. It's absolutely easy for me to prove that no harm was done to these individuals that are living great, healthy, near-perfect lives with no adverse health effects as a result of how they grew up. In the home, in the car, in the restaurants, every single day of the week!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

bullshit. As I said, I can produce 100 people for every 1 you MIGHT show me that was effected. It's absolutely easy for me to prove that no harm was done to these individuals that are living great, healthy, near-perfect lives with no adverse health effects as a result of how they grew up. In the home, in the car, in the restaurants, every single day of the week!

I don't give a sh!t what anecdotes you think you can produce. Scientific studies across various geographies are conclusive on this issue. Your beliefs, perceptions or anecdotal bullsh!t won't change any of that. Your claim was that "there is no conclusive study on second-hand smoke that proves it's truly harmful." and further that "The EPA themselves even say this." Those are two explicit falsehoods in as many sentences. The facts are that the studies are indeed conclusive and that the EPA unequivocally says so. I've shown above by quoting the EPA that your claims on this matter are absolutely false.

[Danno 1,228]

Big Dog is hurtin when he uses the EPA to justify login or science to justify "health issues."

They have also warned us playing in beach sand is a health Risk.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/digging-in-beach-sand-increases-risk-of-sickness-epa-study-finds.html

Come again.

-------------------------------

According to a study led by the Environmental Protection Agency, the L.A. Times reports, the sand poses more of a risk than the water or sun. Researchers interviewed those who had spent time at beaches in Rhode Island and Alabama and concluded that those who dug in the sand were more likely to have suffered symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Those who buried themselves in the sand faced the greatest risk.

Definitely keep the study results in mind the next time you've just dug up a sand castle and start craving a snack. An EPA rep says the news isn't a reason not to enjoy the beach. But you should wash up before you eat and after you leave the area.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't give a sh!t what anecdotes you think you can produce. Scientific studies across various geographies are conclusive on this issue. Your beliefs, perceptions or anecdotal bullsh!t won't change any of that. Your claim was that "there is no conclusive study on second-hand smoke that proves it's truly harmful." and further that "The EPA themselves even say this." Those are two explicit falsehoods in as many sentences. The facts are that the studies are indeed conclusive and that the EPA unequivocally says so. I've shown above by quoting the EPA that your claims on this matter are absolutely false.

You can't produce anyone, can you? You can't find a news story or something to satisfy it? All you can do it argue. I love it! It makes my life so much easier. As I said, not you, NOR the CDC, the FDA, The ACS, etc... can product one healthy child that has died from secondhand smoke.

Sorry, reality trumps lab-studies ANY day of the week.

[Danno 1,228]

You can't produce anyone, can you? You can't find a news story or something to satisfy it? All you can do it argue. I love it! It makes my life so much easier. As I said, not you, NOR the CDC, the FDA, The ACS, etc... can product one healthy child that has died from secondhand smoke.

Sorry, reality trumps lab-studies ANY day of the week.

I agree, one of the adages I go by is -Believe what you know to be true FIRST, weight all the clap-trap in the balance.

THe Clap-trap seems to come and go with no apology for being wrong.

[Ban Hammer 13,545]

PROVE that it's harmful to a healthy child. PROVE IT. There is NO PROOF.

my dad used to smoke while driving even if i was in the car. my eyes would water and burn from the smoke and my vision would be blurry.

[^_^ 5,021]

my dad used to smoke while driving even if i was in the car. my eyes would water and burn from the smoke and my vision would be blurry.

your eyes watering cleaned your eyes. cleaning is good. prove that dirty is better. prove it. you can't.

punk!

[Ban Hammer 13,545]

your eyes watering cleaned your eyes. cleaning is good. prove that dirty is better. prove it. you can't.

punk!

sounds like a trick question to pose to steven.

[^_^ 5,021]

sounds like a trick question to pose to steven.

sounds to me like you're baiting steven, mr. moderator.