It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What is surprising is your lack of evidence. What is surprising is that all you have to back up your claims are anectodal evidence [Translation=No Scientific Relevance Whatsoever] and whining about the smell and the inconvenience, which are IRRELEVANT to this discussion.
Read this, unless you are afraid to find out that all of the claims you and rest of the anti-smoking zealots–who really want to ban it entirely and use ETS as a crutch to get rid of something they just don't like–are based in a BS study that has no scientific worth. In short, your precious study was a LIE.
Again, garbage. I just demolished your only source. In fact, your American Cancer Society source comes directly from the EPA study. Sorry, but the judge says that one isn't allowed. So, if the truth is so obvious, surely there must be some other awe-inspiring study that shows a CONCLUSIVE LINK between ETS and LUNG CANCER (as you recall, this was the point of this thread).
Smoking Among Adults in the United States: Cancer
Cancer is the second leading cause of death and was among the first diseases causally linked to smoking. (p. 39)
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes most cases. (p. 61)
Compared to nonsmokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer and women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. Smoking causes about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% in women. (p. 39)
In 2003, an estimated 171,900 new cases of lung cancer occurred and approximately 157,200 people died from lung cancer. (p. 42)
The 2004 Surgeon General’s report adds more evidence to previous conclusions that smoking causes cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, lung, and bladder. (pp. 42, 62, 63, 116, 166)
Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly. (p. 44–45)
Cigarette smoking is a major cause of esophageal cancer in the United States. Reductions in smoking and smokeless tobacco use could prevent many of the approximately 12,300 new cases and 12,100 deaths from esophageal cancer that occur annually. (p. 119)
The combination of smoking and alcohol consumption causes most laryngeal cancer cases. In 2003, an estimated 3800 deaths occurred from laryngeal cancer. (p. 62)
In 2003, an estimated 57,400 new cases of bladder cancer were diagnosed and an estimated 12,500 died from the disease. (p. 166)
For smoking-attributable cancers, the risk generally increases with the number of cigarettes smoked and the number of years of smoking, and generally decreases after quitting completely. (pp. 39, 42)
Smoking cigarettes that have a lower yield of tar does not substantially reduce the risk for lung cancer. (p. 61)
Cigarette smoking increases the risk of developing mouth cancers. This risk also increases among people who smoke pipes and cigars. (p. 67)
Reductions in the number of people who smoke cigarettes, pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products or use smokeless tobacco could prevent most of the estimated 30,200 new cases and 7,800 deaths from oral cavity and pharynx cancers annually in the United States. (p. 67)
New cancers confirmed by this report
The 2004 Surgeon General’s report newly identifies other cancers caused by smoking, including cancers of the stomach, cervix, kidney, and pancreas and acute myeloid leukemia. (pp. 137, 167, 170, 183, 254, 324–325)
In 2003, an estimated 22,400 new cases of stomach cancer were diagnosed, and an estimated 12,100 deaths were expected to occur. (p. 178)
Former smokers have lower rates of stomach cancer than those who continue to smoke. (p. 182)
For women, the risk of cervical cancer increases with the duration of smoking. (p. 169)
In 2003, an estimated 31,900 new cases of kidney cancer were diagnosed, and an estimated 11,900 people died from the disease. (p. 166)
In 2003, an estimated 30,700 new cases of pancreatic cancer were diagnosed, attributing to 30,000 deaths. The median time from diagnosis to death from pancreatic cancer is about 3 months. (p. 136)
In 2003, approximately 10,500 cases of acute myeloid leukemia were diagnosed in adults. (p. 252)
Benzene is a known cause of acute myeloid leukemia, and cigarette smoke is a major source of benzene exposure. Among U.S. smokers, 90% of benzene exposures come from cigarettes. (p. 252)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004.
Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and has negative health impacts on people at all stages of life. It harms unborn babies, infants, children, adolescents, adults, and seniors.
Ridiculous. First, what is wrong is that it is unconstitutional to deny PRIVATE citizens (and private business owners) the right to decide whether a LEGAL product can be used on their premises. But, I guess folks like you only care about the Constitution when it serves your interests. So quick to throw away rights. Shame on you.
Third. you don't know whether I smoke or not. Assuming I do, you don't know have any idea as to the state of my health. Lung cancer is quite selective, as Tinkle points out below your post.
Second, if you don't like it, walk away. Leave. Go to a bar that has (of its own volition) decided to disallow smoking on premises. EVERYONE will be happy. No wants you around anyway, as you are clearly a nosy harpy who uses BS "facts" and ridiculous "obvious truths" to promote a nonsensical agenda.
And that is really the crux of the issue isn't it? You are clearly not concerned with facts. By your own admission, this "boils down to morality" for you. Sadly, your view of morality is not a strong enough justification for banning smoking. THAT ALONE is what makes all of my rebuttals perfectly germane to the discussion. Becuase for you, it won't matter that I just PWNED your "facts." You'll keep on believing your garbage regardless, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DON"T LIKE SMOKING.
That makes you a deplorable individual, and you should be ashamed of your systematic efforts to control something on the basis of your personal preference. You probabaly dislike drinking too, so I guess we should ban that, right? What else dont you like Kalibur? Why don't we ban everything you dislike, because heaven forbid your delicate sensibilities be offended by something and heaven forbid you should have to make a rational, cogent argument as to why something should be banned. Instead, let's just ban everything and let you off the hook.
LOL. It's exactly the same as I wrote before. I do know McDonald's (when consumed with wanton abandon) is bad for me. Does that mean we should ban it? I think not. And there is the difference. But I bet I know what you think, Kalibur. I bet you and your BAN-NAZIS are getting your protest signs and your quasi-scientific disinformation ready to take down the next big elephant, fast food.
As for you, Tinkle. I very much look forward to discussing with you, as you appear to be quite a rational individual. Furthermore, you seem much more inclined to reason a situation out, rather than jump on the bandwagon, which I greatly respect. I appreciate your patience while I get situated in my new job. I will definitely get back to you more, especially regarding the status of the EPA study and the (surprising) results and (not-so-surprising) reporting of the results of the WHO study.
Originally posted by Kalibur
I only need reply to you, for you are the epitome of an ignorant smoker. The only thing relevant in this debate is fact.
Originally posted by Kalibur
Smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke causes cancer
Originally posted by KaliburThat is a fact. That is truth Hamburglar.
Originally posted by KaliburYour pro-smoking propaganda is short-lived. Truth is unbiased. Fact doesn't discriminate. The truth is smoking kills you and the people around you. Therefore, smoking around others is a direct disregard for someones elses health.
Originally posted by KaliburHanburglar the mountains of evidence are irrevocable. If you don't trust the myriad of valid reports and studies, I recommend taking your pro-smoking propagandist antics a little higher, adding an element of truth.
Originally posted by KaliburThey are both from the same source genuis. A propagandist website with no official merit whatsoever. However it's perfectly possible a judge found the study with error.
Originally posted by Astronomer68
I personally don't find odds like that unacceptable and I certainly don't think it constitutes grounds for banning smoking in many public places. Hell, we probably lose more people than that to tripping over cracks in the sidewalk.
Originally posted by Tinkleflower
And in addition (sorry, sorry, I'll get my posting head on properly at some point, I promise!)...
" The EPA appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a unanimous decision on December 11, 2002, the court ruled that the EPA report was not a reviewable agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that there were "no legal and direct consequences of the report which constitute final agency action." In other words, because the EPA report had no legal or regulatory function and was rather advisory, Judge Osteen's judgment was dismissed."
Does this mean we can all go back to using the EPA study now?
The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."
, again, Osteen's words, not mine. This did not support what they had ALREADY PUBLICALLY ANNOUNCED.
Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1.
The court held that there were "no legal and direct consequences of the report which constitute final agency action.
Originally posted by Kalibur
I agree the figures are extreme. Nonetheless, the fact that smoking increases the risk period, makes my point. It doesn't matter if it's the primary cause - it is a cause.