Queen of the Edit
- Feb 4, 2009
I cough all the time and I don't smoke. I'm willing to bet that simply living in a city populated by millions of moving cars and other industrial locales are far more hazardous... do you then say that all people shouldn't drive cars?Spolin said:If what you've been reading are the "journals" and "studies" funded by the Tobacco companies to make themselves look better, then yes you may have found such claims.PaulH said:Scientific consensus eh?Spolin said:If by "still being debated" you mean there is scientific consensus that it is bad for your health, then yes.Jegsimmons said:and if anyone says "second hand smoke" i say, get the fuck over it. That shit is still being debated, and you have enough common sense to get the hell out of the room.
Besides, not everyone can just "get the hell out of the room" when someone decides to light up next to them, not everyone has either the mobility to move or mental capacity to know they should move.
That's funny, because what I read is that there is no significant connection between environmental tobacco smoke and mortality rates. That even if you work in a tobacco smoke heavy environment that you still only have 1/100000 of dying from tobacco smoke related causes. But what do I know? I've only read journals and studies about it.
Maybe there is some secret consensus that states, inequivocably, that tobacco smoke is out to get all of you lovely people on those oh so high horses ^_^
However, those studies that had nothing to do with Tobacco companies have usually found some sort of significant negative connection. Heck, the very fact that inhaling passive smoke causes me to cough is pretty simple evidence that what I'm breathing in isn't terribly good for me.
And no, these studies are, quizzically, read by the people much like the US Surgeon Gen. who ironically once said that "Secondhand smoke is more dangerous than actual smoking" (Even if the report doesn't say as such, and says there is no direct or significant connection).
So no, there is no real scientific consensus. Anybody that says as such is lying to you. Sure secondhand smoke may be bad for you, but Italian studies have shown that a lit and smouldering cigarette in a completely unventilated room 60 cubic metres (So basically, picture the absolute WORST smoking environment you can... no filtration, airtight, in a place smaller than your average stuydio apartment) is no worse for you then a diesel engine left at minimum idle for a few seconds.
So there you go ... taking the cross city tunnel in Sydney everyday is worse for you than smoking occasionally.
People seem to think that lung cancer or the deleterious effects of smoking are singular and completely without any other precedent of the medical risks of living in an ever more polluted world.
Everybody knows pack a day smokers who live to 90, everybody knows healthy athletic individuals that develop cancer at 20.
But what can be definitely stated is that if you have ever worked on your motorvehicle, or diven through a city tunnel, or work in any place that oversees huge inflows of traffic, or working in your standard factory then you have inhaled toxins worse for you then even a whole bunch of cigarettes ....
So what makes you think sucking down somebody elses cigarette smoke is the thing that breaks the camel's back if they get sick?