Secondhand smoke apologists 0wned

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 05:59pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

Not so much arguments as rants it would seem. But I haven't dared read it all, I'm allergic to bullshit.

Just on its face, it appears to be a rebuttal to the 1992 EPA report. Hence, it is totally irrelevant to this report, which is not based on anything remotely resembling the methodology of the 1992 EPA report.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2004-10-04 06:00pm

And I want to see the people who used Pen & Teller's Bullshit episode as proof that Second hand Smokew as harmless try making that claim now.

Fuck, in Helena Montana they noticed a 30% drop in heart related medical conditions and it coresponded right on with the cities ban on smoking in restaraunts.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 06:03pm

I would say that I wish I could understand why someone would continue to deny the dangers of second-hand smoke, but sadly, I do understand: they're smokers and they want to make excuses for engaging in their disgusting stupid habit while in the presence of others or (particularly) their own children.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2004-10-04 06:04pm

Darth Wong wrote:I would say that I wish I could understand why someone would continue to deny the dangers of second-hand smoke, but sadly, I do understand: they're smokers and they want to make excuses for engaging in their disgusting stupid habit while in the presence of others or (particularly) their own children.

Preach it on the fucking mountain top, brother. I have deal with this type of shit everyday, and it pisses the hell outta me.

Veramocor · Post by **Veramocor** » 2004-10-04 06:18pm

Anyone see Penn and Tellers episode on Second Hand Smoke? I didn't see it, what were their arguments against it really being a problem?

Its surprising considering they are usually against pseudo-science stuff. I guess everyone is wrong sometimes.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 07:35pm

Veramocor wrote:Anyone see Penn and Tellers episode on Second Hand Smoke? I didn't see it, what were their arguments against it really being a problem?

Its surprising considering they are usually against pseudo-science stuff. I guess everyone is wrong sometimes.

They made the mistake of assuming that if there's a theoretical reason to think it's valid but no conclusive studies to support it yet, then it's bullshit. That sort of mentality only fuels the accusations of those who say that science is close-minded by nature, but I never personally subscribed to it. It is not logical; if there is a theoretical reason (based on other known data) to think that it will happen and no conclusive studies as of yet, the most one could reasonably say is that it's inconclusive, rather than leaping to the conclusion that it's bullshit.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 07:41pm

You've got to read this Dave Hitt stuff. It's disturbingly bad.

I just read his e-mail correspondences with Jeffrey Wigand, James Repace and some charity agency workers. He kept chanting the same "name 3 who have died of SHS/ETS" retort and judging from his Usenet posts, he's not that much more civil outside his website.

Then there's the whole EPA/WHO scandal he goes on about.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 07:45pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:You've got to read this Dave Hitt stuff. It's disturbingly bad.

I just read his e-mail correspondences with Jeffrey Wigand, James Repace and some charity agency workers. He kept chanting the same "name 3 who have died of SHS/ETS" retort and judging from his Usenet posts, he's not that much more civil outside his website.

Then there's the whole EPA/WHO scandal he goes on about.

Guys like that remind me of the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" crowd. They have a peculiarly twisted notion of how one establishes medical cause and effect, which is so tightly defined that it would be almost impossible to satisfy it. Logically consistent application of their mentality to other diseases would lead to such absurd conclusions as "The Spanish Flu never killed anyone" and "there is no such thing as a cold".

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 07:53pm

The fact that most death certificates won't have the coroner putting "death by smoking" as the cause of death doesn't factor into it. Unless he finds three people that have an official certificate of death stating second hand smoke as the pathology, he won't be happy.

He seems content on using the strawman of global warming too (another subject he's a whizz at, alledgedly despite not being a scientist) to prove his point on the continued lack of evidence for second hand smoke related deaths.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-10-04 08:27pm

Batman wrote:Fuck, I completely forgot about filters.
So AT BEST, for filterless, non-smokers get exactly what we do (given that the dosage cop-out apparently doesn't work),
and AT WORST
non-smokers get even MORE toxins then us smokers do (thanks to our ilk benefitting from the filter). And we KNOW that filter-cigs ALREADY are bad for your health(to put it mildly...), leave alone unfiltered.
I can absolutely not see a problem with banning smoking in bars, restaurants, etc...

Well, the smokers are also breathing in the secondhand smoke as well (unless they do all their breathing through a filter), so they do inhale more toxins than the non-smoker.