Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Tom4444
| Reward Points: | 1 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
| Arguments: | 8 |
| Debates: | 0 |
If you read the Enstrom report you will see that this report was originated by the CDC. When they couldn't get the results they wanted they tossed it aside. University research took what the CDC had and finished the report and has successfully defended it's accuracy as you can see by my link also attached to the study. It's just another attempt by the CDC to hide sound science. There is NOT A SINGLE study that confirms that secondhand smoke causes Lunk Cancer in nonsmokers even though the CDC and Surgeon General like to try and make the public think there is:
--- Journal of The National Cancer Institute
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/
“no single study can provide definitive closure to the debate regarding ETS as a cause of cancer among nonsmokers.” … “there was no increase in risk associated with exposures to ETS in childhood”
If you think government health officials speak any real science you need to see this:
US Senate discusses health official’s inability to represent any REAL science
http://www.youtube.com/
A Physicians says why he voted against smoking ban.
“His reasoning makes sense: Smoking does not constitute the significant, imminent public health threat required for the board to act.”
Doctor Whelan, President of the American Council on Science and Health quotes:
" What is most alarming here is that the top doctor in the land is communicating a message that anything that is harmful at high dose can be lethal at low dose -- when that is simply not true."
"The latest Surgeon General's Report on the health consequences of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- and a publication from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that accompanies it -- need their own warning label: "Contains mix of facts, speculation, and downright hyperbole.""
"Scare tactics, exaggeration, and political correctness do not make good public policy. When the CDC and the Surgeon General were preparing their report, it appears that smoke got in their eyes."
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
Here's a good five minute video that should also be seen:
Not enough to be considered an argument:
------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/
“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”
“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
William Osteen (US District Judge) ruling against the EPA
*The ruling shows by scientific definition that ETS is not a Class A carcinogen
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)
-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
“OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”
CDC Study shows cigarette smoke is 25,000 times safer than OSHA air regulations
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.
---------------------------------------
US Senate discusses health official’s inability to represent any REAL science
http://www.youtube.com/
Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790
“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”
http://www.cigarmony.com/downloads/
“Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS(environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk.”
That's what they call JUNK SCIENCE: Just look at the source of your info and what the source has to gain by the information they publish.
------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/
“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”
“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
William Osteen (US District Judge) ruling against the EPA
*The ruling shows by scientific definition that ETS is not a Class A carcinogen
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)
-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
“OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”
CDC Study shows cigarette smoke is 25,000 times safer than OSHA air regulations
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.
---------------------------------------
US Senate discusses health official’s inability to represent any REAL science
http://www.youtube.com/
Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790
“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”
http://www.cigarmony.com/downloads/
“Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS(environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk.”
This whole, "Oh my gosh I have to breath in something I didn't want too" argument is a sad sign of desperateness. Your argument holds no water unless you can explain to everyone why you breath in car fumes, road tar, dust, paint fumes, or even the 80% nitrogen in the air without your explicit permission. Heaven forbid a car should drive by and blow it's 2" diameter pipe of toxins in "YOUR" air.
First, the science about second hand smoke being a substantial hazard to anyone besides the smoker is a complete media propaganda stunt and common sense will tell any of us this fact. Not to say there is absolutely no risk at all, but there's NOT enough risk to even be considered into the equation. We all know this!! Stop arguing health effects because we all know deep inside it's just a scape goat to run off the people that smell a little different than us.
That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that passing laws that restrict a business owner from doing as he wishes with himself within his own business is utterly TOO much nosy government. Non-smokers have the right to not allow smokers in their house, in there place of business, or in any enclosed area they OWN. If they choose to tread into a smoking bar, that is their CHOICE! It just wouldn't be fair to stomp into your non-smoking house, light up a cigarette, and claim the law tell you that you HAVE to put up with it in your own house!!! That is exactly what this law is telling the smokers who own their own business!
The constitution addresses exactly this point to eliminate the government power from taking too much from it people. It specifically states that individuals have the right to do as they please as long as it doesn't "ENDANGER" others. Is says nothing about costing other people money! Every business that makes a profit costs other people money, get over it! And as stated by someone else, this is not to address our flawed health care system. So unless someone who isn't wearing a seat belt flies through the windshield and also through the windshield of your car, killing you, the seat belt law is entirely unconstitutional.
|
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |
