Anti-smoking “science” jumps shark
Latest scare: Third Hand Smoke
Now, smoking is bad. No one should dispute that. But fears like this and other “science” about secondhand smoke are hysterical and far-fetched. I recall reading a “study” a bit back that said secondhand smoke had no minimum safe distance. Really? Grenades, nukes and supernovas have a minimum safe distance. But not secondhand smoke. We’re killing aliens a hundred billion light years away!
Kinda like global warming.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Everytime I start talking about this, I have to shut up because people give me the…”you’re crazy if you think that smoking isn’t bad for you.” They can’t seem to separate the two…and if the EPA says it’s bad, then it must be bad!
Kind of like Global Warming. At least with that, I’ve actually made converts.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:39 am
Smoking science has been rotten to the core since its inception — all because “everyone knows” smoking is bad for you. The entire edifice of “modern science” is coming down, thanks to these political-scientists who just had to Accomplish Some Great Thing.
This will hurt, but it may be for the best. It isn’t right for people to have Faith in Science. You won’t catch the Chinese falling for this. They’re what you might call post-Confucian.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
”you’re crazy if you think that smoking isn’t bad for you.”
And I bet these very same people will walk a busy street (traffic, and exhaust) or hoist an adult beverage to their lips, or pop some Ibuprofen for a headache.
Lots of things are bad for you, but somehow the anti-smoking nazis have convinced the world that somehow taking a tug on a Marlborough is some sort of death ray to all within a 10,000 mile radios.
Meanwhile I think we all know people in their 60s 70s, and 80s and maybe beyond who started smoking in their teens and still have a nail or two every day.
Nope it’s not good for you, but grown ups should be able to choose what they do to their bodies!
February 11th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Yesterday I asked the fiance (an ER nurse) if anyone died of old age in the hospital, or was the cause of death always classified as ‘something’ like diabetes or pneumonia?
She says no to old age – there’s always a actual cause listed.
Says’ I, “So a 115 year old guy, who smoked since before the crusades and dies of lung cancer is classified as a smoking related death?”
She replies “Yep, pretty much”
I say “You know, being born is 100% fatal”.
Say’s she “You’re preaching to the choir, shut up and drive.”
There’s a reason I love her.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Secondhand smoke hysteria shares with AGW the annoying “consensus” argument as a substitute for independent thought, but differs from AGW in one key respect: anyone who can do basic math can prove that secondhand smoke nonsense is just that, nonsense. AGW data is not nearly as conclusive as the Algores of the world make it out to be, but it’s not as clearly and obviously wrong as some of its skeptics suggest, either.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Since 1989 the state of Oregon requires physicians to answer the question “Did tobacco use contribute to the cause of death?” on death certificates. The box for “Yes” is marked on EVERY death certificate of a child if one of the parents smoked, regardless of whether the child was ever exposed to cigarette smoke or whether the cause of death was actually unrelated (such as a car accident). So you know tobacco-related death figures are highly inflated, in at least one state!
February 11th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
SHS and AGW are the same in that they are both political/religious movements aimed at increasing taxation, spending, and above all, control. They’re part of the same anti liberty, statist religion. In a free society they’d still exist under religious freedom, but would have no connection with government.
February 11th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
I got to university of berkeley and stopped reading. All I needed to know was that it came out of that hippy haven.