Philmanoman
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 479
Second Hand Smoke is NOT The Killer The Anti's Want You To Believe. Check out all the studies that have been and are being done on this issue:
Dear Editor,
The News Tribune should be more careful when reporting new studies from the Antismoking Lobby. The article, "Secondhand smoke may be more harmful than thought," reported on what was actually no more than a literature review of old studies and treated it as a new "finding."
One of the most prominent claims in the article, that slight exposure to such smoke damages arteries in nonsmokers, seems to be largely based on a study done by a researcher named Otsuka almost 5 years ago.
In that study extreme nonsmokers, people who avoided smoke in almost all areas of their lives, were first required to sign a warning protocol about "Human Experimentation." They were then thrown into a room where the smoke density was far greater than anything anyone would ever find in a nonsmoking section of a restaurant, even much smokier than one would normally find in a decently ventilated modern bar! The "damage" that was measured was the sort of temporary effect one would normally expect in almost anyone exposed to an unusual and stressful situation and no attempt was made to set up a control test.
When a highly paid advocate, one whose entire career rests upon grants earmarked to promote such things as smoking bans, simply summarizes a bunch of old and often highly criticized studies, the result should not be reported as a "new finding." It is this sort of reportage that gives rise to the oft-repeated belief that there is a "mountain of evidence" indicting secondary smoke as a killer and it is reportage that is more misleading than informing.
The News Tribune may support the idea of a smoking ban in its editorial position, but it should show more responsibility in its reporting and analysis of "new findings" that are really just a rehash of old and largely discredited studies.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
cantiloper . tripod . com
^^^
Im not him btw
Dear Editor,
The News Tribune should be more careful when reporting new studies from the Antismoking Lobby. The article, "Secondhand smoke may be more harmful than thought," reported on what was actually no more than a literature review of old studies and treated it as a new "finding."
One of the most prominent claims in the article, that slight exposure to such smoke damages arteries in nonsmokers, seems to be largely based on a study done by a researcher named Otsuka almost 5 years ago.
In that study extreme nonsmokers, people who avoided smoke in almost all areas of their lives, were first required to sign a warning protocol about "Human Experimentation." They were then thrown into a room where the smoke density was far greater than anything anyone would ever find in a nonsmoking section of a restaurant, even much smokier than one would normally find in a decently ventilated modern bar! The "damage" that was measured was the sort of temporary effect one would normally expect in almost anyone exposed to an unusual and stressful situation and no attempt was made to set up a control test.
When a highly paid advocate, one whose entire career rests upon grants earmarked to promote such things as smoking bans, simply summarizes a bunch of old and often highly criticized studies, the result should not be reported as a "new finding." It is this sort of reportage that gives rise to the oft-repeated belief that there is a "mountain of evidence" indicting secondary smoke as a killer and it is reportage that is more misleading than informing.
The News Tribune may support the idea of a smoking ban in its editorial position, but it should show more responsibility in its reporting and analysis of "new findings" that are really just a rehash of old and largely discredited studies.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
cantiloper . tripod . com
^^^
Im not him btw
