Secondhand Smoke

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

Since the left's war on smokers wasn't working fast enough (despite exaggerations and fear mongering), and they had used Junk Science against smoking, they could also use Junk Science (the EPA's now debunked "study" on secondhand smoke) to warn the public about the dangers of Secondhand Smoke. (Later, the fakers seriously tried adding 3rd hand smoke -- that if you touched residue in a smokers house, you could die). I don't like smoking, first or second hand, but remember Japan? Japanese men are some of the heaviest smokers in the world (with some of the longest life expectancies), and since they live in smaller dwelling than most, their wives and daughters are subjected to secondhand smoke in more frequency and intensity. The results? They have the best life expectancy of any Women in the world. Diet, lifestyle, and genes matter far more. So stop the rationalizations -- some people don't like smoking, and so are making junk-science excuses for their attacks and hatred. We know this because places that banned it for years/decades had no difference in death or disease rates: so the issue of public health has been debunked.

Welcome to America, where fact and stats are routinely distorted (exaggerated) for an agenda. Most of the figures you hear vary from unsubstantiated claims and hype, to outright lies. Yes, there is danger -- but not much. You should avoid secondhand smoke, but get some perspective -- your car, job, attitude, diet, drinking, lack of exercise or one of a thousand other things are far greater risks in your life as proven by Japan. Do we really need government to protect us from all those things as well?

You want to protect yourself? Then there are 10,000 other ways to make a far bigger difference in your life. Move closer to work, quit and do something you like, ride a bike, eat better or most of all, stop trying to be a butt-inski and running others lives. Learn to live and let live, and accept things that you don't like. The second-hand smoke argument is just propaganda and rationalizations for oppressing smokers.

The basics are that in 1993, the EPA did a biased report on “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders” that claimed 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year were caused by second hand smoke. That got inflated in the press and politicians to 300,000. And there were a dozen institutions that used those claims as an excuse to get media/political attention by agreeing with the EPA. Then other lemmings used all the institutional support (agreement with the EPA) as proof that there was a scientific consensus. There wasn't. There was a political consensus. (Just like Climate Change).

The study wasn't a study in the first place, it was a meta-study. It looked at 30 studies on lung cancer risks on spouses of smokers -- then it threw out the 17 studies that concluded there was no statistically relevant correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer, as well as 2 more that concluded there was absolutely no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, then they only counted the 11 that said there NO STRONG relative cancer risk associated with second hand smoke. Which they conflated into that their might be... and then the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions that passive smoking was a health risk.

Federal district court judge William Osteen (North Carolina) ruled that the very foundation of the EPA report was junk science and in propagating it the EPA had violated the Radon Act.

But this wasn't new, a Congressional Research Service analysis released in late 1995 said that they had serious reservations about the EPA report. Yet the lie and regulation and legislation based on that lie continued. The sheeple of the left get a boner when it comes to telling others what to do, and they wouldn't be stopped just because their excuse was bullshit.

Years later, we looked if the bans had any effect on public health. In very small town, it might have (and the media/left trumpeted those as proof). But that was bad science: random chance has a bigger effect on small samples. In large cities or states when it was studied? No statistically significant difference. It was bullshit (exaggerated).

I do not like second-hand smoke.

  1. I hate the smell and can tell smokers from 10' away. I can smell a cigarette from 20' away. So what?
  2. I can smell bad cooking from 30' away, should we outlaw that?
  3. Busses smell foul from twice that distance (especially when they use natural gas), do you want to outlaw public transportation too?
  4. Cow flatulence is a far bigger problem in terms of output, should we eliminate beef products?

Where are we going to stop?


While it's obviously not great for you, there's no way that secondhand smoke is as bad as the propaganda has implied, or the death rates among Asians and many 3rd world countries that still smoke, would be far higher. Thus this is junk science -- at least at what the average person believes in dangers, or the advertising on TV will tell us. All of that mythos is heavily supported by the herd-following left. And any skeptics are attacked as "deniers".... the new term for heretic.

Persecuting smoking and smokers is a modern witch hunt among the left, as proven by the intolerance of progressive areas (California, Oregon, Washington, NY, Mass., etc). Of course that's anti-Science. While smoking isn't healthy it's not as unhealthy as a bad genes, not exercising, bad diet, or bad attitude (stress) -- if you can regulate smoking based on public health claims then the state could regulate all those others (and some are trying. Many of the studies were fraudulent to get the laws, doubly so for the second hand smoke scares, or the false (unsupported) claims that it increases healthcare costs (they die quicker so it saves money). It was all flim-flam to allow the anti-liberty fascists to tell us what to do with our bodies, in our property, "for our own good".



📚 References