Law on Smoking in Restaurants

[overherebc]

3 hours ago, nisakiman said:

 

Interestingly enough, it's not proven at all. There seems to be correlation, but the 'smoking causes lung cancer' meme stems from the Doll and Hill study in 1951. They concluded that of their study group, who were all doctors, the smokers had a higher incidence of lung cancer than the non-smokers. However, in the first of their studies, they asked the question "do you inhale?"  Therein came the first of the anomalies. The smokers who inhaled showed a much lower incidence of LC than the smokers who didn't inhale. In their subsequent study, they didn't ask that question, probably because they felt that it seriously imperilled the results they were looking for.

Sir R A Fisher, who was considered to be the greatest statistician of his time, scorned their findings because he saw the whole study as being deeply flawed, since it didn't take into account a multitude of confounding factors.

 

Over the decades since that first study in 1951, researchers have sacrificed tens (probably more like hundreds) of thousands of lab rats and other mammals, specially bred to be susceptible to cancer, in attempts to replicate the mechanism whereby smoking causes Lung Cancer, subjecting their animals to up to the equivalent of 500 cigarettes a day. So far, despite more than 60 years of trying, they haven't yet managed to get one single subject to develop LC from smoking. And for something to be declared 'proven scientific fact', you must be able to demonstrate the mechanism, and you must also be able to replicate that same mechanism.

 

[As an interesting aside, one laboratory in the USA was conducting research into LC from both radiation and from smoking. They failed to induce LC in the smoking rats, but the irradiated rats developed LC in 100% of cases. One day, to their utter astonishment, out of a batch of irradiated rats, contrary to all previous experiments, some 60% of the rats survived the radiation treatment. When they investigated this extraordinary anomaly, they found that they had mistakenly been given a cohort of rats who had been part of the smoking experiment, and had been subjected to large volumes of tobacco smoke. It would seem that smoking had had a protective effect from radiation, something that has been subsequently proven to be the case. http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Ferj.ersjournals.com%2Fcontent%2Ferj%2F6%2F8%2F1173.full.pdf%3AuOgx2J4XTOY-6jYPdKyMvAinJYs&cuid=1237100 ]

 

So, no, it's not well proven at all. It's merely conjecture. There are also many real life anomalies which throw into question the belief that smoking causes LC. For instance, why is it that countries like Japan, which has one of the highest smoking rates in the world, also has one of the lowest rates of LC? Why is it that the majority of super-centenarians were lifelong smokers? And with so-called 'passive smoking', why is it that kids who grew up surrounded by SHS (my generation, born in the 1940s) at levels unheard of today are the healthiest and longest-lived generation ever?

 

Well proven? I think not. The propaganda would have you believe it is so, but if you do a little independent research, you will find that most of the 'facts' you are fed by Tobacco Control are either gross exaggerations, lies by omission, or outright, barefaced lies.

Thanks for that, means all the years I spent in Nuke power sations and handling isotopes for gamma radiograpby means I have lots more years to sit on the veranda and shout at people passing by.

???

[nisakiman]

14 hours ago, overherebc said:

Thanks for that, means all the years I spent in Nuke power sations and handling isotopes for gamma radiograpby means I have lots more years to sit on the veranda and shout at people passing by.

???

 

Yup, you're probably gonna live forever!

[overherebc]

32 minutes ago, nisakiman said:

 

Yup, you're probably gonna live forever!

Just let my wife read that and she ran into the other room crying.

??????