halfnorn

Hello to all the new people. Yet another one from the Netherlands that must make at least 4 now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We're prolific.

Soon we will take over the Internet.

We're big now, aren't we?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No! Dammit! I'm tiny!

Hey guys. I'm Len.

As you might've seen, I've got a bit of a... problem. Unfortunately, there's no 'Discussionaholics Anonymous' group yet, so I inevitably end up having to tackle myself halfway through just to keep the onset of insanity at bay. :icon_redface: (Multitasking isn't my strong suit. I've got only one brain and I need it for Habermas, not statistics)

I study Theatre, Film & Television Sciences in Utrecht, the Netherlands. One day I hope to get in to the Dutch Film & Television Academy, but for the moment I'm stuck on making short films with the TFT crew.

Got into HB by a combination of old fanfic, being dragged to see Constantine (people expect a TFT major to be able to state their opinion on absolutely any movie ever. Funny thing, that), and this forum (which I found last year), which would be where I first read the issues in James' sig, which ended with me paying for my local comic book store's owner's next vacation. I've read pretty much most of the series so far.

Um.

I think that's about it?

That Guest up there was me, btw. (Zyban´s cost a couple dozen people their lives because it drove them to suicide, btw, so it´s not just Big Tobacco making casualties)

Anyway, I could go on for a bit, but there´s a limit to how much I know about the subject (my father has spent the past five years sorting through miles upon miles of tobacco research), so I figure I´ll just point to Michael Siegel´s blog (he´s an anti-tobacco insider who´s turned critical over the years) as he´s got far more interesting material than I could cough up - the latest entry contains some interesting tidbits on those folks who run that ASH site that was just linked to - though he still puts a certain amount of faith in SHS.

On the other hand, FORCES goes in-depth on the problems of studies claiming to prove passive smoking.

And now I´m out of this thread. I´m starting to sound like a PSA or something, and it bugs me.

Halfnorn, the drug companies and the tobacco companies don't publish the findings they don't want us to hear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which is, really, part of my point - it's nearly impossible to find independent tobacco research. If you eliminate all the studies with conflicting resources -- there's not an awful lot of research left. What remains is action taken based on taglines, which is... not exactly a good way to go about things.

I am in favour of licensed smoking areas in most drinking establishments.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So am I. The Dutch government passed a law along those lines last year.

It is the primary environmental effects of smoking that the ban is intended to deal with, and the secondary passive health effects are a side issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But that's not the way it's pushed. The main reason why most of these smoking bans are put into action is under a veneer of 'public health' - it's also the main reason why the public believes these bans might be a good thing.

I could get started on the importance of ventilation, but that's so far from my field I don't want to burn my hands on it. (Plus you mentioned it earlier, anyway)

the second was not from the WHO...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm... I misread the summary on the site. Good catch. This is an article on the study I was trying to refer you to. I think the study itself is located here, though the link might be defunct. More stuff on it here, as well.

received funding primarily from US tobacco companies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As opposed to all the Big Pharma-funded studies that are completely and utterly unbiased, of course.

True, but just as one might say "prove that shs causes cancer, and I will stop" I could say "prove that it doesn't, and I will stop pestering you".  There is a chance that your smoke might give me cancer.  My non-smoking will not harm you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't smoke.

Okay. Proof? Connection between SHS and heart disease far less than originally thought. The WHO finds even the occasional positive effect of SHS here. (Of course, the latter was shovelled under the rug for a long time... wonder why...)

It's just logical, though...breathing smoke is bad...this is proven.  The same smoke that comes out of the ass end of the cigarette comes out of the tip.  There are many cases where the family of a second hand smoker has breathing problems.  I doubt this is a coincidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correlation isn't causality. You have to take other factors into account, such as pollution by cars and industries and the like. Hence the way statistics work with relative risks - until a certain point, you simply can't keep something apart from other causes.

Breathing smoke directly into your own lungs is different from the minimal amount others may inhale. There's the matter of dilution to consider, after all. It's like comparing bathing in sulfuric acid to acid rain.

There haven't been any significant links found between SHS and cancer so far, to my knowledge. Mostly just the screaming of headlines.

Aaaanyway, before I stumble into territory where even I've lost the plot... (I am but a poor media student, after all)

Hi, James. You're part of the reason I started reading Hellblazer in the first place, so... thanks. :lol:

Actually, second-hand smoking damage is yet to be conclusively proven by any independent study - the leading studies that are usually used to support this kind of thing have been done in dubious conditions at best.

Newspapers like to take bits of major studies and tout them as fact long before they're proven - or, perhaps worse, without even paying any attention to the finer points of statistics.

...

I can't believe this is what I'm delurking over. Oi.