Z4 wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:Z4 wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:Z4 wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:Z4 wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:Z4 wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:Z4 wrote:kafenes wrote:miltiades wrote:As I have said before , a disgusting smelly unhealthy third world filthy habit !!!
@ Milti and Bubbles,I believe the same goes for alcohol consumption as well. A filthy discusting habit which kills the users and other innocent people around them and ruins many families.
kafenes - drinking is ok, in moderation of course. Smoking on the other hand is foul, disgusting and harms others. Drinking a pint of beer doesn't effect other people but smoking one cigarette can harm people in the same room......which is not on
You can produce scientific proof that second-hand smoking is harmful I presume...? I look forward to reading the scientific papers you link to...
So, you saying that breathing 2nd hand smoke is not bad for you? It's certainly not good for youl, and can't be....really cant be bothered to look for scientific papers but feel free to prove me wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1747612
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30421.php
You obviously misunderstood my last statement…
When I asked for scientific proof that second-hand smoke was harmful to your health I was looking for proven scientific fact and research… not your opinion or that of Roy Castle…
You made the statement that ‘smoking one cigarette can harm people in the same room’. I don’t think it is unreasonable for you to provide the scientific proof behind that statement…
Do you...?
You are also missing my point too CyprusGrump. Drinking one pint of beer will not harm the other person sat next to you where is you sat next to a smoker puffing on a B&H would. If you are a non smoker go-to your nearest bar and try both.
No, your point is quite clear thank you.
You claim that smoking one cigarette is harmful to those around you yet you are clearly unable to provide proof of that claim.
When I ask you to provide proof you merely make the same claim again and claim that I have misunderstood. I have not... I'll ask you again. Please provide scientific evidence to support your claim that smoking one cigarette in a room is harmful to those around you....
If you cannot just say so...
You are welcome.....on the other hand please provide me with proof that it is perfectly healthy to do so
So you are obviously unable to provide any proof that backs your ridiculous claim then? I thought so...
You are an idiot who believes everything he reads in the Daily Mail...
If you can cope with the long words, try The British Medical Journal
I'll quote a little for you...The British Medical Journal wrote:No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
OK?
Personally I think smoking is disgusting... However, I don't believe everything I read in the papers and actually have an informed opinion on the subject.
You should try it...
I am bored of talking to you now.........come back when you have some 'sound' evidence please
You idiot!
Which part of the British Medical Journal report did you fail to comprehend?
The bit where it says "Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk" on the United States Environmental Protection Agency
Especially the part where it says
"The evidence is clear and consistent: secondhand smoke is a cause of lung cancer in adults who don't smoke. EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk. Even though the lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking, unlike a smoker who chooses to smoke, the nonsmoker's risk is often involuntary. In addition, exposure to secondhand smoke varies tremendously among exposed individuals. For those who must live or work in close proximity to one or more smokers, the risk would certainly be greater than for those less exposed.
EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for about 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year among nonsmokers in the U.S.; of these, the estimate is 800 from exposure to secondhand smoke at home and 2,200 from exposure in work or social situations"
The 800 is based on a % population of how many for the USA?
Now equate that to the population of Cyprus and see how many there are..!!