|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bossface
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
So the first video says 50,000 and the second says 600,000. That's a lot of range considering they are a year apart. Also, both only cite "a study". Terrible reporting.
I'm not saying smoking is a good and healthy thing to do by any means nor that second hand smoke is as enjoyable as a dewy spring meadow. I've never seen any study actually name a specific individual who died of second hand smoke. Name one otherwise healthy adult who died from second hand smoke as the sole cause of death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bossface wrote: |
| the first video says 50,000 and the second says 600,000. That's a lot of range considering they are a year apart. |
The first figure is for the United States only. The second is worldwide.
Second hand smoke is not a healthy thing to breathe. (We agree on this I see.) Unhealthy factors weaken one's immune system. That is not good. (It is a cause of death.) Not even speaking of death, sickness reduces one's quality of life, an undesirable thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joelove wrote: |
| World Traveler wrote: |
| You think mainstream news networks publish made up fake news? |
Sure, to attract audiences. It's good business, isn't it? Get everybody worried about SARS and mad cow. We're very irrational creatures. We fear things that never happen to us and are extremely unlikely. This makes shocking news appealing. There are many stories in the news published by major sources that are totally full of it. They don't have time to check out things like veracity of claims or whether enough research has been done. That story has got to get out there fast because their competitors in the business are sure putting it out there. If they don't keep up money is lost. They have to make the news interesting to sell it or a bored public will turn to another source for that entertainment. |
One thing that's not happening and you seem to be showing fear of is false news reporting on this issue. Did you see those references? Faking those is kind of hard to sweep under the rug. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bossface
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| bossface wrote: |
| the first video says 50,000 and the second says 600,000. That's a lot of range considering they are a year apart. |
The first figure is for the United States only. The second is worldwide.
|
Sure. The U.S., the richest country in the world with under .05% of the world's population, widespread smoking bans, and a relatively low smoking rate also happens to have 1/12 of the world's alleged second hand smoke deaths. Perfectly sensible math there.
I know it's cliche, but correlation does not equal causation. Still waiting for you to produce one name. One heretofore healthy adult that was struck down by second hand smoke during the prime of life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bossface wrote: |
| Still waiting for you to produce one name. One heretofore healthy adult that was struck down by second hand smoke during the prime of life. |
The problem with such a demand is that it's precisely those who are not healthy which would logically be most vulnerable. If someone has asthma, for example, and second hand smoke triggers an asthma attack which ends up being fatal, I think it would be reasonable enough to say that second hand smoke killed them, but they wouldn't qualify under your criteria, as they aren't perfectly healthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bossface wrote: |
| Sure. The U.S., the richest country in the world with under .05% of the world's population, widespread smoking bans, and a relatively low smoking rate also happens to have 1/12 of the world's alleged second hand smoke deaths. Perfectly sensible math there. |
5% of the world's population. 1/20th. Not a stretch considering there are many complex factors involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
Here's a quote that reminds me of the responses in this thread:
| misher wrote: |
| I've worked in a lot of industries but I've never encountered so many people that exaggerate, or are just completely full of shit than I did in Korea among the ESL teacher community. |
(>_<)_______________
| bossface wrote: |
| I've lost all too many friends and loved ones to the scourge of second and third hand smoking. Oh wait a minute, no I haven't. Neither has anybody I've ever met in my entire life. Nor have I ever seen a news report about somebody succumbing to second hand smoke. Strange how that works. |
It's real, man. Just because you haven't seen a news report on second hand smoke (or third hand smoke) doesn't mean they haven't been aired.
Here's a news report on third hand smoke from five years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOJiP-itzck
Study: Secondhand Smoke Kills 600,000 Every Year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhfNQp1-dL0
| Quote: |
Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.[1][2][3] The health risks of second-hand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus.[4][5][6] These risks have been a major motivation for smoke-free laws in workplaces and indoor public places, including restaurants, bars and night clubs, as well as some open public spaces.
Concerns around second-hand smoke have played a central role in the debate over the harms and regulation of tobacco products. Since the early 1970s, the tobacco industry has viewed public concern over second-hand smoke as a serious threat to its business interests.[7] Harm to bystanders was perceived as a motivator for stricter regulation of tobacco products. Despite the industry's awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke as early as the 1980s, the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products.[4]:1242[6] |
| Quote: |
There is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to second-hand smoke is harmful.[4] The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organisation, including:
The World Health Organization:[3] The governments of 168 nations have signed and currently 174 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."[1]
The U.S. National Institutes of Health[97]
The Centers for Disease Control[98]
The United States Surgeon General[2]
The U.S. National Cancer Institute[99]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency[100]
The California Environmental Protection Agency[8]
The American Heart Association,[101] American Lung Association,[102] and American Cancer Society[103]
The American Medical Association[104]
The American Academy of Pediatrics[105]
The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council[106]
The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health[107] |
| Quote: |
| Recent major surveys conducted by the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control have found widespread public awareness that second-hand smoke is harmful. In both 1992 and 2000 surveys, more than 80% of respondents agreed with the statement that second-hand smoke was harmful. A 2001 study found that 95% of adults agreed that second-hand smoke was harmful to children, and 96% considered tobacco-industry claims that second-hand smoke was not harmful to be untruthful.[108] |
|
Not to get all Alex Jonesy conspiracy type, but I don't put much faith in those. I trust them about as much as tobacco company studies. I seriously wonder about their control groups and the duration of their studies and how they are able to verify second-hand smoke as a definitive cause of death and then project those numbers. I can't help but smell some advocacy group-funded scientific legerdemain.
I think chronic enclosed exposure to second-hand smoke could obviously pose a health risk, same as pollution. What I fail to see is the link between someone living and constantly being indoors with smokers and bans in bars and greasy spoon restaurants. Just because living with someone for 50 years who is a smoker and being around their smoke constantly poses increased risk does not mean going to a bar with smoking a couple days a week will put you in mortal danger.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if you are spending serious amounts of time in restaurants and bars to the point where second hand smoke affects you, you are probably more at risk of heart attacks and cirrhosis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. BlackCat
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Location: Insert witty remark HERE
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I completely agree. Other dangerous behaviours like drinking, eating red meat, staying up late, sugar, sports of any kind, taking showers, sex, driving cars, flying in airplanes, industry of any sort, watching TV, microwaves, building things, going out in the sunlight, touching other humans and owning a pet should also be outlawed. We should all be placed in bubble wrap upon birth and fed bare nutrients through IVs and receive a prize (say double bland nutrients) upon our 100th birthday since apparently our only goal in life has become living as long as possible without any concern about the quality of that life. We should also allow the most vocal and disagreeable people decide what "quality of life" means to everyone.
Anyone who is seen attempting to enjoy life on any level, whether it affects others or not, should be immediately quarantined and re-educated. For it is not enough for me to make my own life decisions, I must have the authority to control others as well.
Nothing upsets me more than when I make a life choice and then I leave my house (yes, I occasionally go out in the daylight...I'm a daredevil) and observe others making different life decisions. The definition of a free society is forcing everyone to have the same life goals and behaviours. When I interact with millions, if not billions, of other people I don't expect to have any of their actions affect me in any way. We should all submit to the lowest common denominator and ban everything someone, just one, doesn't enjoy personally. Because even if that thing makes someone enjoy their short time on this Earth a little bit more, if it carries the risk of affecting me even in the absolute most ridiculously slightest way, it should be banned and shamed. After all, isn't our goal to live as absolutely long as possible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
I completely agree. Other dangerous behaviours like drinking, eating red meat, staying up late, sugar, sports of any kind, taking showers, sex, driving cars, flying in airplanes, industry of any sort, watching TV, microwaves, building things, going out in the sunlight, touching other humans and owning a pet should also be outlawed. We should all be placed in bubble wrap upon birth and fed bare nutrients through IVs and receive a prize (say double bland nutrients) upon our 100th birthday since apparently our only goal in life has become living as long as possible without any concern about the quality of that life. We should also allow the most vocal and disagreeable people decide what "quality of life" means to everyone.
Anyone who is seen attempting to enjoy life on any level, whether it affects others or not, should be immediately quarantined and re-educated. For it is not enough for me to make my own life decisions, I must have the authority to control others as well.
Nothing upsets me more than when I make a life choice and then I leave my house (yes, I occasionally go out in the daylight...I'm a daredevil) and observe others making different life decisions. The definition of a free society is forcing everyone to have the same life goals and behaviours. When I interact with millions, if not billions, of other people I don't expect to have any of their actions affect me in any way. We should all submit to the lowest common denominator and ban everything someone, just one, doesn't enjoy personally. Because even if that thing makes someone enjoy their short time on this Earth a little bit more, if it carries the risk of affecting me even in the absolute most ridiculously slightest way, it should be banned and shamed. After all, isn't our goal to live as absolutely long as possible? |
Excellent post. Inspiring. I haven't had a drink for years. Well, that's gonna change right now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
I completely agree. Other dangerous behaviours like drinking, eating red meat, staying up late, sugar, sports of any kind, taking showers, sex, driving cars, flying in airplanes, industry of any sort, watching TV, microwaves, building things, going out in the sunlight, touching other humans and owning a pet should also be outlawed. We should all be placed in bubble wrap upon birth and fed bare nutrients through IVs and receive a prize (say double bland nutrients) upon our 100th birthday since apparently our only goal in life has become living as long as possible without any concern about the quality of that life. We should also allow the most vocal and disagreeable people decide what "quality of life" means to everyone.
Anyone who is seen attempting to enjoy life on any level, whether it affects others or not, should be immediately quarantined and re-educated. For it is not enough for me to make my own life decisions, I must have the authority to control others as well.
Nothing upsets me more than when I make a life choice and then I leave my house (yes, I occasionally go out in the daylight...I'm a daredevil) and observe others making different life decisions. The definition of a free society is forcing everyone to have the same life goals and behaviours. When I interact with millions, if not billions, of other people I don't expect to have any of their actions affect me in any way. We should all submit to the lowest common denominator and ban everything someone, just one, doesn't enjoy personally. Because even if that thing makes someone enjoy their short time on this Earth a little bit more, if it carries the risk of affecting me even in the absolute most ridiculously slightest way, it should be banned and shamed. After all, isn't our goal to live as absolutely long as possible? |
Excellent post. Inspiring. I haven't had a drink for years. Well, that's gonna change right now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hokie21
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stain wrote: |
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
I completely agree. Other dangerous behaviours like drinking, eating red meat, staying up late, sugar, sports of any kind, taking showers, sex, driving cars, flying in airplanes, industry of any sort, watching TV, microwaves, building things, going out in the sunlight, touching other humans and owning a pet should also be outlawed. We should all be placed in bubble wrap upon birth and fed bare nutrients through IVs and receive a prize (say double bland nutrients) upon our 100th birthday since apparently our only goal in life has become living as long as possible without any concern about the quality of that life. We should also allow the most vocal and disagreeable people decide what "quality of life" means to everyone.
Anyone who is seen attempting to enjoy life on any level, whether it affects others or not, should be immediately quarantined and re-educated. For it is not enough for me to make my own life decisions, I must have the authority to control others as well.
Nothing upsets me more than when I make a life choice and then I leave my house (yes, I occasionally go out in the daylight...I'm a daredevil) and observe others making different life decisions. The definition of a free society is forcing everyone to have the same life goals and behaviours. When I interact with millions, if not billions, of other people I don't expect to have any of their actions affect me in any way. We should all submit to the lowest common denominator and ban everything someone, just one, doesn't enjoy personally. Because even if that thing makes someone enjoy their short time on this Earth a little bit more, if it carries the risk of affecting me even in the absolute most ridiculously slightest way, it should be banned and shamed. After all, isn't our goal to live as absolutely long as possible? |
Excellent post. Inspiring. I haven't had a drink for years. Well, that's gonna change right now! |
One drink and you're already seeing double. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hokie21 wrote: |
| Stain wrote: |
| Mr. BlackCat wrote: |
I completely agree. Other dangerous behaviours like drinking, eating red meat, staying up late, sugar, sports of any kind, taking showers, sex, driving cars, flying in airplanes, industry of any sort, watching TV, microwaves, building things, going out in the sunlight, touching other humans and owning a pet should also be outlawed. We should all be placed in bubble wrap upon birth and fed bare nutrients through IVs and receive a prize (say double bland nutrients) upon our 100th birthday since apparently our only goal in life has become living as long as possible without any concern about the quality of that life. We should also allow the most vocal and disagreeable people decide what "quality of life" means to everyone.
Anyone who is seen attempting to enjoy life on any level, whether it affects others or not, should be immediately quarantined and re-educated. For it is not enough for me to make my own life decisions, I must have the authority to control others as well.
Nothing upsets me more than when I make a life choice and then I leave my house (yes, I occasionally go out in the daylight...I'm a daredevil) and observe others making different life decisions. The definition of a free society is forcing everyone to have the same life goals and behaviours. When I interact with millions, if not billions, of other people I don't expect to have any of their actions affect me in any way. We should all submit to the lowest common denominator and ban everything someone, just one, doesn't enjoy personally. Because even if that thing makes someone enjoy their short time on this Earth a little bit more, if it carries the risk of affecting me even in the absolute most ridiculously slightest way, it should be banned and shamed. After all, isn't our goal to live as absolutely long as possible? |
Excellent post. Inspiring. I haven't had a drink for years. Well, that's gonna change right now! |
One drink and you're already seeing double. |
Yeah, and I'm only on my second sip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bossface
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bossface wrote: |
| Still waiting for you to produce one name. One heretofore healthy adult that was struck down by second hand smoke during the prime of life. |
The problem with such a demand is that it's precisely those who are not healthy which would logically be most vulnerable. If someone has asthma, for example, and second hand smoke triggers an asthma attack which ends up being fatal, I think it would be reasonable enough to say that second hand smoke killed them, but they wouldn't qualify under your criteria, as they aren't perfectly healthy. |
This is a truly sad story, but I would say that asthma was absolutely the cause. However, if second hand smoke can trigger an asthma attack, and this person had such severe asthma that she had been hospitalized 4 times that year, then what was she doing working at a smokey bar without her inhaler? This person sounded like she was anything but perfectly healthy from this article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bossface
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2014 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| bossface wrote: |
| Sure. The U.S., the richest country in the world with under .05% of the world's population, widespread smoking bans, and a relatively low smoking rate also happens to have 1/12 of the world's alleged second hand smoke deaths. Perfectly sensible math there. |
5% of the world's population. 1/20th. Not a stretch considering there are many complex factors involved. |
D'oh. I meant 5%. Stupid math be me too ha.
I still say the rest of my argument is valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
