In a message dated 1/10/2003 11:26:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
quadzilla666@earthlink.net writes:
More importantly, the burden of proof here should not be on proving
2nd hand smoke causes cancer. The burden of proof should be to demonstrate
that it does NOT cause cancer. Simply put, if it seems likely that 2nd
hand
smoke causes cancer, then it should be banned in all workplaces (at a
minimum).
The error should be on the side of safety.Finally, let's just use our brains for a second. We already know that
smoking causes cancer for the primary somker. Now, just what kind of magic
do'
you think happens to make that smoke no longer cause cancer when it is
inhaled
by someone else. It is the same f***ing poison either way.
Quad, me boyo, you've outdone yourself here.
You think the "burden of proof" should be to demonstrate that second hand
smoke DOESN'T cause cancer. Cause that's "safer." And, better yet, if the
primary smoke causes cancer, obviously secondary smoke does the same. I know
that you only committed to the use of your brain "for a second", but I'm
gonna ask you to hang in there a little longer.
How's about tertiery smoke? Just as bad. How's about let's stop them Japanese
from smoking so much cause that same "f***ing poison just drifts over from
Tokyo right into the kids in the San Diego Zoo. Why them Dirty Japs are
killing our babies. But I bet you figured it out. It DOES matter whether it's
the primary smoker or not. Because it's not just the carcinogenic chemical
involved but the concentration of that
chemical that determines its toxicity. So if a particular carcinogen hits the
lungs of the smoker at a density of 100 PPM right from the cigarette into his
lungs, by the time it's partially absorbed, and exhaled into the atmosphere,
it's usually diluted by anywhere from a hundred fold to a million fold by the
time its inhaled by another person a few feet away. Is it possible that it's
still toxic? Sure. But considering that many millions of primary smokers go
for decades without ill effects, the chemicals can't be so toxic that they
are still carcinogenic after such drastic dilution. So unless the smoker
exhales directly into the mouth of someone they are kissing, it seems real
unlikely to be unhealthy. And that's what the courts have confirmed.
Is it unpleasant? Definitely. But I find myself frequently surrounded by
things I consider unpleasant. That's why I'm saving up to buy my own casino.
Until then, I'll have to suffer.
As to your suggestion that the burden is to prove that second hand smoke
doesn't cause illness, it's nearly impossible to prove a negative
correlation. There's been reports that peanuts might be harmful. And
chocolate. And cheeseburgers. Whole lotta provin goin on, I guess.
OK, time's out.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]