'Third-hand smoke' awareness may curb home smoking

[Praxius]

You have that right, wise people realize that a lot of hypotheses have to be processed before you get to the facts.

And when you run off to the media to talk about nothing but your assumptions (hypotheses) and attempt to imply them as facts to the point you claim you want to influence public opinion based on your assumptions (hypotheses) and change people's behaviors before you even have the facts..... what do you call that?

 

[Praxius]

Oh by the way, I'm not saying all scientists do this, or are like this.... just like not all priests molest children.

There are some good ones out there who know what they're talking about.

I just have a lot of doubts, based on the given information, in regards to this group of so-called scientists.

I'm not generalizing all of science here, I'm generalizing those scientists who pull the above kind of stunts which degrade the respect of other scientists and the process.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Here's an interesting wrinkle. I'm listening (OK...half listening) to talk radio this morning,
and some Harvard Medical Professor is talking about "third hand smoke" with lots of
maybe's and could be'sand might's and erroring on the side of caution's....

Something that was brought up was an increased tax based on your address and whether
or not you own a privately registered vehicle, and your proximity to public transport...to
error on the side of caution to protect the environment and prevent health problems...hmm.

The interesting wrinkle tacked onto the "third hand smoke" discussion by this
Harvard Medical Professor was:

Something that was brought up was an increased tax based on your address and whether
or not you own a privately registered vehicle, and your proximity to public transport...to
error on the side of caution to protect the environment and prevent health problems...hmm.

That might be the next frontier once the smokers are beaten into a corner even
further. I'm all for an outright ban on tobacco in Canada, but is this next???

 

[L Gilbert]

Well thank you for the special attention, however I am quite aware of the scientific process.

Science normally goes about looking into something based on assumptions and observations..... this is a given.

But what's the point in running to all the media outlets to talk about your assumptions before you come to any conclusion, other to influence public opinion on something without "Scientific" evidence or proof?

That might be because the newsmedia like little tidbits. Seems to me I wouldn't mind a little news on how things in an investigation is going along sometimes. Cancer cures, whether the ice on Mars is actually water or ammonia or whatever, for instance. I continue to like hearing a little bit now and then about evolution of species when someone comes up with a new idea. Lotsa stuff. To just withhold information until you have something conclusive is repressive and a bit silly. Then all we would have are scientific laws, facts, no opinions about anything, etc.

^ Bwaaaaaa...... ah-ha....... see, there's the ticket right there.

Where? A scalper scooped it before I saw it.

It's one thing to tell everybody that you are about to start a study on something you have a theory or assumption on.... it's a totally different thing when you have those same people doing PR interviews with all the major news agencies over something you have yet to prove, and talk about all the "Could-Be's" as if they're fact..... all the while claiming to do this in order to obtain some objective, which in this case is to scare people into not smoking in their homes, or smoke period.

It's done in CC a lot. It's done everywhere a lot. It isn't done by only scientists. Religions have been stating crap as fact and without ANY proof for thousands of years. Get used to it. It won't go away.

Based on what?

Assumptions. These people who are going on about 3rd Hand Smoke are attempting to influence public opinion and perhaps change our laws even futher without any proof or evidence to back up their claims.... which is the problem I have in this situation and isn't the first time I have seen this happen.

That's the problem and you can joke and laugh about it all you want, but you know exactly where I am getting at with this and what I mean..... which is that if you want to be called a scientist and sound like you know what you're talking about, provide actual evidence and logical explinations to back up your final conclusions..... don't go on about your assumptions, because if all you got are assumptions, then you're no better then anybody else with their assumptions.

I never said I was any better than anyone else. That would be arrogant and not correct anyway. Are you better than anyone else?
The simple idea is, is that smoke from tobacco is harmful. It HAS been shown to be harmful whether it's 1st hand smoke, 2nd hand, etc. YOU want to presume to tell me about smoke? May I remind you I am a retired firefighter.
There is still debate over whether the smoke experienced by firefighters has any effect on our longevity and old-age health. Not much for facts about it around yet, but I would make a large bet that the smoke we do/did endure has an effect. Why not be smart and use the "better to be safe than sorry" axiom? Assumptions HAVE A USE. Get used to it.

 

[Praxius]

That might be because the newsmedia like little tidbits. Seems to me I wouldn't mind a little news on how things in an investigation is going along sometimes. Cancer cures, whether the ice on Mars is actually water or ammonia or whatever, for instance. I continue to like hearing a little bit now and then about evolution of species when someone comes up with a new idea. Lotsa stuff. To just withhold information until you have something conclusive is repressive and a bit silly. Then all we would have are scientific laws, facts, no opinions about anything, etc.

Fair enough.... I have no issues with people sharing their hypothisis and theories on various subjects..... I do have issues when people try to change the way we all live and see things, based on those hypothisis and theories without any official conclusions, which it seems these people are trying to do.

It's done in CC a lot. It's done everywhere a lot. It isn't done by only scientists. Religions have been stating crap as fact and without ANY proof for thousands of years. Get used to it. It won't go away.

I know this.... but have you noticed how many religious beliefs are not thrown into many laws on how we live? Because there isn't proof for most of it, and not everybody follows those beliefs.

People do it here in the forums, but nobody here is trying to change the way we all live, other then sharing opinions and debating.

But when these people start talking about their theories and how they should help change people's behaviors and what they do with smoking, and further down the road, attempting to perhaps change the laws on if people can smoke in their own homes now, based on nothing but assumptions..... there's a problem, and they're no better then those religions you spoke of.

That was the only thing really seperating religions and science, which I have stated countless times in the past..... Science is based around conclusions based on studies and facts..... when you have these people trying to do what they're doing while not following this process, what's the difference between them and some religion?

None really..... all they're doing is throwing out their own personal beliefs and theories and expect all of us to suck it up as being biblical, because afterall, science has explained so much so far (Although also got plenty wrong as well) that they simply shouldn't be questioned.

I knew this stage in science would come and here it is.

I never said I was any better than anyone else. That would be arrogant and not correct anyway. Are you better than anyone else?

That depends.

But what I was saying there, was more of a general comment, not exactly directed towards you in paticular (You as in anybody it may apply to in the hypothetical)

The simple idea is, is that smoke from tobacco is harmful. It HAS been shown to be harmful whether it's 1st hand smoke, 2nd hand, etc. YOU want to presume to tell me about smoke? May I remind you I am a retired firefighter.

May I also remind you my house burned down around me at the age of 9 and had to escape on my own?

I know about fires and I know about smoke. Firefighters are also in my family too.... I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I do know a decent amount on the subject.

But even you should know there are different forms of smoke from different sources with different chemicals in each. The smoke from a burning house has more harsh chemicals then a cigg..... the exaust from a car has more harsh chemicals then a cigg.... weed has less harsh chemicals in it then ciggs (depending on which ones you focus on)

If you want to get right down to the nitty gritty, oxygen isn't good for us either since it gradually breaks down our DNA via Oxydents (BBQ food has a load of these) which is also a good chunk of the reason why we age..... everything we take in, slowly kills us one way or another and there is no absolute method of avoiding all of it.

But in the same sense, many of these things that have bad agents in them for our bodies, also have benifits, albeit remote in some cases.

But I usually simplify it like this: Natives have been smoking tobacco for centuries, and many of the old wise men/medicine men/women lived to ripe old ages (Or perhaps it was just the smoking that made them look older, who knows?)

But in the same sense, no matter what the subject is talking about in regards to what we take into our bodies, none of it is ever good for you in excess. Moderation is always the key with anything.

Drink too much, say goodbye to your liver.

Eat too much, say goodbye to your foot.

Smoke too much, say goodbye to your lungs.

Smoking a pack or two a day is pretty bad and pretty excessive..... and those who do smoke that amount or around it are clearly asking for trouble later down the road.

There is still debate over whether the smoke experienced by firefighters has any effect on our longevity and old-age health. Not much for facts about it around yet, but I would make a large bet that the smoke we do/did endure has an effect. Why not be smart and use the "better to be safe than sorry" axiom? Assumptions HAVE A USE. Get used to it.

Assumptions have an individual use.... you can revolve your life and choose what is best for you, based on your own assumptions, just as I do.... but assumptions don't have a valid use for setting the laws and rules on how we all live.

I don't expect people to change their lives based on assumptions I believe have some truth, I would hope others would do the same.

That's all.