|
Harm from passive smoking has not been proven as fact. On the other hand, I also think it is
reasonable to assume that if primary smoking can be quite harmful, then passive smoking could also
cause a certain level of harm, but it is this level that is in dispute. The general consensus is
that this level is so minimal as to be almost not worth considering. Of course this could be proved
wrong in the future, but there has already been an awful lot of money spent on research into the
effects of passive smoking over the past few years and so far, zilch. The scientist who originally
linked smoking with lung cancer has openly stated that he has no problem with people smoking in his
presence. I am not advocating that smokers should be allowed to smoke where they like if other
people object to it, but what annoys me is the hysterical media hype that makes people believe that
if someone smokes within ten feet of you, then you are going to die. They might, you won’t. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Trees, myth or fact? What does this debate title even mean? Debate topics are supposed to be
assertions.
It's obvious that second-hand smoke exists. There is abundant evidence that it can lead to cancer.
It's amusing that you keep asking for documentation on various topics. In most cases, an elementary
google search will take you to tons of it.
You demand proof that a specific death has been caused by second-hand smoke. Science doesn't work
that way. There are many factors that potentially contribute to cancer. The best that can be done is
to analyse large populations with specific characteristics in common, observe them subjected to
certain conditions and note the results. There are specific cases where non-smokers have worked in
smoke-filled environments, for example pubs, and have developed lung cancer.
More generally, it is clear from scientific studies that being exposed to secondary smoke raises a
person's chance of developing lung cancer significantly. In places where bans on public smoking have
been introduced, there have been dramatic, and almost immediate, drops in deaths from
smoking-related illnesses. This is very likely to have been the result of secondary smoke. The only
alternative explanation I can see is to argue that the bans must have led smokers to give up their
habit. That seems a little far-fetched. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
18 Jul 2008 03:17
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
