The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking • Hacker News Board

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#61

Post by tentonova » Wed, Dec 30, 2009, 7:26 PM UTC

ahoyhere wrote: post #60

tentonova wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people should drive cars that don't produce such a large amount of noxious fumes, they should drive less -- cars are the number one accidental killer at 40k deaths/year in the US. Both of these things would naturally occur if drivers were not free externalize the significant costs of their personal choices.

It's not about those wasteful car drivers "externalizing the costs of their personal choices." Please! Most people have no choice, because of how the entire country has chosen to invest in infrastructure. Which is to say, it has chosen not to. American physical geography and sociopolitical geography forces car driving.

We live in a representative democracy.

If the costs were not externalized, market and political forces would dictate changes in both personal choices and infrastructure investment.

I don't see the rational for abdicating responsibility for the choices in where we both live and work, as disclaiming responsibility for the externalities incurred by these choices ensures that a more optimum "sociopolitical geography" will not be reached.

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#62

Post by billswift » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 9:09 AM UTC

berntb wrote: post #35

teeja wrote: post #28

People who have trouble considering this idea because of all the conditioning can take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke. When I did, they fell into the noise ... within statistical error. What is the measured, documented percentage of smokers who contract lung-cancer? I never found that number. Furthermore, what other environmental factors were contr…

>>take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke [fell into statistical noise when I investigated] I spent twenty seconds to help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health " Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoking ban, hospi…

Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies. I followed up some of the (VERY FEW) links from the Wikipedia article to medical papers, and they were just what the original article said - studies that claimed improvements on this or that scale with no evidence of actual life extension.

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#63

Post by berntb » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 3:01 PM UTC

billswift wrote: post #62

berntb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>take a couple of hours online to investigate the scientific evidence for the dangers of second-hand smoke [fell into statistical noise when I investigated] I spent twenty seconds to help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#Effects_on_health " Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoking ban, hospi…

Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies. I followed up some of the (VERY FEW) links from the Wikipedia article to medical papers, and they were just what the original article said - studies that claimed improvements on this or that scale with no evidence of actual life extension.

>>Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies.

Good counter to my argument that they are! :-)

Both Wikipedia and BBC referenced real studies.

You seems to claim that there is a conspiracy (with Wikipedia editors, BBC and the rest of the medias) against the tobacco companies?

I count all conspiracy theories as "extraordinare claims", so do you have any "extraordinary support"?

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#64

Post by billswift » Thu, Dec 31, 2009, 7:26 PM UTC

berntb wrote: post #63

billswift wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies. I followed up some of the (VERY FEW) links from the Wikipedia article to medical papers, and they were just what the original article said - studies that claimed improvements on this or that scale with no evidence of actual life extension.

>>Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies. Good counter to my argument that they are! :-) Both Wikipedia and BBC referenced real studies. You seems to claim that there is a conspiracy (with Wikipedia editors, BBC and the rest of the medias) against the tobacco companies? I count all conspiracy theories as "extraordinare claims", so do you have any "extraordinary support"?

I don't see any need to invoke conspiracies. Most probably they are just reading somewhat uncertain and vague data to support what they think is true (confirmation bias?).

Re: The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking

#65

Post by berntb » Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 8:42 AM UTC

billswift wrote: post #64

berntb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Wikipedia and BBC are NOT scientific studies. Good counter to my argument that they are! :-) Both Wikipedia and BBC referenced real studies. You seems to claim that there is a conspiracy (with Wikipedia editors, BBC and the rest of the medias) against the tobacco companies? I count all conspiracy theories as "extraordinare claims", so do you have any "extraordinary support"?

I don't see any need to invoke conspiracies. Most probably they are just reading somewhat uncertain and vague data to support what they think is true (confirmation bias?).

So, it is not a conspiracy theory to assume the world's complete collection of newspapers are totally wrong in their description of the research consensus? Despite decades of big advertisement budgets from tobacco companies, saying differently?

Go away, troll.