|
By:
1.01 hes a tea drinker
|
|
By:
Sorry I've given up with that amateur effort lmfao.
You say my smoking in front of my kids is gunna put them at risk from passive smoking. To do that ,you have to provide an experiment that can replicate the conditions that my child will 'suffer'. It's impossible. The increase in childhood asthma has increased massively in recent years. Kids don't smoke. It's down to pollution. It's like being dwarfed by a tidal wave and you think turning off a tap will save them drowning. Nonsense I'm afraid. |
|
By:
lmfao's gone to watch the news with a nice cup of oveltine ready for bed
|
|
By:
No way we'll agree lmfao ,so never mind eh?
goodnight |
|
By:
lmfao, since you can report the death figures for cancer, can you also make this a complete picture and report the number of which were smokers, non smokers, and nonsmokers subject to regular passive smoking please. If not you are guilty of being bamboozled by statistics.
Also be very wary of claims of increase in risk measured as a % of the original risk. Calculating risk is a science and very often not understood by the average reader. I am 5% more likely to fall over when drunk. The thing is I am 1/1000 chance of falling over sober. Even more relevant is that the original risk of 1/1000 is not economical to bother trying to actively reduce that risk any further, and certainly from not drinking. So we could say that a 0.02% chance of getting cancer from smoking, compares to a risk from passive smoking increasing to 0.028%. Given that 90% of all pollution is industrial, [excluding cars which technology is not far away from solving], then lobbying industry would appear to be much more beneficial to your cause. suddenly we are not quibbling over fractions of a %. |
|
By:
The hygiene hypothesis, which accepted as likely by the medical profession , says the increase in childhood asthma is down to children not being exposed to enough germs in the house resulting in an underdeveloped immune system.
|
|
By:
brodie ...you have no idea..
|
|
By:
The thing is I am 1/1000 chance of falling over sober.
Is that over your whole lifetime? |
|
By:
no, it is one statistical event, in the falling over case it is per day, (of regular activity, not including sport or any other higher risk activity). The extra 5% is for the same statistical event, (though in reality we are unlikely to be drunk for 24 hours).
|
|
By:
crediter, mate i'vetread your posts before and they are of the pub bore ilk.
Either tell me what you disagree with or bugger off. |
|
By:
ive read*
|
|
By:
CALLING HEAD IN HANDS MAN CALLING HEAD IN HANDS MAN, BRODIE NEEDS YOU TALKING COMPLETE **E
|
|
By:
Would you like to say why you think I'm talking rubbish el chine or are you another knee-jerk idiot who goes with what he's told?
|
|
By:
Are you waiting for someone to help you with a head in hands man?
|
|
By:
Come on you *unt
|
|
By:
I agree that the air in the citys maybe isnt the cleanest but to say because of this that it is ok to pollute a childs delicate organs with smoke is**ers, Pubs are far better now that you dont get home with ya hair an clothes stinking and going outside for a ciggy hasnt hurt anyone .
|
|
By:
Okay el chine sorry for swearing
|
|
By:
patience Brodie im a one finger type man , thats why i gave up the quizzes
|
|
By:
Tories won't reverse anything Labour has done
|
|
By:
But this is how I see it.
I do not see second hand smoke as a danger to my kids. Therefore I don't stop. Pollution is the major contributor to cancer and other bronchial diseases, imo. There is no way of separating a person from the polution around us and then suibject them to 2nd hand smoke ,unless you stick them in a bubble for say 10 years to get an effective and true result in an experiment. Pollution is all around us and so could be responsible for ALL chest diseases, it can't be disproven. I would be negligent in the care of my children if I thought 2nd hand smoke was dangerous to them ,but i don't so am not negligent, imo |
|
By:
Isn't it a matter of degree? You may dislike smoking but to claim that you go home stinking after a night standing next to a couple smokers is ridiculous.
|
|
By:
lol, wouldnt bank on it! last time they closed anything that was open!
|
|
By:
anyway ,sorry for my swearing out burst ,I'm just repeating myself now.
be lucky......good night :) |
|
By:
Brodie 09 Nov 23:13
But this is how I see it. I do not see second hand smoke as a danger to my kids. You are in denial One day you will want to give up or you will regret it |
|
By:
i have nothing agaisnt smokers but it didnt matter where you stood in a pub , surely if there was even a 100/1 chance that second hand smoke was dangerous you wouldnt take the risk with kids, and you cant tell me you think its a 100/1 more like 6/4
|
|
By:
Dobbo 09 Nov 23:14
Isn't it a matter of degree? You may dislike smoking but to claim that you go home stinking after a night standing next to a couple smokers is ridiculous. It is 100% true me old mukker honestly - you have no idea how foul the stench of cigarette smoke is - tell you what: ask a reformed smoker - he/ she will tell you you can't smell it |
|
By:
In Spain there would be a civil war if smoking were to be banned in public places, everyone seems to smoke. There you get to choose, the only place that I know of that stated it was a non smoking establishment was a ruby house and they went bust in 3 months. You just state on the door if smoking is permitted or not. Seems sensible enough to me.
|
|
By:
If second hand smoke could kill there wouldn't be a smoker alive.
|
|
By:
I've already told you i don't smoke lmfao.
I've a feeling you don't read what I say ;) I used to smoke 5 years ago. I've been speaking hypothetically |
|
By:
Imfao I was a non smoker for five years and it bothered me not one jot to be in a smoking environment. You lot are just pussies. Find soething worth worrying about. Global warming will do you. equally ridiculous but its got legs
|
|
By:
I do smoke but not that often, it has never bothered me one way or the other.
|
|
By:
Anybody got a light ?
|
|
By:
Im an ex smoker and can honestly say that the smell of a smoker is negligible. If smoking was so bad in pubs for non smokers then anyone with an ounce of sense would have opened no smoking pubs and the masses would have flocked there. They didn't! Logic dictates that only a very small minority cared. My cousin is one of the really bad anti smokers. It is no coincidence that he has an extremely sensitive, and therefore problematic, nasal and respitory system. I'm sensitive salmon, should we ban it? And yes, I do suffer the effects of it by proxy.
Brodie, you would not need to bubble the experiment from pollution to measure it. the trend would be observed in suitable samples of smokers and non smokers whom are subject to passive smoke and compared in regions of differing industrial pollution. This would suffice to form a fair opinion of risk, (which is all it is in the end, an opinion of RISK), of each situation. Do you realise that more people die from the effects of poor sanitation, poor potable water supplies and missing very basic healthcare in the world than any disease you could mention. Why is no one reporting this as an increase in risk? I guess the VI's are elsewhere on this version of representing facts in numbers. |
|
By:
Do you realise that more people die from the effects of poor sanitation, poor potable water supplies and missing very basic healthcare in the world than any disease you could mention. Why is no one reporting this as an increase in risk?
Charities "reporting" this relentlessly, when they seek donations. More diversionary tactics. Rearguard action now very desperate. |
|
By:
I don't understand the reference to charities tbh. The simple facts are that sanitation and potable water have saved more lives and reduced disease, and is the single biggest reason in doubling life expectancy in the western world. At the same time the wolds largest population groups receive the least quality of both. Simple things sometimes.
|