Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Conversation Between flips333 and ewing

15 Visitor Messages

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTlutITeoVs

    the college professor throwing a pitch bit made me think of you
  2. also i have no idea how bad second hand smoke is. I'll agree with its bad. Still, I would assume a pack a day smoker who is it sucking down his gullet to his lungs 20 times a day for 5 to 10 mins is doing a lot more damage then some who is around smokers sometimes. I don't know how bad it is and i don't think these studies are even trying to answer that question
  3. See, I agree with what you are saying but i also disagree with deliberate misrepresentation and what i see as manipulation. The language exist to present the findings in a ways that makes sense and affirms the cigarettes are bad message.
  4. All behavioral statistics are flawed. Just because the stat is flawed does not mean that the assertion behind the stat is wrong. Cigarettes kill you. Secondhand smoke causes cancer. These things are true. Regardless as to whether or not 50,000 or 35,000 people have deaths attributable to second hand smoke second hand smoke causes cancer. neither number is insignificant. The numbers matter less to me then what they represent, which to me as A scientist is a truth in the world. It's that truth, and not the number that matters.
  5. Hey Flips, I know you do research and you are a smart guy, so i am curious do you think when a study is done on something like "smoking related deaths" do you think the word related is deliberately robbed of its meaning so people like Randy can ascribe cig smoke or second hand smoke as the single determining factor in the death of 50,000 people?
Showing Visitor Messages 11 to 15 of 15
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12