Story Comments
Posted by: Beeboppin71 12 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
Beeboppin7112 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I likerwise despise smoking ("disgusting and stinky"). It's undoubtedly a major cause of lung cancer. But we've all known or known of someone who has never smoked and died of the disease. So it's not a sole cause."
Reply
I think that we can all agree that if one is a smoker than there is a good chance that the smoker will have health issues. However, this article is about second - and now - third hand smoke. I seriously doubt that a major contributor to lung cancer is second hand smoke. Sure, there are asthmatics and others with health issues that would be better off not hanging around with a smoker, but is there enough of a danger to create this hysteria about second hand smoke? And now third hand smoke? Please.
"Placed in another area of endeavor, it's sort of like saying that one shouldn't inflate tires properly because doing it won't "solve" our energy problems"
But should under-inflated tires be illegal? It's not really the same thing. It's more like saying, "Your under-inflated tires are killing me. Inflate them immediately! No!!! Tires should be illegal! Tires are killers!!!"
"I think this had more validity when one was talking about higher pollution levels--less so at today's levels."
We are beginning to see the effects of those higher pollution levels from previous years on society now. That is why there are more regulations placed on industry today.
My point is that pollution from industry is more harmful to any one individual than the effects of second/third hand smoke. Of course, it will be much more difficult for someone to give up their SUV than it would for those same people to cry wolf, and blame it all on cigarettes, just because they don't like the smell.-
100%
chevydog12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Second hand smoke I worry about, but probably not excessively. But if I die of lung cancer, we should probably blame the bowling alley that I frequented in the early 1970's.
Reply
One the industrial pollution--I think we have more regs today due mostly to momentum, not because any more has been proven. The momentum IMHO is driven by the same ignorance and paranoia that drove the original ones (" can't be good for you"--probably true, etc.). I'm certainly not going to say that the original regs has no basis ; but I think that they were based on an ideology that in the end (and now) doesn't mesh with reality.
In the industrial towns that I have some familiarity with, visible air quality today is much better than 40 years ago; I have to assume the same is true for non-visible stuff. If you told me that cancer cases in the 1990's were driven by air quality in the 1950's I'd put some credence in it; have a lot more problem with the link between the 1970's say and 2010. I've seen the changes.
Think that some factors have changed over the years. One is diagnosis; things that weren't even recognized sometimes in the past are now their own "diseases". So who knows how common they were? Another changed factor is analytical abiility--we can find stuff now that before we didn't even know was there. An environmentalist can say "Of course it was there" and someone else can say "of course it wasn't"; but in the end nobody knows because nobody could or thought to analyze for that substance. It's a problem I always had when i worked in the industry--inevitably you'd ask what the level of X was then; and nobody knows because it wasn't measured.
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (5)
Ciera-Marie
alakazam
mntnman444
Beau7890
9crittersPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.