| Bad_Rich_Chic |
06-20-2003 03:28 PM |
Vanity?
Quote:
Originally posted by ABBAKiss
Did I misread this? You think the second-hand health risks are higher for those who live or work around fat people than they are for those who live or work around those who smoke?
|
Re: working around the fat, absolutely not, unless they are all in those electric wheely-carts, which I now give a wide berth, but that's a wheely-cart problem not a weight problem. But living with them? Yes, actually, I do. Particularly for children with obese parents, but also for other family members exposed to the diet/exercise habits of their loved ones. The children of the obese are far more likely to themselves become obese and die of complications thereof than children exposed to second hand smoke are to die of second-hand-smoke-related illnesses, even given the evidence that SHS slightly increases the chance of a SIDS death in resident infants. Dietary and exercise practices, good and bad, do tend to rub off on the rest of one's family (and children, after all, have to eat what they are given).
And, since you asked, the EPA's much touted 1993 second hand smoke report (still the primary document cited by anti-smoking activists, including Bloomberg justifying the recent NYC ban), which was roundly and pretty justifiably criticized as having no scientific basis whatsoever since it ignored the 2/3 of SHS studies that had findings that didn't support the EPA's position, found a relative risk rate of 1.19 for second hand smoke - this when any relative risk rating of less than 2.0 is considered by the EPA to be inconsequential and indistinguishable from a sample error. That report also found (based on no studies) that non-smokers working full-time in smoky environments (bars) got the equivalent of 1/5 of a cigarette per day, though repeated studies both before and since have found non-smokers in smoky workplaces get the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year.
BR(unpleasantness of SHS is a MUCH better argument for smoking bans than health)C
|