Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
OK. I see the sense in publishing (and that it would tend to bolster my earliest point from an angle I hadn't considered).
The thing I have a serious issue with is the misrepresentation of those 3000 people as 3 million. 3000 cancers a year from second hand smoke doesn't seem a senseible basis for banning smoking on a beach.
The public takes medical research and twists its findings to their scariest ends. yet no one stands up and says "Hey, wait a minute. NOBODY. Nobody ever, ever will get cancer from second hand smoke on a beach." My gripe here, which I think you understand, is the manipulation of data into hysteria-causing lies, which lead to silly, ineffective do-gooderism, and the fact that if you challenge it, you're seen as evil. Why can't somebody honestly say "Yeh, the chances of getting cancer fro 2d hand smoke on a beach are zero, and anyone who says otherwise is being hysterical." You say that and the PC police kill you, even though the data (and common sense) back you up.
I don't like stats being twisted to fit anyone's agenda, particularly by our govt, because people believe them like their divine edicts. Hence, we get nonsense like Dow Corning being sued into bkcy over implants which never caused the diseases they were blamed for causing. Why aren't the people who trumpeted shit science there being sued by the company's estate?
Its politically ok to lie in this country if it supports something a swath of do-gooders (or neocons) like. It shouldn't be. The people in San Diego have a right to know the real absolute risk of 2d hand smoke on a beach.
|
I understand that, and that's why I've repeatedly gone back to the studies, which, in my opinion, are pretty conclusive. It's not a lie, it's just that people don't bother to actually read beyond the first paragraph of any given newspaper report (which usually does tell you how many people were in the study, how many got sick, and what the result was), and they certainly don't troll Medline for fun. I'm a very sick person, and I acknowledge that.
But it's also irresponsible to say that there's no risk when it's clear that there
is a risk. And the 3000 people dying from lung cancer every year are not the complete picture. You have to add the asthmatics and the people with coronary heart disease and the people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the people with reproductive problems. We've been focusing only on one chapter of a 11 chapter report. It adds up to a pretty nasty health hazard that's fairly easily avoided. It's not just the cancers. You keep focusing on that, but if it were just the cancer it wouldn't be as much of an issue. Nobody might get cancer from secondhand smoke on a beach, but it's not at all inconceivable that an asthma attack wouldn't be triggered from the same smoke.
I think that we've handled the mad cow scare pretty fucking well here, compared to other places. We acknowledged the risk, we changed the way that feedlots were run, we stopped importing cows from countries where the disease is prevalent, we've immediately eliminated sick cows from the herds, and for the most part--aside from Oprah's hysteronics a few years back--the media hasn't overblown the whole thing. Compare that to Canada, which downplayed the issue too much and now they've got a serious problem in their beef industry, and England, which over hyped it so much it's impossible to pleasurably eat a hamburger there.
