sierra21 Posted October 30, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 160 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,000 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/30/1983 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Cough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted October 30, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted October 30, 2006 umm you're a big boy aren't you?? You can cook for yourself. I understand that it's hard with all that temptation...but it's never going to be easy! As far as the smoking goes- it's her house. Sierra As much as I respect you, Leonard, this is only one study that has been done. I guarantee you I could come up with many studies both pro and con concerning the effects of smoking. It's not just the fear of getting cancer through second hand smokethat bothers me, it's just the fact that I find it an incredibly nasty habit that effects my life as well as hers. She'll be smoking a cig and then put it down and touch all the food with her hands while she's blowing smoke all over the food as she prepares it. If we're in the car, she lights up and I have to cough and choke it all down. Do you see what I mean? I understand that my mom has a terrible habit and it's very dificult to break. I have compassion for her, but she just doesn't understand that non-smokers don't really want to suffer along with her. This is just my cross to bear for a while I guess. I know exactly what you mean; I DETEST THE SMELL of cigarettes! My mother-in-law is one of the WORST kind of smokers; ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, with anybody. Take a puff then LEAN OVER INTO THE CRIB to 'talk to baby'!!! Ye gods and little fish hooks; cigarette smokers can be so unthinking! But then in so many ways, she was so good to our daughter when she was little! Just an odd fluke of behavior, I guess......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 mareesta, you have to look beyond the politically correct REPORTS that are even made available and dig into the actual RESEARCH, even on the cdc site. i've posted the link to it enough times so feel free to search my posts, but right now i don't have the time nor the inclination to do so again. the RESEARCH indicates that the results are INCONCLUSIVE. the slightly higher risk that gets reported is (here's a scientific term for ya) "statistically insignificant" because of two basic things... one is that it focuses on those who have a disease but yet does not account for OTHER contributing factors, and two is that the sample's margin of error is not large enough to draw any conclusive evidence from. so instead of buying into the hype, study the numbers of the research itself, and then do a little digging to find out what the statistical significance is. even the attorney general, despite all his warnings, admits that the findings are not conclusive. (i heard that on the news the other day, so i don't have a link to his quote.) what the media puts across to the masses is not always grounded in science. as long as it references even the itty bittiest soundbite from a study, it will be portrayed as fact, when it isn't. i've worked with, in, and for the media in the past and know first hand how information is distorted to present what people want to hear, particularly when those 'people' pay their bills. the information is out there, it just takes some effort to look for it. the choice belongs to each of us whether we want to make that effort, or whether we want to just spread misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mareesta Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 (edited) mareesta, you have to look beyond the politically correct REPORTS that are even made available and dig into the actual RESEARCH, even on the cdc site. i've posted the link to it enough times so feel free to search my posts, but right now i don't have the time nor the inclination to do so again. LadyC did you even check into the CDC fact sheet site? It is pretty clear? http://www.cdc.gov/TOBACCO/factsheets/seco...e_factsheet.htm Are you saying that the CDC does not know what it is saying? What comes off of the tip of the cigarette is potent with many harmful chemicals. Did you know that to drink, ingest a small amount of pure nicotine can kill a small child and a larger amount can kill an adult? Nicotine, cigarettes are not insignificant in any way. I cannot stay in a room full of smokers smoking for very long when my eyes water and burn and I cough and boy do I want a cigarette but I now know the dangers for other people and myself and I don't want to go back to it. Second hand smoke definitely is not insignificant. Edited October 30, 2006 by mareesta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 i've read it, mareesta, and no i'm not saying they don't know what they're talking about. as i stated already, you have to look deeper onto the CDC website to obtain the actual research findings and study them yourself. and like i've also said, i've posted a link to that page a number of times on this board, so if you search my posts, i'm sure you'll find it. thing is, to date not a single person has been interested in looking at the research and reading it, so i'm not wasting my time looking it up again. but it's there. what i DO say the CDC is doing, though, is bowing to political pressure and publishing a factsheet that is deceptive because it doesn't bother to indicate that the results were inconclusive. why would they do that? because it is a government office. and the government is in charge. this is no different from the infamous report by dr. bemiss in the mid 1800s which used inconclusive data (and in his case, outright false information) to support what the government paid him to find, which was for the purpose of legally banning certain marriages to prevent rapid assimilation of immigrants. that is exactly what is occurring in current times, to make the masses more accepting of laws that restrict their personal freedom. and it's working, too, just like it did when the government paid dr. bemiss. the information is out there. you can choose to be truly informed, or you can choose to believe what they're brainwashing society to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
He giveth more grace Posted October 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 123 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,049 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 267 Days Won: 9 Joined: 10/22/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 31, 2006 About the greasy fried foods: Buy a quart of Extra Virgin Olive Oil and fry some chicken, if she likes it maybe she start buying the Olive Oil - it's very healthy. My mother (89) has Acid Reflux desease and ever after I started frying with the Olive Oil she doesn't have any trouble whatsoever with the desease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkest_red Posted October 31, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 67 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 887 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 58 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/05/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/23/1986 Share Posted October 31, 2006 umm you're a big boy aren't you?? You can cook for yourself. I understand that it's hard with all that temptation...but it's never going to be easy! As far as the smoking goes- it's her house. Sierra As much as I respect you, Leonard, this is only one study that has been done. I guarantee you I could come up with many studies both pro and con concerning the effects of smoking. It's not just the fear of getting cancer through second hand smokethat bothers me, it's just the fact that I find it an incredibly nasty habit that effects my life as well as hers. She'll be smoking a cig and then put it down and touch all the food with her hands while she's blowing smoke all over the food as she prepares it. If we're in the car, she lights up and I have to cough and choke it all down. Do you see what I mean? I understand that my mom has a terrible habit and it's very dificult to break. I have compassion for her, but she just doesn't understand that non-smokers don't really want to suffer along with her. This is just my cross to bear for a while I guess. Is it your car? If it is, I don't see that there would be anything wrong with saying she can't smoke in it. If it isn't your car, you could ask if she'd mind waiting. Otherwise, keep the windows down! About the greasy fried foods: Buy a quart of Extra Virgin Olive Oil and fry some chicken, if she likes it maybe she start buying the Olive Oil - it's very healthy. My mother (89) has Acid Reflux desease and ever after I started frying with the Olive Oil she doesn't have any trouble whatsoever with the desease. I was going to suggest something similar! My boyfriend's mum uses a spray on oil thing which is a lot healthier than most alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mareesta Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 i've read it, mareesta, and no i'm not saying they don't know what they're talking about. as i stated already, you have to look deeper onto the CDC website to obtain the actual research findings and study them yourself. and like i've also said, i've posted a link to that page a number of times on this board, so if you search my posts, i'm sure you'll find it. thing is, to date not a single person has been interested in looking at the research and reading it, so i'm not wasting my time looking it up again. but it's there. what i DO say the CDC is doing, though, is bowing to political pressure and publishing a factsheet that is deceptive because it doesn't bother to indicate that the results were inconclusive. why would they do that? because it is a government office. and the government is in charge. this is no different from the infamous report by dr. bemiss in the mid 1800s which used inconclusive data (and in his case, outright false information) to support what the government paid him to find, which was for the purpose of legally banning certain marriages to prevent rapid assimilation of immigrants. that is exactly what is occurring in current times, to make the masses more accepting of laws that restrict their personal freedom. and it's working, too, just like it did when the government paid dr. bemiss. the information is out there. you can choose to be truly informed, or you can choose to believe what they're brainwashing society to believe. Lady C What would be the benefit to the government to publish that second hand smoke is harmful when they want people to smoke because they make a lot of money off of it. They would say that it was not harmful, insignificant, so people would keep on smoking and thinking they weren't hurting anyone. So they would keep on buying cigarettes and the government keeps making money off of it. What you are saying makes no sense to me. I am not wishing to argue, just to understand. What you are saying is that if I breathe in the toxic fumes off of cigarettes and all the smoke, that it is not harmful and I just don't get that. Unless, of course, the government doesn't make any money off of cigarettes. Then I would understand. I stay away from places that are smoke filled because I don't want my eyes to burn, I don't want to cough, I don't want to stink, I don't want to muck up my lungs anymore.....has nothing to do with being brainwashed. And I am grateful that almost all places I go are smoke free. And I have nothing against people who smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 ok mareesta, it doesn't have to make sense to you. the government made a lot of money off alcohol at one point too, but that didnt stop them from passing the prohibition laws. and chances are that if they banned cigarettes, they might regret it and repeal it the same way. bottom line is, the truth is out there if you choose to really beyond the hype and dig deeper. if you don't want to, that's fine. it's not any sweat off my back. for the record, i don't appreciate you twisting my words. i never said second hand smoke isn't harmful. i've said there is no conclusive evidence AT ALL that it CAUSES disease. i have also said quite clearly that it absolutely does aggravate existing conditions. and that aggravation, i might add, can be fatal. usually isn't, but it can be. most often, smoke is a stinky nuisance that non-smokers want banned. if you want to know what's more likely than second hand smoke to kill you or your children, go look under your kitchen sink or wherever you keep your cleaning supplies. because unless you use organic cleansers, you have lethal toxins in your own home that you probably use every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 oh, and please look up (or scroll back to) the definition of the scientific term "statistically insignificant". it might help prevent you from misquoting me in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts