From elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.iosphere.net!news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!iag.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!news Thu Oct 17 08:22:34 1996 Xref: elastic sci.data.formats:506 sci.environment:29471 sci.med:36376 sci.med.cardiology:2562 sci.med.nursing:8817 sci.misc:6425 sci.research:2343 talk.environment:29294 talk.politics.medicine:24731 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!onramp.ca!news2.insinc.net!news.iosphere.net!news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!iag.net!newspump.sol.net!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!news From: "Tim R. Benson" Newsgroups: alt.smokers,sci.med,sci.med.cardiology,talk.politics.medicine,talk.environment,sci.research,sci.misc,sci.med.nursing,sci.med.ciseases.cancer,sci.environment,sci.data.formats,alt.smokers,alt.politics.correct Subject: Re: SECOND HAND SMOKE RISKS...READ IF YOU DARE! Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 17:31:51 -0500 Organization: CHE Lines: 35 Message-ID: <3262BF57.446B@iastate.edu> References: <325BED0A.794B@iastate.edu> <53hn5s$9ve@netnews.upenn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pv0451.vincent.iastate.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (X11; I; OSF1 V3.2 alpha) Ellen Prince wrote: > > In article <325BED0A.794B@iastate.edu>, > Tim R. Benson wrote: > > >The excess risk was 24% for household (spousal) exposure to tobacco > >smoke, 39% for workplace exposure, and 50% for exposure in social > >settings. > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Ellen Prince wrote: > Wonderful. The last EPA bullshit posted here claimed that 'shs' was > carcinogenic because the WIVES of smokers were at such a terribly high risk, > higher than those women who were NOT wives of smokers. THESE figures tell a > very different story -- they say that a lousy 24% of the nonsmoking women with > lung cancer had husbands that smoked. Whoops, that's not good enough for the > EPA! So they checked further and discovered they could blame a chunk on > 'workplace exposure' -- which is right up their alley since that would incite > people to demand anti-smoking laws at work. But that STILL didn't do the job -- > so they came up with the (thitherto unnoticed) BIG risk -- 'social settings'!!! > Whoopdi-doo, now they can incite people to demand anti-smoking laws in bars, > restaurants, private clubs, you name it. > > Ok, now you tell me -- where's the control group? Where did they find those > '1253 randomly selected' women who are not exposed to smoke at home, at work, > or in social settings?!?!? Did they discover some huge convent at the summit of > Mt Everest or deep in caves in the Australian outback? > > Inquiring minds want to know. Even YOUR mind should be a little curious... ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// -- Comments anyone? Tim R. Benson trbenson@iastate.edu