Where are all the angry antis?

Not to mention they found HPV in the cancerous tissue but not the surrounding tissue. Now that is hard science not weak statistics.

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>
Again you are missing the point. The RR for ETS is 1.21 which by the way has never been acceptable as proof as cause for anyone other then anti-smoking activist. compared to an odds ratio of over 10 for HPV. I will give you the same challenge that I have given everyone else. Name on cause of a disease with a RR as low as ETS that has been proven conclusive.

So, you give the RR for ETS, but NOT for HPV? Why not? Can you not figure out the RR from the information?

More on HPV and cancer.

The new study looked at more than 30 years of National Cancer Institute data on oral cancers. Researchers categorized about 46,000 cases, using a formula to divide them into those caused by HPV and those not connected to the virus.

They concluded the incidence rates for HPV-related oral cancers rose steadily in men from 1973 to 2004, becoming about as common as those from tobacco and alcohol.

The good news is that survival rates for the cancer are also increasing. That's because tumors caused by HPV respond better to chemotherapy and radiation, Gillison said.

"If current trends continue, within the next 10 years there may be more oral cancers in the United States caused by HPV than tobacco or alcohol," Gillison said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22956090/

get it wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you give the RR for ETS, but NOT for HPV? Why not? Can you not figure out the RR from the information?

Without access to the actual numbers from the study it is not as simple as doing a conversion and be accurate. I am also aware that odds ratio's tend to exaggerate but the difference is massive. And in this country they are just looking into HPV as a possible cause of lung cancer. HPV use to be ignored ... How many of the claimed lung cancer deaths were caused by HPV instead of ETS????? You still have not named on disease with a RR about the same as ETS that has been proven as fact!

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>
Again you are missing the point. The RR for ETS is 1.21 which by the way has never been acceptable as proof as cause for anyone other then anti-smoking activist. compared to an odds ratio of over 10 for HPV. I will give you the same challenge that I have given everyone else. Name on cause of a disease with a RR as low as ETS that has been proven conclusive.

If you play Russian Roulette with a 6 shot revolver, then you have a 16.7% chance of being killed during 1 trial. If you play Russian Roulette with a 5 shot revolver, then you have a 20% chance of being killed. The RR of a 5 shot revolver, when compared to a 6 shot revolver is 1.19. Basically, what that means is that you have a 19% higher chance of being killed when playing with the 5 shot as oposed to the 6 shot revolver. When you are talking about preventable illness, the 19% is pretty considerable, at least to those of us who have chosen not to smoke. I do not give a damn what you believe or do not believe because you are unable to show me that SHS is harmless. SHS irritates my lungs and makes it more difficult for me to breathe. That makes it credible for me to believe that SHS is harmful. Additionally, since smoking kills, it is reasonable to assume that SHS also kills, though it poses a smaller risk than smoking itself.

You think that crap websites like Dave Hitt and the wisconsin anti ban site will keep the smoking bans and the increased taxes from coming, but it will not.

Remember, that this is a two pronged battle. Bans are one part and taxes are another. Indiana did not see a comprehensive ban this year, but the state did see an increase in smoke taxes.

You do not seem to realize the sheer number of people that do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. Look at Ohio. The voters VOTED FOR a ban. That lends credence to all the polls that show that most people favor smoking bans and that most people believe that SHS is not safe.

Keep on fighting and us "antis" will keep on raising your smoke taxes to exorbatant levels while we implement the smoking bans. One way or another we will decrease our exposure to SHS.

Free_America wrote:

More on HPV and cancer.
The new study looked at more than 30 years of National Cancer Institute data on oral cancers. Researchers categorized about 46,000 cases, using a formula to divide them into those caused by HPV and those not connected to the virus.
They concluded the incidence rates for HPV-related oral cancers rose steadily in men from 1973 to 2004, becoming about as common as those from tobacco and alcohol.
The good news is that survival rates for the cancer are also increasing. That's because tumors caused by HPV respond better to chemotherapy and radiation, Gillison said.
"If current trends continue, within the next 10 years there may be more oral cancers in the United States caused by HPV than tobacco or alcohol," Gillison said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22956090/

That still is not a rationale for rolling back smoking bans. It is a rationale for working on reducing the exposure to HPV, much as we are reducing the exposure to SHS.

I will give you a hint.
http://nasw.org/awards/1996/96Taubesarticle.h...

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Without access to the actual numbers from the study it is not as simple as doing a conversion and be accurate. I am also aware that odds ratio's tend to exaggerate but the difference is massive. And in this country they are just looking into HPV as a possible cause of lung cancer. HPV use to be ignored ... How many of the claimed lung cancer deaths were caused by HPV instead of ETS????? You still have not named on disease with a RR about the same as ETS that has been proven as fact!

I do not have to. There are enough studies indicating that ETS causes illness in non smokers to warrant action. You are unable to prove that ETS does NOT cause illness.

get it wrote:

<quoted text>
If you play Russian Roulette with a 6 shot revolver, then you have a 16.7% chance of being killed during 1 trial. If you play Russian Roulette with a 5 shot revolver, then you have a 20% chance of being killed. The RR of a 5 shot revolver, when compared to a 6 shot revolver is 1.19. Basically, what that means is that you have a 19% higher chance of being killed when playing with the 5 shot as oposed to the 6 shot revolver. When you are talking about preventable illness, the 19% is pretty considerable, at least to those of us who have chosen not to smoke. I do not give a damn what you believe or do not believe because you are unable to show me that SHS is harmless. SHS irritates my lungs and makes it more difficult for me to breathe. That makes it credible for me to believe that SHS is harmful. Additionally, since smoking kills, it is reasonable to assume that SHS also kills, though it poses a smaller risk than smoking itself.
You think that crap websites like Dave Hitt and the wisconsin anti ban site will keep the smoking bans and the increased taxes from coming, but it will not.
Remember, that this is a two pronged battle. Bans are one part and taxes are another. Indiana did not see a comprehensive ban this year, but the state did see an increase in smoke taxes.
You do not seem to realize the sheer number of people that do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. Look at Ohio..

Just like the science behind the ban the law has never made it to the supreme court. Hell it took years for the DC gun laws to make it to the supreme court. Iowa and tavern leagues from other states are banding together to push the matter into the supreme court. The bans constitute taking private property for public use a clear no no under the fifth amendment. If you think that business loose their constitutional rights because the public is invited in. I suggest you look at this supreme court ruling.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
When It comes to Ohio they were lied to on the ballot, they thought that private clubs and family owned business were excluded and they are pissed. As a matter of fact there are two bills submitted to committee making just those exemptions.

Oh and yes again from ban the ban

The smoking ban is a roaring success here are some of smoke free's greatest triumphs.
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/...

get it wrote:

<quoted text>
If you play Russian Roulette with a 6 shot revolver, then you have a 16.7% chance of being killed during 1 trial. If you play Russian Roulette with a 5 shot revolver, then you have a 20% chance of being killed. The RR of a 5 shot revolver, when compared to a 6 shot revolver is 1.19. Basically, what that means is that you have a 19% higher chance of being killed when playing with the 5 shot as oposed to the 6 shot revolver. When you are talking about preventable illness, the 19% is pretty considerable, at least to those of us who have chosen not to smoke. I do not give a damn what you believe or do not believe because you are unable to show me that SHS is harmless. SHS irritates my lungs and makes it more difficult for me to breathe. That makes it credible for me to believe that SHS is harmful. Additionally, since smoking kills, it is reasonable to assume that SHS also kills, though it poses a smaller risk than smoking itself.
You think that crap websites like Dave Hitt and the wisconsin anti ban site will keep the smoking bans and the increased taxes from coming, but it will not.
Remember, that this is a two pronged battle. Bans are one part and taxes are another. Indiana did not see a comprehensive ban this year, but the state did see an increase in smoke taxes.
You do not seem to realize the sheer number of people that do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. Look at Ohio. The voters VOTED FOR a ban. That lends credence to all the polls that show that most people favor smoking bans and that most people believe that SHS is not safe.
Keep on fighting and us "antis" will keep on raising your smoke taxes to exorbatant levels while we implement the smoking bans. One way or another we will decrease our exposure to SHS.

Maybe it is you that should go back to school and retake statistics.
A RR of 1.21 does not mean that you have a 21% chance of getting the disease. Hell if you by two lottery tickets instead of one your RR would be 2.0 which is a 200% increase in chances of winning. A far cry from and more realistic scenario then your Russian roulette scenario. Especially when the RR for smokers is 20.0 to 40.0 depending on what study you look at. No that is a 2000% to 4000% increase.

get it wrote:

<quoted text>I do not have to. There are enough studies indicating that ETS causes illness in non smokers to warrant action. You are unable to prove that ETS does NOT cause illness.

No 3/4 of the studies were statistically insignificant. It took the EPA using Meta-Analysis (a way to cheat) to come to those conclusions. I suggest you look at the actual studies.
http://www.improvingmedicalstatistics.com/Met...
http://www.wlf.org/upload/GoriWP.pdf

Multiple Studies
Meta-analysis is the statistical technique used to pool results from different studies. Originally it was developed for summarizing the results of
homogeneous randomized clinical trials, which remains its legitimate application. However, using meta-analysis for pooling the results of diverse observational studies is fraught with irresolvable difficulties. The procedure gives different weights to studies, primarily in
relation to their size. However, meta-analysis does not pool the discrete data that originated each result, but only the final results of each study regardless of whether they are concordant or discordant, credible or not.
The procedure does not discriminate according to characteristics of each study, such as its design, data collection, standardizations, biases, confounders, adjustments, statistical procedures, etc. Meta-analysis,
therefore, produces only a weighted average of the final numerical results of the studies, but does not standardize, relieve, or control for differential
corruptions that may be present in each study. If characteristics other than study size are used in weighing studies (e.g. study quality), those characteristics are likely to be discretionary, judgmental, and conducive to different meta-analysis results when handled by different analysts. Statistical tests of homogeneity for a group of studies do exist, but again they relate only to numerical homogeneity and say nothing about
other determinant characteristics. The Reference Guide to Epidemiology of the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence
warns that [a] final problem with meta-analyses is that they generate a single estimate of risk and may lead to a false sense of security regarding the certainty of the estimate. People often tend to have an inordinate belief in the validity of findings when a single number is attached to them, and many of the difficulties that may arise in conducting a meta-analysis,
especially of observational studies like epidemiologic ones, may consequently be overlooked.
Therefore, with the exception of its use for summarizing
homogeneous randomized clinical studies, it should be manifest that metaanalysis can be used as a strategy to contrive meaning from studies that have no apparent meaning.
indeed, numerical transformations and renditions impart an
undeserved sense of accuracy and credibility to a background of vagueness
caused by study design deficiencies, asymmetries in data collection,
statistical error, biases, confounders, limitations of adjustments and
standardizations, prejudice, and more. Tests of statistical significance are
equally speculative, being no more than approximate summaries of
metaphorical primary data.
As a further cautionary note, the greater the complexity of the
statistical analysis in epidemiologic reports, the weaker the data is likely to
be. Known as data dredging, epidemiologists sometimes squeeze every
conceivable signal out of what is usually a congeries of data.
How do epidemiologists approach the inherent fragility of their
data?....

get it wrote:

<quoted text>
If you play Russian Roulette with a 6 shot revolver, then you have a 16.7% chance of being killed during 1 trial. If you play Russian Roulette with a 5 shot revolver, then you have a 20% chance of being killed. The RR of a 5 shot revolver, when compared to a 6 shot revolver is 1.19. Basically, what that means is that you have a 19% higher chance of being killed when playing with the 5 shot as oposed to the 6 shot revolver. When you are talking about preventable illness, the 19% is pretty considerable, at least to those of us who have chosen not to smoke. I do not give a damn what you believe or do not believe because you are unable to show me that SHS is harmless. SHS irritates my lungs and makes it more difficult for me to breathe. That makes it credible for me to believe that SHS is harmful. Additionally, since smoking kills, it is reasonable to assume that SHS also kills, though it poses a smaller risk than smoking itself.
You think that crap websites like Dave Hitt and the wisconsin anti ban site will keep the smoking bans and the increased taxes from coming, but it will not.
Remember, that this is a two pronged battle. Bans are one part and taxes are another. Indiana did not see a comprehensive ban this year, but the state did see an increase in smoke taxes.
You do not seem to realize the sheer number of people that do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. Look at Ohio. The voters VOTED FOR a ban. That lends credence to all the polls that show that most people favor smoking bans and that most people believe that SHS is not safe.
Keep on fighting and us "antis" will keep on raising your smoke taxes to exorbatant levels while we implement the smoking bans. One way or another we will decrease our exposure to SHS.

You couldn't even raise a doubt!

get it wrote:

<quoted text>I do not have to. There are enough studies indicating that ETS causes illness in non smokers to warrant action. You are unable to prove that ETS does NOT cause illness.

Last time I checked, in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. Studies funded by RWJF prove nothing but the corruption of their backers and followers.

Happy Contented Soul wrote:

<quoted text>Last time I checked, in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. Studies funded by RWJF prove nothing but the corruption of their backers and followers.

You are a MORON. Cigarettes have NO rights.

Happy Contented Soul wrote:

<quoted text>You couldn't even raise a doubt!

Here you are, fool:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cig_inc02.ht...

get it wrote:

<quoted text>
Here you are, fool:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cig_inc02.ht...

I get tobacco from the Indians. No taxes? And since Wisconsin raised the tax by a dollar people from all over the state go to the res and buy ciggs by the case. So they are losing tax money LMAO@U.
So even that plan was a dismal failure.

Smoking causes statistics ...

"Harvey Cushing" exclaimed that, like many other catchwords, prevention can be overworked:‘There is only one ultimate and effectual preventive for the maladies to which flesh is heir, and that is death.’ Life’s close link with cancer means the only way to prevent cancer is to prevent life. And, in a way, the only truly effective remedy for cancer is death.

The realization that cancer is not caused, and therefore, is not ‘preventable’ is a mixed blessing. The happy part is that the all- pervasive cancerophobia will disappear and we shall be able to sip coffee and enjoy a smoke without the subconscious feeling of committing slow suicide, by inviting cancer. The bitter part is that some of us - one in five - would always be doomed to cancer, no matter what. Sad? But that is how Nature operates

The word cancer causes phobics

Heres y'all phobes something else to shake and quake about
Reducing Potential Cancer Risks from Drinking Water Part I: Contaminant Sources and Drinking Water Standards
Fact Sheet #07a, March 1998

Many people are increasingly concerned about a variety of contaminants in drinking water, especially those which affect human health. Since the 1970s, when sampling for contaminants increased, hundreds of manufactured chemicals have been identified in various groundwater and other drinking water supplies.The presence of chemical contaminants in drinking water can be attributed to a variety of sources, including the improper disposal of household products and cleaning solvents, leaking land-fills and underground storage tanks, discharge from commercial businesses and industries, and increased pesticide use during the past 50 years.

Fortunately, the capability of laboratories to detect a wide range of chemicals has improved greatly during the past two decades. In addition, our scientific understanding of the health risks associated with drinking water contaminants has also improved. As a result, several home water treatment options are now available for reducing exposure to chemicals in drinking water.
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/FactSheet/Pes...

Hey phobes rats, they're trying to poison you LOL

Arsenic in Drinking Water
http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.a...