Second Hand Smoke Toxic

Marsha wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:

witness of how deadline second hand smoke is. I smoked for 30+
years without any ill effects. My daughter has now been smoking
20 years while I quit in 1992,

Why did you quit?

Certainly NOT for health reasons or any of the so-called scientific
studies on the subject -- never had a SINGLE such study been based
on a carefully controlled and designed study on HUMANS. This
part is statistically too advanced to expound in any newsgroup forum.

I quit SOLELY because of the social stigma and inconvenience
imposed by politicians. One trigger event was the fact that I had a
wonderful office on the 7th floor of Harvard's Science Building,
teaching advanced statistics to Harvard Ph.D.s and M.D.s. But
every time I wanted to smoke, I had to go down 7 floors, went outside
to smoke, and then get back -- a tremendous waste of time and
nuisance. Of coures the other inconveniences are smokers are
treated as lepers or second class citizens by airlines, ships,
public transportation, public and private buildings, etc., etc.

So, in 1992 when I had to stay in a hospital for nearly two weeks
for a heart VALVE transplant operation (which was certainily not
smoking related), and of course I couldn't smoke in the hospital,
when I left the hospital, I just decided to quit smoking cold turkey.
Never missed it a day. Never had any urge to smoke, and never
had any smoke-related ill effects. In fact *I* was surprised, having
heard all those myths about gummed up lungs and other parts
of the body, that there was NONE of that in any part of my body
that any of the physicians and cardiologists ever said a word
about!

So, I have merely proved that smoking is NOT physically addictive
-- like cocaine, heroine, or opium -- there is not a single of those
having done those drug for even as much as 10 years not to be
an addicted junkie. I not only didn't have any withdrawal effect,
I did not even MISS that long-time habit the least bit. And I don't
mind if others smoke, smoke in my presence or next to me.

That's the way it was, and that's the way it is.


My daughter has not suffered any ill effect from 2nd hand AND 1st hand
smoking. My wife, who had never smoked, had just recovered from cancer
last year. Quacks would say her cancer was caused by second hand
smoke.
-- Bob.

My father smoked heavily. My mother
never touched a cigarette in her entire
life and was never exposed to much
cigarette smoke except around my father.
During one of her first
hospitalizations around age 55, the
doctor was sure she she was a long-term
smoker, because her pulmonary function
tests were not very good and there was
no other reason why.

That only proved the incompetence of the doc! It's anecdotal
accounts of quackery like this that helped build the myth of the
effect of 2nd hand smoke, which there is NO WAY for a scientist
to isolate from OTHER causes and factors that gave rise to hte
same ailment or symptoms. OR ... it's a matter of genetics that
some people are virtually immune to certain diseases while
others are prone to have it because of his/her genes, not
because of all the other unproven conjectures that had been
advanced as if they were proven causes.

She was classified
as having moderate COPD. That could
only have been due to secondhand smoke.

Or the diagnosis of an incompetent quack. Medicine is such
an inexact science that most of the time medical doctors are
just making WAG (wild-ass guesses). When they guessed
wrong and killed a patient, some states made it virtually
impossible to convict a medical quack for malpractice! Talk
to some medical malpractice lawyers in your state and you'll
find out why!

Marsha/Ohio

-- Bob.

Reef Fish wrote:
Marsha wrote:
Why did you quit?


So, in 1992 when I had to stay in a hospital for nearly two weeks
for a heart VALVE transplant operation (which was certainily not
smoking related),

Maybe it wasn't related in your case,
but some valve diseases are caused by
coronary artery disease, which in turn
can be caused by smoking. I've worked
in open-heart surgery for over 20 years
and I see the damage that smoking,
primary or secondhand, can do to the
heart and lungs.


So, I have merely proved that smoking is NOT physically addictive
-- like cocaine, heroine, or opium -- there is not a single of those
having done those drug for even as much as 10 years not to be
an addicted junkie. I not only didn't have any withdrawal effect,
I did not even MISS that long-time habit the least bit. And I don't
mind if others smoke, smoke in my presence or next to me.

That's the way it was, and that's the way it is.

I also quit without any problems, after
smoking for 15 years. Some people can
and some people can't.


My daughter has not suffered any ill effect from 2nd hand AND 1st hand
smoking. My wife, who had never smoked, had just recovered from cancer
last year. Quacks would say her cancer was caused by second hand
smoke.
-- Bob.

She hasn't yet. The most you can say is
that smoking doesn't cause cancer or
heart disease in everyone.

My father smoked heavily. My mother
never touched a cigarette in her entire
life and was never exposed to much
cigarette smoke except around my father.
During one of her first
hospitalizations around age 55, the
doctor was sure she she was a long-term
smoker, because her pulmonary function
tests were not very good and there was
no other reason why.


That only proved the incompetence of the doc! It's anecdotal
accounts of quackery like this that helped build the myth of the
effect of 2nd hand smoke, which there is NO WAY for a scientist
to isolate from OTHER causes and factors that gave rise to hte
same ailment or symptoms. OR ... it's a matter of genetics that
some people are virtually immune to certain diseases while
others are prone to have it because of his/her genes, not
because of all the other unproven conjectures that had been
advanced as if they were proven causes.

No quackery or incompetent doc. She had
the classic signs of COPD - barrel
chest, poor lung functions, hard to wean
from the vent after surgery, etc. She
most definitely had some degree of COPD.


She was classified
as having moderate COPD. That could
only have been due to secondhand smoke.


Or the diagnosis of an incompetent quack. Medicine is such
an inexact science that most of the time medical doctors are
just making WAG (wild-ass guesses). When they guessed
wrong and killed a patient, some states made it virtually
impossible to convict a medical quack for malpractice! Talk
to some medical malpractice lawyers in your state and you'll
find out why!
-- Bob.

Even a quack could have diagnosed her,
it was that obvious. As I said, the
only cause could have been secondhand
smoke. BTW, my father also eventually
showed signs of smoking - heart disease,
COPD, peripheral vascular disease.

I will just agree to disagree with you,
Bob. I'm glad you did quit. Think of
all the money you're saving :-)

Marsha/Ohio

On 3 Feb 2006 02:26:51 -0800, "Reef Fish"
wrote:



I quit SOLELY because of the social stigma and inconvenience
imposed by politicians. One trigger event was the fact that I had a
wonderful office on the 7th floor of Harvard's Science Building,
teaching advanced statistics to Harvard Ph.D.s and M.D.s. But
every time I wanted to smoke, I had to go down 7 floors, went outside
to smoke, and then get back -- a tremendous waste of time and
nuisance. Of coures the other inconveniences are smokers are
treated as lepers or second class citizens by airlines, ships,
public transportation, public and private buildings, etc., etc.

So, in 1992 when I had to stay in a hospital for nearly two weeks
for a heart VALVE transplant operation (which was certainily not
smoking related), and of course I couldn't smoke in the hospital,
when I left the hospital, I just decided to quit smoking cold turkey.
Never missed it a day. Never had any urge to smoke, and never
had any smoke-related ill effects. In fact *I* was surprised, having
heard all those myths about gummed up lungs and other parts
of the body, that there was NONE of that in any part of my body
that any of the physicians and cardiologists ever said a word
about!

So, I have merely proved that smoking is NOT physically addictive
-- like cocaine, heroine, or opium -- there is not a single of those
having done those drug for even as much as 10 years not to be
an addicted junkie. I not only didn't have any withdrawal effect,
I did not even MISS that long-time habit the least bit. And I don't
mind if others smoke, smoke in my presence or next to me.

You taught advanced statistics at Harvard and aren't familiar with the
Bell Curve? Or do you just choose to ignore it?

"Reef Fish" posted the exciting message
oups.com:


Reef Fish wrote:

So, I have merely proved that smoking is NOT physically addictive
-- like cocaine, heroine, or opium -- there is not a single of those
having done those drug for even as much as 10 years not to be
an addicted junkie. I not only didn't have any withdrawal effect,
I did not even MISS that long-time habit the least bit. And I don't
mind if others smoke, smoke in my presence or next to me.

Of course, you know that your experience is not statistically significant.
One of the major challenges of pharmaceutics is that living systems may
react very differently by individual. Smoking may not have been physically
addictive FOR YOU, but you can't conclude that in general.

Marsha wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:

She was classified
as having moderate COPD. That could
only have been due to secondhand smoke.

That is called a faulty premise. No M.D., quack or no quack
could EVER correctly say something can "only have been
due to secondhand smoke".



Or the diagnosis of an incompetent quack. Medicine is such
an inexact science that most of the time medical doctors are
just making WAG (wild-ass guesses). When they guessed
wrong and killed a patient, some states made it virtually
impossible to convict a medical quack for malpractice! Talk
to some medical malpractice lawyers in your state and you'll
find out why!
-- Bob.

Even a quack could have diagnosed her,
it was that obvious. As I said, the
only cause could have been secondhand
smoke.

You are just repeating the faulty premise as your conclusion.
Of the 100,000,000 factors that could have caused whatever
ailment in the case in question, it is absurd to say that it
could ONLY be caused by secondhand smoke. It could have
been caused by 1,000 other things the Quack didn't know about
or hadn't thought of.


BTW, my father also eventually
showed signs of smoking - heart disease,
COPD, peripheral vascular disease.

Your parents could have been drinking the same polluted
water that caused their diseases, to mention only ONE of
at least a thousand plausible causes.


I will just agree to disagree with you,

That's always the perrogative of any discussant. But
it's an empty discussion unless one has a more
credible and substantive basis for one's belief than
citing a false premise, or use the ultimate cop out
argument such as "I believe because so and so said so."

Bob. I'm glad you did quit. Think of
all the money you're saving :-)

To do WHAT? Take to the grave?

-- Bob.

Marsha/Ohio

Brian wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 02:26:51 -0800, "Reef Fish"
wrote:



I quit SOLELY because of the social stigma and inconvenience
imposed by politicians. One trigger event was the fact that I had a
wonderful office on the 7th floor of Harvard's Science Building,
teaching advanced statistics to Harvard Ph.D.s and M.D.s. But
every time I wanted to smoke, I had to go down 7 floors, went outside
to smoke, and then get back -- a tremendous waste of time and
nuisance. Of coures the other inconveniences are smokers are
treated as lepers or second class citizens by airlines, ships,
public transportation, public and private buildings, etc., etc.

So, in 1992 when I had to stay in a hospital for nearly two weeks
for a heart VALVE transplant operation (which was certainily not
smoking related), and of course I couldn't smoke in the hospital,
when I left the hospital, I just decided to quit smoking cold turkey.
Never missed it a day. Never had any urge to smoke, and never
had any smoke-related ill effects. In fact *I* was surprised, having
heard all those myths about gummed up lungs and other parts
of the body, that there was NONE of that in any part of my body
that any of the physicians and cardiologists ever said a word
about!

So, I have merely proved that smoking is NOT physically addictive
-- like cocaine, heroine, or opium -- there is not a single of those
having done those drug for even as much as 10 years not to be
an addicted junkie. I not only didn't have any withdrawal effect,
I did not even MISS that long-time habit the least bit. And I don't
mind if others smoke, smoke in my presence or next to me.

You taught advanced statistics at Harvard and aren't familiar with the
Bell Curve? Or do you just choose to ignore it?

What Bell Curve? There is no statistical pdf (that you call a curve)
that is shaped like a Bell. Only the uneducated would call any
probability density function a Bell Curve. Even a bell-shaped curve
is a misnomer. Besides, what's the relevance of a Gaussian
distribution in this case?

-- Bob.

Prime wrote:
"Reef Fish" posted the exciting message
oups.com:


Reef Fish wrote:

So, I have merely proved that smoking is NOT physically addictive
-- like cocaine, heroine, or opium -- there is not a single of those
having done those drug for even as much as 10 years not to be
an addicted junkie. I not only didn't have any withdrawal effect,
I did not even MISS that long-time habit the least bit. And I don't
mind if others smoke, smoke in my presence or next to me.

I am taking the term "addiction" to mean those that have NO
EXCEPTIONS. Do you know of a SINGLE case of prolonged
cocaine, heroine, or opium that was NOT physically addictive?


Of course, you know that your experience is not statistically significant.

How do you know what is statistically significant or not? If it has
never been known in the history of mankind that anyone could
drink a quart of cyanine and survive; and one person drank a
gallon and survived -- that would be incredibly significant.

One of the major challenges of pharmaceutics is that living systems may
react very differently by individual. Smoking may not have been physically
addictive FOR YOU, but you can't conclude that in general.

But THEN concluded in general, not only not based on research
done on humans, but extrapolated from results on RATS! Of course
the "addiction" claim was not even based on collected statistics
on designed studes!

-- Bob.

"Reef Fish" posted the exciting message
ups.com:


Prime wrote:
"Reef Fish" posted the exciting
message oups.com:


Reef Fish wrote:

So, I have merely proved that smoking is NOT physically addictive
-- like cocaine, heroine, or opium -- there is not a single of
those having done those drug for even as much as 10 years not to be
an addicted junkie. I not only didn't have any withdrawal effect,
I did not even MISS that long-time habit the least bit. And I
don't mind if others smoke, smoke in my presence or next to me.

I am taking the term "addiction" to mean those that have NO
EXCEPTIONS. Do you know of a SINGLE case of prolonged
cocaine, heroine, or opium that was NOT physically addictive?


Of course, you know that your experience is not statistically
significant.

How do you know what is statistically significant or not?

One sampling of a large population does not necessarily well represent
the entire population.

Prime wrote:
"Reef Fish" posted the exciting message
ups.com:


Prime wrote:
"Reef Fish" posted the exciting
message oups.com:


Reef Fish wrote:

So, I have merely proved that smoking is NOT physically addictive
-- like cocaine, heroine, or opium -- there is not a single of
those having done those drug for even as much as 10 years not to be
an addicted junkie. I not only didn't have any withdrawal effect,
I did not even MISS that long-time habit the least bit. And I
don't mind if others smoke, smoke in my presence or next to me.

I am taking the term "addiction" to mean those that have NO
EXCEPTIONS. Do you know of a SINGLE case of prolonged
cocaine, heroine, or opium that was NOT physically addictive?


Of course, you know that your experience is not statistically
significant.

How do you know what is statistically significant or not?

One sampling of a large population does not necessarily well represent
the entire population.

You are missing the whole point. It has NOTHING to do with
representing
any population, or any subpopulation at all.

Addiction is a rule WITHOUT exception. Prolonged use of heroine IS
an addiction.

It's takes only ONE counterexample, as in a mathematical proof, to
invalidate the general claim. The burden of proof lies with the party
that makes the claim that something is an addiction.

If you can find one person who is NOT an addicted junkie for having
used heroine for years, then you would have disproved that heroine
is an addiction.

-- Bob.

Reef Fish wrote:
Prime wrote:
"Reef Fish" posted the exciting message
ups.com:


Prime wrote:
"Reef Fish" posted the exciting
message oups.com:


Reef Fish wrote:

So, I have merely proved that smoking is NOT physically addictive
-- like cocaine, heroine, or opium -- there is not a single of
those having done those drug for even as much as 10 years not to be
an addicted junkie. I not only didn't have any withdrawal effect,
I did not even MISS that long-time habit the least bit. And I
don't mind if others smoke, smoke in my presence or next to me.

I am taking the term "addiction" to mean those that have NO
EXCEPTIONS. Do you know of a SINGLE case of prolonged
cocaine, heroine, or opium that was NOT physically addictive?


Addiction is a rule WITHOUT exception. Prolonged use of heroine IS
an addiction.

It's takes only ONE counterexample, as in a mathematical proof, to
invalidate the general claim. The burden of proof lies with the party
that makes the claim that something is an addiction.


This webpage should help you understand the term "addiction":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

First of all, it lacks a "definition". Then the page goes on to give
the CHARACTERIZATION of what constitutes addiction:

* Essentially, addiction designates a process whereby a behavior,
* that can function both to produce pleasure and to provide escape
* from internal discomfort, is employed in a pattern characterized by


* (1) recurrent failure to control the behaviour (powerlessness) and

I had no problem controlling the behaviour, at first try, cold turkey.

* (2) continuation of the behaviour despite significant negative
* consequences (unmanageability).

I smoked for 30+ years and had no negative consequences.

Ergo, the Surgeon General is talking through his hat when he
declared smoking is an addiction and nicotine is an additive drug,
based on my experience alone, not to mention those of others
who had similar experience of no withdrawal, no pain, in quitting.

-- Bob.