• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Fuck you, Science!

12916339_10153504737273994_7003608585405524180_o.jpg
 
yes, but bars, restaurants and public spaces are infinitely better when smokers are banished.
 
awaken said:
Secondhand Smoke Is Not Nearly As Dangerous As We Thought. Shouldn’t That Matter?
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ad_as_we_thought.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_em_top

Bad, agenda driven "science" is dangerous.
Click to expand...

ha

seems like the conclusions are just that smoking bans aren't as effective, not that second hand smoke is any less dangerous

and for an article suggesting headlines are badly written, this one lacks self-awareness

as with most of these reports, the problems aren't with the science underlying the studies, they're with the way the science gets reported on, or especially how the science affects policy
 
as for the claim that agenda driven science is dangerous, do you really think studying the effects of second hand smoke is dangerous and agenda driven?

cause cancer rates and cancer mortality have fallen in the last decade, and it's most likely attributable to prevention efforts - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21387/full

and for what it's worth, this is the highest cited paper in the world every year
 
the premise of the article is dumb

basically, papers studying whether smoking bans work have a hard time establishing causality because people have heart attacks for lots of reasons, like being old or fat or having a genetic predisposition, and not just for smoking or being around smokers a lot

it's only one reason why epidemiological studies are hard to do well, and why basic research is almost always better

but the primary thrust of the slate article is that the science has changed since the oft-quoted helena study

and yea, it would have been dumb to make nationwide policy based on a tiny sample size in montana with data that wasn't good to begin with, but that's not what happened, and if the suggestion is that we should rethink whether we should expose ourselves to secondhand smoke, uh, no
 
This is why we need human testing. You don't think second hand smoke is that bad? You stand in an airport smoking section once a day for an hour, every year we give you 10,000 dollars. If you never get sick you keep the money and when you die of natural causes you get a 100,000 dollar family bonus. If you die of complications related to second hand smoking you owe the money back and any unpaid money is debt that is transferred to your family.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
This is why we need human testing. You don't think second hand smoke is that bad? You stand in an airport smoking section once a day for an hour, every year we give you 10,000 dollars. If you never get sick you keep the money and when you die of natural causes you get a 100,000 dollar family bonus. If you die of complications related to second hand smoking you owe the money back and any unpaid money is debt that is transferred to your family.
Click to expand...

So this is how we'll bring jobs back to America.
 
Casinos in AC are 80% smoke free. While not perfect, it's much more pleasant than Vegas.
 
So bad science is OK as long as it supports your personal preference? That's dangerous. Next time, you may be the target of bad science.

Also, credibility is everything; and this chips away at science's credibility. It is crying wolf.
 
awaken said:
So bad science is OK as long as it supports your personal preference? That's dangerous. Next time, you may be the target of bad science.

Also, credibility is everything; and this chips away at science's credibility. It is crying wolf.
Click to expand...

is it bad if we thought it was good science at the time and it turns out to have a good outcome?
 
Is it true that one solitary study led to smoking bans? Or is it multiple studies over a long period of time along with a growing preference of non-smokers not to be around smoke?

I ask mainly because smoking bans started well before 2003.
 
Define good outcome?

Your personal preference? RJR and Philip Morris stockholders? Who makes them whole due to this lie? Smokers bearing the brunt of policies set by bad science?


If science isn't about finding out truth and facts then it's just #alternate facts, #fake news.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
i think his point is that scientific studies are only one part of public policy decisions
 
Most public health policy doesn't happen in some singular vacuum. It usually has the backing through 100s to 1000s of studies. The problem is that for people to see actual outcomes you need policy to be put in place somewhere before completely determining how things have changed. Smoking also is a poor example of policy simply because of the long list of associated risks but more importantly the annoyance factor completely absent the health factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top