Watch out for Third-hand Smoke

[akumushi]

Sorry, that link was second hand smoke, here is a reference to the study about third hand smoke.
These studies are generally sponsered by anti-smoking groups, but they are done by impartial scientists with impartial science, so I wouldn't question the results just because the funding came from some a-holes that want to ban tobacco. It's not a question of whether or not smoking is a filthy habit, it's a question of whether or not we want the governent regulating our filthy habits

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by akumushi

These studies are generally sponsered by anti-smoking groups, but they are done by impartial scientists with impartial science, ...

I won't correct the spelling, but...

Sure, we all know how impartial they seem to be. Ever hear of global warming debate? Ever seen an anti-smoking group that will hire an impartial scientist? Every group with a goal will always fund someone else with same goals, otherwise its a waste of money on their part. I am not saying nicotine is not bad, I am simply pointing out that one can always "find" proof if need be, especially when there is money involved.

Going back to the first article posted, just how common is nitrous acid in everyday environment? This should be key and I would like to see some numbers, not only how common, but if it is, then at what levels and at that point, at what levels does it bind with nicotine. Without these numbers this whole debate is BS.

wow....

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by akumushi

These studies are generally sponsered by anti-smoking groups, but they are done by impartial scientists with impartial science, so I wouldn't question the results just because the funding came from some a-holes that want to ban tobacco. It's not a question of whether or not smoking is a filthy habit, it's a question of whether or not we want the governent regulating our filthy habits

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.

Originally Posted by BigCat

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.

On top of this, unless the study was truly double-blind, then bias will be present. Has this even been peer-reviewed yet?

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by BigCat

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.

Seems no one here is listening. And like I said above, without some numbers the link is full of hot air and nothing more.