BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

basskisser

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:02:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

If you going to smoke, smoke an Altria brand. Filthy
habit,
but I
enjoy
the
dividends.

Filthy habits are drinking to excess and endangering
innocent
lives.

I'd be willing to bet that drinking alcohol kills a
hell
of a
lot
more
people than cigars do.
--
I'll bet you're wrong.

By the way, you can't partition off just cigars, unless
you
do
the
same
with alcohol, like compare cigar related deaths to, say,
gin
related
deaths.

http://tiki.oneworld.net/pollution/smoking.html

says that 434,000 people die each year from smoking in
the
U.S
and
60,000 die each year from second hand smoke.

Then this site puts alcohol deaths at 100,000:

http://www.bookmark-manager.com/permalink-41

And I think they are full of it, to claim 60k deaths from
second
hand
smoke.
If that was true, you would have a heck of a lot more than
434k
dead
from
direct injection. I one of those numbers that activitists
can
throw
out
and
feel good, and hard to prove otherwise.

No those figures are pretty accurate. They don't just dream
them
up,
as
you think. Statistics is an interesting field, and if you
think
that
they just come up with numbers off the top of their head,
you
are
sadly
mistaken.

There is so much controversy on 2nd hand illnesses. My buddy
smoked,
he
is
healthy but his wife got breast cancer. Is that a 2nd hand
effect?

Could be.

Could be or may not be. But that is the problem with the
statistics.

Only fools and idiots prefer to make up their own minds
regardless
of
data showing otherwise.

And where is the data?

I guess you fit in the catagory quite well. I GAVE you the data. Did
you look at it?

Whoosh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yup, it apparently went WAY over your head. Again, you have the data,
so what are you NOW asking for?

Maybe you are intellectually challenged. The question is what is the
valid
data thrown in the pot. If the husband smokes, and the wife gets breast
cancer, did the second hand smoke cause the cancer? According to some,
yes.
Just because there was a smoker in the house. But is that a valid
assumption?

Maybe you are intellecually challenged. No one, including the data I
gave you ever stated that second hand smoke does or does not cause
breast cancer. BUT, data DOES show that second hand smoke IS
carcinogenic. Again, only fools and idiots prefer to make up their own
minds regardless of what good data shows.

And I still ask, how is the data valid? What constitutes valid data on 2nd
hand smoke deaths?

Research.