On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:48:46 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>>>> Not least abusing his delicate lungs by blowinga trumpet.
>>>>
>>>Your saying that he got cancer from playing the trumpet?
>>
>> It is certainly a realistic possibility.
>>
>Nonsense.
>What evidence is there for this? 

About as much as there is for second hand smoke causing cancer.  i.e.
hardly any.

-- 
Cynic

On 2008-08-07, Cynic  wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:48:46 +0100, "mert1639"
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Not least abusing his delicate lungs by blowinga trumpet.
>>>>>
>>>>Your saying that he got cancer from playing the trumpet?
>>>
>>> It is certainly a realistic possibility.
>>>
>>Nonsense.
>>What evidence is there for this? 
>
> About as much as there is for second hand smoke causing cancer.  i.e.
> hardly any.

Oh, dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. Another junky swimming in Egypt.


-- 
          "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain
                 and presumptuous desire for a second one."
               [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

On 8 Aug 2008 07:22:41 GMT, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

>On 2008-08-07, Cynic  wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 23:48:46 +0100, "mert1639"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Not least abusing his delicate lungs by blowinga trumpet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Your saying that he got cancer from playing the trumpet?
>>>>
>>>> It is certainly a realistic possibility.
>>>>
>>>Nonsense.
>>>What evidence is there for this? 
>>
>> About as much as there is for second hand smoke causing cancer.  i.e.
>> hardly any.
>
>Oh, dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. Another junky swimming in Egypt.

So just a smart-arse with no cite or link  to back up this claim?

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:24:30 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Anyway there's plenty of evidence that smoking both direct and passive
>cases cancers and ot just lung cancer.
>
><http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_11_050600/burton/burton.html#box1>

Hmmm.  If I read that correctly, it would suggest that a non-smoker
who has lived full-time for about 3 years with a person who smokes 10
cigarettes a day is at *greater* risk of getting cancer than the
smoker they live with.

So maybe the best protection against the risks of passive smoking is
to start smoking yourself.

Or maybe the adage about lies, damn lies and statistics has a grain of
truth.

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:24:30 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>andrew  wrote:
>
>> >>>Nonsense.
>> >>>What evidence is there for this? 
>> >>
>> >> About as much as there is for second hand smoke causing cancer.  i.e.
>> >> hardly any.
>> >
>> >Oh, dear, oh, dear, oh, dear. Another junky swimming in Egypt.
>> 
>> So just a smart-arse with no cite or link  to back up this claim?
>
>The cancer-stick suckers refuse to accept the evidence that the cancer
>stick causes cancer or indeed that it causes circulatory diseases,
>including heart attack, stroke and gangrene. As I posted before they
>even deny such a link at the time that a surgeon is sawing off their
>suppurating gangrenous limbs, and can be found in the grounds of
>hospitals sucking on a cigarette within days of having a limb hacked
>off. If they can't get a hint after such an experience, what makes you
>think the drug-addled twits will believe an epidemiological study?
>
>Anyway there's plenty of evidence that smoking both direct and passive
>cases cancers and ot just lung cancer.
>
><http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_11_050600/burton/burton.html#bo
>x1>


why thank you Filth - what's brought you here?

Rumour has it you have a different job  - did you get the sack from
the old one?

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 14:22:44 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Cynic  wrote:
>
>> Or maybe the adage about lies, damn lies and statistics has a grain of
>> truth.
>
>No, it's simply that J. Public is too fucking stupid to understand
>statistics. Since this government, and past governments, seem to want to
>dumb down education and have certificates handed out for attendance
>rather than achievement, I'm not too surprised that the public is unable
>to understand simple maths.


Now come on Filth - we know  you are envious of those who had an
education - give us a laugh again and reel off your excuses for not
having had one.

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:26:39 +0100, August West 
wrote:

>>>Anyway there's plenty of evidence that smoking both direct and passive
>>>cases cancers and ot just lung cancer.
>>>
>>><http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_11_050600/burton/burton.html#box1>
>>
>> Hmmm.  If I read that correctly, it would suggest that a non-smoker
>> who has lived full-time for about 3 years with a person who smokes 10
>> cigarettes a day is at *greater* risk of getting cancer than the
>> smoker they live with.
>
>Well, tar (the primary carcinogen) condenses as it cools.
>And non-smokers inhale cooling smoke...

But the smoker inhales to at least the same amount of cooled smoke.

>> So maybe the best protection against the risks of passive smoking is
>> to start smoking yourself.

>But make sure you don't live with a smoker.

Are you saying that a smoker will not suffer from passive smoking of
their own smoke?  How can that work?

>> Or maybe the adage about lies, damn lies and statistics has a grain of
>> truth.

>I guess it all depends if you understand statistics, or not.

Yes, it does.  Togerther with all the related fields.

-- 
Cynic

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:11:10 +0100, August West 
wrote:

>>>Well, tar (the primary carcinogen) condenses as it cools.
>>>And non-smokers inhale cooling smoke...
>>
>> But the smoker inhales to at least the same amount of cooled smoke.
>
>You often blow smoke into your own face, do you?

I didn't realise that passive smoking referred only to people who are
getting smoke blown in their faces all the time.  I was under the
impression that it referred to inhaling smoke that was just hanging
about in the air.

-- 
Cynic

Bazzer Smith  wrote:

> You are more likely to lose useof

Any chance you could work out how to post to Usenet, you festering tit?