2011-10-01, 03:07 PM
Funny how you can pull up one place claiming that second hand smoke isn't risky when a simple google of secondhand smoke brings up thousands that say it is;
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondha...dsmoke.htm
The fact that other things can kill you too, or with a higher exposure rate, doesn't make something dangerous suddenly safe
Why don't you try a realistic evaluation; compare the number of people who breathe the air to the number of people exposed to second hand smoke and then normalize the results of the two so they're on the same scale.
Suddenly that three times number is a lot less meaningful due to population disparity.
For people who didn't get that math - Sheer volume is irrelevant, it's percent exposed that experience detrimental effects that matters. 1 out of 100 people is still more meaningful than 3000 out of 30 billion even though 3000 is a larger overall number.
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/secondha...dsmoke.htm
The fact that other things can kill you too, or with a higher exposure rate, doesn't make something dangerous suddenly safe
Why don't you try a realistic evaluation; compare the number of people who breathe the air to the number of people exposed to second hand smoke and then normalize the results of the two so they're on the same scale.
Suddenly that three times number is a lot less meaningful due to population disparity.
For people who didn't get that math - Sheer volume is irrelevant, it's percent exposed that experience detrimental effects that matters. 1 out of 100 people is still more meaningful than 3000 out of 30 billion even though 3000 is a larger overall number.
It's not having what you want - It's wanting what you've got.