Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 08:20 PM EST |
There, there. The term was "level of exposure to
second hand smoke". At some point of dilution the
term loses its meaning and becomes synonymous with
"breathing anywhere on planet Earth".
Please be reasonable. You are getting precariously
close to making a strawman argument.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 03:54 AM EST |
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, November 29 2012 @ 09:24 AM EST |
Saying there is no safe level is probably factually accurate. There is however a
level that does not measurably increase the risk for the average person. Nobody
though is willing to set this level because not everyone is average and if you
are the person who dies from exposure just below the declared level you are just
as dead as anyone else!
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:54 AM EST |
I raised my eyebrows at that also. So now on my "indefinite to do
list" (most of which will probably never get done) I've added looking into
the evidence presented at trial that led to that particular finding of fact.
If anybody can point me to some good links about that, thereby saving me the
search time, I would appreciate it. I have long been skeptical about statistics
regarding the number of deaths from second hand smoke. I am sure that in the
past exposure to second hand smoke has been a problem. But it strikes me that
in the U.S. at least that things have gone too far in the direction of trying to
prevent exposure to even the slightest whiff of second hand smoke. And I say
that as a non-smoker.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|