What did the world Health Organization Actually Say?
Yesterday, Ottawa Mike posted to links which he thought disproved the dangers o secondhand smoke. I already discussed the first one–it was a study he labeled as published in the prestigious British Medical Journal, but was actually a garbage study from the tobacco industry. The Brirish Medical Association, which runs the journal, complained to the editor that the study was garbage, and the editor’s only response was that he just wanted to let the other side have its say. (Note how this relates to the scam artists denying global warming complaining that science journals won’t publish their stuff and let them have their say)
The second link Ottawa Mike posted I could not respond to yesterday because yahoo told me I had used up my quota of questions. So I want to discuss it now. What he posted was a news article claiming a World Health Organization had done a study concluding that secondhand smoke did not cause cancer. Ottawa Mike told me I should believe the World Health Organization. In fact I do–what the article said was the opposite of what the World Health Organization actually said. The Brown and Williamson tobacco company convinced some reporter at a right-wing newpaper that the World Health Organization’s study said secondhand smoke was not harmful. The World Health Organization said that was a lie.
Below is the response the World Health Organization put out. After reading it, I hope Ottawa Mike will consider the possibility that the places he gets his information on things, including global warming, might not be reputable. And I hope other Deniers will, too.
Pretty interesting how the World Health Organization’s actual position was so different from what Ottawa Mike was led to believe:
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
On their website, on the list of harm caused by passive smoking, the WHO lists lung cancer, heart attacks, angina, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, among many others.
"The risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers exposed to passive smoking is increased by between 20 and 30 percent, and the excess risk of heart disease is 23 percent."
http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas10.pdf
And we’re expected to believe the WHO concluded secondhand smoke doesn’t cause lung cancer?
This is another common denier tactic - get information from a secondhand source which is often biased against the science. For example, deniers used to frequently cite DailyTech, which as the name suggests, is a technology website. But it has one AGW denier blogger who takes information from scientific websites and then misrepresents them. For example, he claimed in January 2008 (a relatively cool month due to a strong La Nina) that global warming had been "erased". He also recently claimed that global sea ice extent had returned to 1979 levels. He cited data from valid scientific sources in both cases, but then grossly misrepresented it.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvfK2DwrbJakkku4bEc_q_wjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080905153702AAy95Fw
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar5TwhWYX2uu.6vdgrUN7ewjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20090107153911AAKnxbc
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkSgPfqmGV6Qy9ZhQU3lWzAjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080307085717AAQmadH
I don’t know why the deniers feel the need to get their data from secondhand sources instead of just looking it up themselves (or at least verifying what they read on some random blog). I guess they like things secondhand.
Overcome Anxiety and Depression with The Best-Selling Natural Anxiety and Mood Support Supplement on the Market. For the latest health news and information Follow Us on Twitter.
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.
Related posts:
- looking for health related news articles to summarize…? I’ve
- i need a really interesting or funny health related article for school tomaro!!? im in 9th
- Writing an article on health? hi, im am
- I need a health-related article…? For my hea
- I need a health-related article…? For my hea
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:29 am
On their website, on the list of harm caused by passive smoking, the WHO lists lung cancer, heart attacks, angina, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, among many others.
"The risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers exposed to passive smoking is increased by between 20 and 30 percent, and the excess risk of heart disease is 23 percent."
http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas10.pdf
And we’re expected to believe the WHO concluded secondhand smoke doesn’t cause lung cancer?
This is another common denier tactic - get information from a secondhand source which is often biased against the science. For example, deniers used to frequently cite DailyTech, which as the name suggests, is a technology website. But it has one AGW denier blogger who takes information from scientific websites and then misrepresents them. For example, he claimed in January 2008 (a relatively cool month due to a strong La Nina) that global warming had been "erased". He also recently claimed that global sea ice extent had returned to 1979 levels. He cited data from valid scientific sources in both cases, but then grossly misrepresented it.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvfK2DwrbJakkku4bEc_q_wjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080905153702AAy95Fw
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar5TwhWYX2uu.6vdgrUN7ewjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20090107153911AAKnxbc
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkSgPfqmGV6Qy9ZhQU3lWzAjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20080307085717AAQmadH
I don’t know why the deniers feel the need to get their data from secondhand sources instead of just looking it up themselves (or at least verifying what they read on some random blog). I guess they like things secondhand.
References :