wDnnSCPS

wrote in message
oups.com...

Greegor wrote:
Bobb wrote
A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as
.001 percent. Great for marketing
but not much else.

This was a point worth reiteration.

Yes, given the obvious sources for his iterations.

And his exact claims, with no supporting evidence of any kind.

".001 percent?"

No doubt some risks are only .001 percent, but that would take them out
of the argument entirely...we weren't discussing risks that small, but
rather smoking, food, etc.

Now all he has to do is attach that .001 percent, to one of the
subjects HE brought up....that claim these are not that dangerous.

That just happens to be the assumed risk smoking causes lung cancer.

bobb


Possibly you could give him a hand.

CLAP.........CLAP............CLAP.........

0:-

bobb wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Greegor wrote:
Bobb wrote
A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as
.001 percent. Great for marketing
but not much else.

This was a point worth reiteration.

Yes, given the obvious sources for his iterations.

And his exact claims, with no supporting evidence of any kind.

".001 percent?"

No doubt some risks are only .001 percent, but that would take them
out
of the argument entirely...we weren't discussing risks that small,
but
rather smoking, food, etc.

Now all he has to do is attach that .001 percent, to one of the
subjects HE brought up....that claim these are not that dangerous.

That just happens to be the assumed risk smoking causes lung cancer.

I hate to remind you of this, bobber, but you are an assumed liar. You
lied about what I said about relatives being unacceptable as parents.

I've seen other things by you, of course, that were misleading, and
based on the poorest of opinions trying to pass as "research."

So you won't mind if I ask, where is your authority for this claim of
..001 percent for "the assumed risk smoking cases lung cancer?"

Which of course, in your sentence, makes absolutely NO sense
whatsoever.

Is it possible that you meant there is only a .001 percent chance that
a smoker will get lung cancer?

When you say, as you did and I responded to, "A lot of data and
research is not confirmed and the risks are sometimes as small as .001
percent," you have to face facts. The true risk percentage for
'sometimes.' since some people who smoke don't ever get lung cancer
(they tend toward stomach and bladder, as well as colon cancers first
and die of those).

In other words, you are runnin' a Douggie.

Now, show us your data source for this claim that there is only a .001
percent chance. I'd like to see who put that out, and what their study
looked like to peer reviewers.

bobb

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/10_14.htm

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/8_13.htm

http://www.cancer.gov/tobacco

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco

http://www.bhcs.com/HealthNews/reute...121elin014.htm

Now bobber, I'm sure you can find, as I have before, somewhere some
crackpots that say these folks are all wrong, but I'd like to see them
and read them again. Won't you please accomodate me, liar?

0:-



Possibly you could give him a hand.

CLAP.........CLAP............CLAP.........

0:-

Uncle Chester wrote:


For every case of serious abuse, there's 1000 innocent families destroyed.
That's CPS. Thanks for pointin out just how few serious cases CPS really
deals with.

Prove where you get your numbers. How do you know that "for every case
of serious abuse there are 1000 innocent families destroyed?" Do you
have a reference that provides these numbers or did you make them up?

And what is your definition of "families destroyed?" Destroyed how?
What research tool was used to determine a family was "destroyed?" Did
the destruction occur at all? If so, was it short or long term?

Uncle Chester, it appears that you report a lot of unsubstantiated
opinions. An unsubstantiated opinion is just that, an opinion.

Don't state state your opinions as fact. You only loose credibility.

LaVonne

wrote in message
oups.com...

bobb wrote:
"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...


bobb wrote:
"Pop" wrote in message
...

...

Only if you beleive the state and the researchers. I don't.
bobb

...

And there we have it: You don't believe the 'state', and you
don't
believe 'researchers'. Only a "researcher" as you call it, could
collect
anything more than anecdotal evidence, which is much the way you
do, and
you end up entirely wrong. But you know that don't you? You would
rather
believe other ignorants than to know the truth, so you can
conintue into
the oblivion you are destined for.

Gee, pop.... don't you read or listen research data?

Alcohol was not good for you... neither was marijuana.

Alcohol in excess causes liver damage, increased risk of high blood

pressure, heart disease, and stroke.

The increased risk is slight for all but the confirmed drunk and even
then
it take years to develop.

You tried another "Douggism."

The response to you was: "Alcohol in excess."

To reframe and repeat is insinuation the poster you respond to was
incorrect, when in fact the two are in total agreement, your statement
and hers. "Alcohol in excess" = "confirmed drunk."

In fact, if you want to be exact YOU are still incorrect, in that it
does not take a "confirmed drunk" to drink "Alcohol in excess."

Check out the rash of deaths by binging in college students.

Yeh.. check it out. Alcoholic poisoning... not disease. Bing drinking, I
beleive they call it.


In the meantime, moderate drinking protects the
heart, etc.

I do not believe that is in the least conflicting with the poster you
respond to, since she said, "Alcohol in EXCESS."

It's just the usual unethical fallacious arguments, sloppy,
repetitious, and loud that amount to nothing...wind.

Drinking alcohol during pregnancy
increases the infants' risk of being born premature or with low
birth
weight. Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can result in a child
born with
Fetal Alcohol Effects or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, both irreversible
conditions. We know this from research.

Wrong research. Look it up. Again, moderation is the key.

No, YOU tried to refute. YOU provide the research that supports the
concept that "moderation in the key" in protecting the developing
fetus, while still drinking.

Since there IS none, and LaVonne is absolutely correct, you sir, are a
liar...something you persist, by your refusal to correct a blatant
personal attack by LYING, in wearing as some kind of award.

Absolutely not. The idea is to scare people into not drinking even in
moderation. There is no evidence suggestion there is anything wrong with a
glass of wine or a beer. This is same crapola attributed to second hand
smoke.



Marijuana is especially problematic for teenagers. We know this
from
brain development research.

Hmm.... that could answer the amount of stupidity these days...but I
doubt
it.

You doubt that cannibus is a risk to young people, still
developing...teenagers? Really?

I suppose you think "huffing" is just an innocent passtime for
preteens?

Oh, now you want to compare apples to oranges, again, and change the
subject. That's a favorite ploy of yours when you're beaten. Huffing
solvents is not in the same catagory as marijuana.


Eggs, coffee and
butter were foods items to be avoided.

And still are. Eggs contain an incredible amount of cholesterol.
Coffee
should not be consumed in excess, and for people with high blood
pressure,
not at all, unless the coffee is decaf.

Where did you get the idea coffee raises blood pressure?

Could it be from some of these sources:

Results 1 - 10 of about 115,000 for coffee high blood pressure
hypertension

Gosh, only 115,000 hits on the search paramaters for coffee and
hypertension.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

The additives in
decaf have their own complications.

And they would be?

Butter is extremely
high in fat. Individuals with high cholesterol, high fat diets are
at
risk for high blood pressure, stroke, and heart disease. We know
this
from research.

Again, not so. Fat actually helps to protect the heart contrary to
earlier
false studies.

You been getting those mailers making outrageous medical health claims,
haven't you? R R R ...now I know how old you are, at the minimum. 0:-

Certain KINDS of fats, not cholesterol. We have what is called a
"setpoint," were we need certain substances found in our body, to be
healthy, but the same substance in excess is deadly. Cholesterol is one
of those.

We are anemic without "Iron," but too much is deadly. I have to filter
my well water to precipitate out free iron for that very reason. But
remove all iron or too much from the human body, and you have a dead
body.

You are being conned, and being the sucker that Doug has proven again
and again you are, you love it. Anything that confounds what you think
is the mainstream, or truth you love. It gives you something to live
for.

Did I read that you said 'too much'? I'd say too much of anything could
have ill effects. I'd opt for moderation.. not worse case.




.00007 people get skin cancer...
soooo stay out of the sun or slosch yourself with expensive sun
screen
lest you end up a statistic.

I don't know where you got the .00007 percentage, but the
percentage is
actually a lot higher. If you spend a great deal of time outdoors,

sunscreen and/or covering skin is recommended. We know this from
research.

None of these studies are conclusive except we no people who live in
daily
sun do not contract skin cancer at a higher rate.. in fact,it may
even be
lower.

Yep, that australian so called study. It's bogus. People with certain
skin types do not contract skin cancer at a higher rate. Even those
with the less susceptable skin type can and do get skin cancer with
enough sun exposure.

Vitiam D seems to be a controlling factor and is presently be
explored.

Nutcase. D has NOTHING to do with skin cancer. It's simple a vitamin
our body doesn't produce, and needs, that we can get only from the
environment...and ONE way is by exposure to sunlight. But we don't have
to risk melanoma to get it. We can supplement for it. "presently be
explored." R R R R R ......

With fewer people spending time outside and drinking less milk..
which are the only sources for vitiam D.. and number of ailments are
being
explored.

"Milk" is NOT a vitamin D source, you fool. It is simply a convenient
carrier for supplemental D put in by the bottlers of the milk.

Don't try to obviate the obvious. Vitamin D is added to milk and is a second
source.


From a google with over one MILLION hits on the subject:
"Vitamin D
... Foods: In Canada, cow's milk and margarine are fortified with
vitamin D, ... But breast milk, which has only small amounts of vitamin
D (15 to 40 IU per ...
www.caringforkids.cps.ca/babies/VitaminD.htm - 12k -"

See that word "fortified." It means they had to put it IN, so that it
would most likely reach the most vulnerable target, children.

The nearest thing available today on research into any D and melanoma
goes something like this: "Some have suggested that vitamin D may
inhibit melanoma."

No research, just some hints. But that's a long way from the best
protection from skin cancer....simply reducing your sunlight
exposure....and stay away from those tanning booths, you idiot twit.

Who's talking about tanning booths? But there is a great market for
sun-screen products. Scare people into beleiving they will get skin cancer
if exposed to the sun.



Sunscreen also seems to caused breast cancer in woman.

Yep, same borderline research. Do you have any idea about
"replications" in research and what they mean, as to credibility? You
are being conned by commercial marketers that are quoting often single
studies that may or may NOT be replicated in the future. And in fact
that's an invitation to you to be a test subject by buying their
product and following the advice in it....usually poorly written
"health" hints.

I'll concede that both studies are poorly devised and written although I'd
suggest that the latter is more interested in protecting health as opposed
to bowing to some marketing scheme.


**** you are stupid.


Don't smoke either... but just today it was
announced woman of smoking mothers almost never suffer breast
cancer.

Smoking significantly and positively correlates with lung cancer,
emphysema, high blood pressure, and a myriad of other health
related
problems. We know this from research. Even if it is true that
smoking
mothers almost never suffer breast cancer, their children are far
more
likely to suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions. We
know
this from research.

Correlation is not causation.

For about a century you could use electrical energy, based on no more
science than repeted USE that correlated with outcomes. There was
little understanding, and at one time not even an awareness of
"electrons" and their function.

And the research is rather conclusive, bobber. And it's unfortunate
that LaVonne used the word, "correlates" because there are careful
scientific studies that clearly show causation at the molecular
level....the breakdown of living tissue into unwanted changes that kill
us, by the use of tobacco and other dangers to human substances.

That. too, is another lie.

The rate of lung cancer is on the rise, even
as smoking declines.

The rate of air pollution hasn't reduced significantly and in fact
during the current administration has risen as manufacturing as
successfully lobbied to get pollution supression reduced in
manufacturing.

The motality rate has declined but attribute that to
medical science... not smoke.


What "motality rate" [sic] are you referring to? The one from smoking?

The 'motality' rate of lung cancer. Your comprehension is on par with my
typing.


What's actually happened in science on this subject is that they have
discovered even more sensitivity in children to the effects of second
hand smoke than was previously believed. Children in homes where people
smoke are at a higher risk of disease and death than we once thought.
Look UP the current research Bobber.


Look at all those great pain drugs .... that cause heart attacks
in
adult.... or those behavior drugs that induce suicide in
children....
all fully supported by years of testing by the government.

We don't know this. We have correlational data coming in that has
resulted in certain medications from being pulled, and other
medications
to carry warnings.

In other words, bobber, we are learning all the time, based on
available facts...and you on rumor and incidental commercially driven
marketing quotes of insufficiently replicated and peer reviewed
"science."

We are learning that previous studies were wrong, and continue to be wrong.
Even the FDA has been lying right along.






Homosexuality was a mental disease, and masturbation probibited
for much
the same reason.

Neither of the above was based on research. This was based solely
on
opinion.

bobber, you NEVER bother to respond when you've been proven wrong, just
as you haven't on the lie you told about me, and admit to your error.
Does this mean you still believe you were correct and the poster is
wrong?

Keep beleiving the government...and research, pop. :-)

bobb, it would be good if you understood and read research. Your
examples
of alcohol, marijuana, eggs, butter, coffee, and sunscreen actually

strengthen the position for research.

The least is far greater.

What?

All of which have been condemned at one time or
another. Asthama is increasing. Any suggestions?

Yes, look into the much higher use of deisel fuels in this country. And
the reduction in installation of and replacement and maintenance of
particulate suppression systems in manufacturing.

Allergies, are increasing, too? The additives in laundry soaps have
recently been questioned. I'd say it has something to do with
McDonald's
but they have enought problems.

Do you know what allergies are? Do you know the difference between
reactions to toxins and allergic reactions? Please. Please. READ
something besides the comics back pages and commercial solicitations
for 'health' advice.


Without research, you have nothing but an uninformed opinion.
There was a
time when popular opinion held that the earth was flat. Research
demonstrated the fallacy of this belief. Yet there was a time when

certain individuals rejected the research and continued to believe
the
earth was indeed, flat.


People beleived what they could see. Today, all they see are reports
and
data.

That requires that they learn what the phrase, 'scientific method'
means, and demand, when they get those reams of commercial mailers, and
sensationalist media announcements, that the producers come up with the
methodology, or at least more easily accessed study and research
sources with peer reviewed reports.

They are no more informed now.

Precisely...and it's because they are, like you, too stupid and
stubborn to learn and to seek out the more boring and harder to read
REAL scientific replicated peer reviewed scientific research reports.
Go to a university library near you. Ask for the STARS shelves. You
will find out where all this research "science" you are reading about
comes from. These are, by the way, reports that if they are correct and
you are smart and invest right could make you wealthy.

They are the first reports of research, priliminary research, from
around the world. Hot stuff, if tech reading doesn't numb your brain,
and you know how to USE a library and find dictionaries of scientific
terms for the particular field you are reading about in STARS at that
moment.

And there are people, bobber, that go to libraries and search...that
make a living out of finding such things, and writing them up for the
companies that sell you their product based on the search and writings
of these freelancers.

A lot of data and research is not confirmed
and the risks are sometimes as small as .001 percent. Great for
marketing
but not much else.

Hmmmm...let me see now...YOUR sources (and I KNOW what they are
now....R R R R) and LaVonne's, who can access a fine university library
with all the current research reports of qualified scientists, with
reviews that reveal of there is sufficient replication to validate the
conclusions as true or false...LaVonne is wrong, and YOU are right.

I see now. R R R R R R

You are the fool accessing, or being fed, rather, unreviewed initial
findings...of which there is a report somewhere on nearly everything
imaginable...without ANY further research, while LaVonne most likely
confines herself to reports out of the high pressure grinder of
academic research, with all one's collegues hanging over your reports
ripping them apart piece by piece.

And you say, " A lot of data and research is not confirmed " as a
"REBUTTAL?"

By the way, did you ever figure out the risks, actual risks based on
outcomes, that the AIDS Tx/Rx for foster children (only ten percent of
the test population)?

In case you missed it....

Seattle PI reports that over the last two decades a number of foster
children, mostly poor or minorities, were given AIDS medicines shown to
cause serious side effects in adults. These drugs were apparently
administered without research into safe dosage levels for children.
Researchers defend the experiment by saying it exposed the children to their
best hope for recovery and statistics showed a marked improvement in
AIDS-related deaths among foster children. Seattle PI responded by saying
the results were unclear and the argument was not enough to justify
experimentation on children. Be sure to read the related article, Mandatory
AIDS testing proposal is public health lunacy.

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., said prisoners are guaranteed more protections
under the guidelines concerning clinical trials than foster children.
Prisoners must have an advocate expressly appointed to represent their
interests on local institutional review boards. Foster children don't have
such an advocate appointed to look out for them, he said.


Foster children not guinea pigs

A basic protection required under federal law to prevent children in foster
care from being taken advantage of by medical researchers failed.

As a result, hundreds of children during the 1990s were exposed to medical
treatments that may have been inappropriate, caused unnecessary pain and
suffering, and, in at least one situation, resulted in higher mortality
rates.



bobb



Your willingness to babble like an "expert" is a yuk.

bobb


This is called an uninformed opinion.

LaVonne

bobb

And you got a big big case of "uninformed opinion," bobber.

Thank goodness you have no power.

0:-

Didn't read or understand the document again, greegor?

LaVonne

Greegor wrote:

http://www.ihs-trainet.com/CCWP/RA%20for%20PDF.pdf

Thanks for the link, Kane!

It contains EVEN MORE DISCLAIMERS about the
reasons it contains GIANT HOLES and some that
even disclaim against being used in the
VERY WAY THAT IT IS BEING USED!

As a proof of the validity of these
assessment "instruments", Kane basically
shot himself in the foot with this link to a PDF!

It speaks AGAINST the VERY USES that states
are putting the "tools" to!

This makes the abuse CULPABLY NEGLIGENT!
The states are knowingly MISUSING the things,
although I think it's funny that the CREATOR
idiots would put this stuff out as
"Structured Decision Making" and preach about
it's "uniformity" while at the same time
offering these MONUMENTAL disclaimers against
the very DECISIONS they seem to be intended for!

No, Kane, smoking does not cause lung cancer.


The Untold Facts of Smoking (Yes, there is bias in science)

or

"I feel like the Fox Network" (a bastion of truth in a sea of liberalism)

1.. USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer
of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and
therefore virtually useless).
2.. No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (5 cigars/wk, not
inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.
3.. Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only
#9.**
4.. All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and
lung cancer only 2%.**
5.. Occasional cigarette use (1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk
factor in lung cancer.
6.. Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.3
7.. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in
lung cancer.
8.. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke
statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
9.. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood
increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
10.. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after
exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.23
11.. If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature
death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought
that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)

bobb

bobb wrote:
No, Kane, smoking does not cause lung cancer.


The Untold Facts of Smoking (Yes, there is bias in science)

or

"I feel like the Fox Network" (a bastion of truth in a sea of
liberalism)

I read Fox. They are in fact one of my favorites for balance....problem
is, to attain "balance" they tend to lean as far in their direction as
liberals do in theirs. That leaves me taking both with a grain of salt.


1.. USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung
cancer
of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate
and
therefore virtually useless).

"8" what? "20" what? Any mention, in whatever it is your are quoting,
but NOT providing a link to, liar, of what the rate is for non-smokers
that can avoid second hand smoke as well? I'd like to see for myself,
if you don't mind.

2.. No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (5 cigars/wk,
not
inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.

That is the height of arrogance. You cannot prove a negative. How do
you or they know there is no such study? What does "6" cigars a week
show. And how many cigar smokers don't inhale? And what about cancers
of the mouth? I had to stop smoking a pipe at 23 because I had in fact
developed the precancerous fiberous web in my mouth called Leukoplakia.
It cleared up when I quite, which was immediately after the doctor
showed me the nice color pictures of oral cancers in his text books.

http://www.vitacost.com/science/hn/C...eukoplakia.htm

3.. Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is
only
#9.**

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. So since it's "ONLY" in # 9, if I
avoid all the others and only smoke my chances of dying of smoking
would be "ONLY"... ?

Could that be a dumber statement? It makes me cringe sometimes when
fellow conservatives say these absolutely stupid things.

Stop and think what that means, bobber.

I'll give you an example from something I follow very closely. Gun
ownership...something I am a staunch defender of.

The incidence of deaths by firearms of very young children is so
negligible (unless you hear a liberal mouth the lies) that it's outside
the realm of number that can be statistically examined. Most deaths by
gun fire of "children" are in the gangbanger age range. And all
accidental deaths have gone down decade after decade even with gun
ownership going up...strongly.

Yet with all that, bobber...and probably a number like yours on
tobacco, around 12th or so as I recall, and for children even less...by
far, would YOU leave your firearms, laying loaded around the house with
toddlers, or ever older kids in the household?

Think about it.

4.. All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths
and
lung cancer only 2%.**

bobber what's missing here allows that same sophistry that Doug runs.
WERE is the number of smokers in the entire population and the
nonsmokers. What does it matter what ALL CANCER deaths are for the
enter population? We are supposed to be, if we are honest, looking at
ONLY those that smoke or are otherwise exposed to tobacco smoke.

5.. Occasional cigarette use (1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be
a risk
factor in lung cancer.

You could eat the volumetric equivalent of two packs or more a week of
fresh horse**** and likely have no risk of any disease at all. They
barely digest what goes through them, and I've never heard of a single
parasite horses have the humans can harbor.

Why don't we do it? Because it's nasty and our spouses don't want to
kiss us...and my bet it's even LESS dangerous than smoking two packs.

And there's that sly sneaky language we are all so familiar with in
this ng...." has never been shown."

Bobber, if no test on the use of less than a pack a week have been
done, then that would be true as well. It's meant to make you think
such tests have been done....they haven't, and that's why it's "never
been shown."

Or, even if it has, try horse****. It's probably better for yah, even
smoked.

6.. Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand
smoke.3

"Certain types?" Sure...free radical dioxide, in the carbonate. That'll
getcha. Gaseous Ammonia will do it. Auto exhausts and especially
deisel.

I don't such auto tailpipes for that very reason. Nor would I live
downwind of paper manufacturing plants, or most other kinds, for that
matter.

What is THAT supposed to mean when they don't name the pollutants?

7.. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor
in
lung cancer.

Absolute brainless mindless nonsense. I've watched way too many smokers
die of lung cancer, and yet have rarely (I think never, actually) seen
anyone die of lung cancer that was not a smoker. I've read about some
folks claiming they had very serious exposure to 2nd hand smoke though,
with cancer. Can't remember if they died.

My uncle, a management civil servant, ex army, never smoked a cig in
his life. He had cancer of the esophagus. Why? His doctor says that the
30 years he was in conference rooms and planning offices for the
military (he was a shipping container expert...tanks, big guns, fit
into aircraft, that sort of thing) where practically everyone smoke
non-stop was the cause.

8.. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke
statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.

World Health Organization? I'd like to see that study. Did Fox provide
a source..the name of the study at least?

This google search on WHO and second hand smoke and cancer will tell
you otherwise. I suspect Fox cherrypicked (See: Douggerydouggerydoo)
something and twisted the wording sufficiently to get away with such a
claim.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
http://tinyurl.com/bze3q

A few pithy quotes from WHO on this subject:

"A working group from the International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization, examined all of
the major studies looking at smoking and cancer.

After a five-day meeting in Lyons, France, this week, they suggested
non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20% and
30% more likely to develop lung cancer. " [[[ that was 1999 I believe
]]]

"
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and other scientific bodies
that have conducted extensive reviews of current data, ETS [[[second
hand smoke]]] is a human carcinogen for which there is no "safe"
level of exposure. ETS is the third leading cause of preventable deaths
in the United States.
"

Or possibly the WHO Fox and you were referring to was "Witless Human
Organisms?"

9.. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during
childhood
increases their risk of getting lung cancer.

Oh? http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39857

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html

"Major Conclusions

Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, EPA has
concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
in the U.S. presents a serious and substantial public health risk."
..........
"
In children:

ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections
such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000
and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to
18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between
7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.

ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a
sign of chronic middle ear disease.

ETS exposure in children irritates the upper respiratory tract and is
associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.

ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of
symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to
1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure
to environmental tobacco smoke.

ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who
have not previously displayed symptoms."

10.. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice
after
exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.23

"A long time?" What study?

Are you aware that mice can be bred for levels of resistance and
suseptability to all kinds of conditions of environment and organ and
system functions?

Who conducted these studies?

11.. If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the
premature
death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I
thought
that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)

You mean to tell me you believe that if we had quit smoking fifty years
ago, the premature death rate would be HIGHER than it is today?

YOu misuse the language again...it's not "the major cause," it's "a
major cause." Only a fool would try that one Do...opps, bobber.

bobb

Crackpot, they name is bobber.

0:-

Kane's Komments


Kane:

If it wasn't for CPS taking children away from parents who only
spank....

This child would probably never have gotten so out of control the poor
mother had to hit her with a baseball bat.

Isn't that how it goes? I do so miss Fern at times. 0:-


Woman charged with using baseball bat on daughter
TOOLS

From Salem-news.com

MCMINNVILLE, Ore. - A McMinnville woman was arrested by Yamhill County
Sheriff's Detectives Monday and charged with assaulting her adopted
13-year old daughter with a baseball bat.

Sixty-six-year-old Anna T. Rufo was arrested after her daughter was
treated for injuries to her arms and legs.

Yamhill County Sheriff Jack Crabtree explained, "Upon investigating the
suspicious injuries to this child, the detectives determined that they
were caused by the child's mother. A physician who examined the
injuries concurred with the investigators findings."

.....full story at:

http://katu.com/stories/77246.html

You're asking the impossible, CL; unc chest only knows
what he makes up and thinks will **** ng people off by
demonstrating his lack of scruples, ethics, morality
and inability to participate successfully in ianything.
Thinks he's a young turk, but only an old fart.



"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...


Uncle Chester wrote:


For every case of serious abuse, there's 1000
innocent families destroyed. That's CPS. Thanks for
pointin out just how few serious cases CPS really
deals with.

Prove where you get your numbers. How do you know
that "for every case of serious abuse there are 1000
innocent families destroyed?" Do you have a
reference that provides these numbers or did you make
them up?

And what is your definition of "families destroyed?"
Destroyed how? What research tool was used to
determine a family was "destroyed?" Did the
destruction occur at all? If so, was it short or
long term?

Uncle Chester, it appears that you report a lot of
unsubstantiated opinions. An unsubstantiated opinion
is just that, an opinion.

Don't state state your opinions as fact. You only
loose credibility.

LaVonne

Kane's Komments


Kane:

Yet another quiet but persisent tocsin to alert those that still can't
sort out the question of corporal punishment. The sound tells you
AGAIN, that if YOU don't, the citizens of the state will.

And by the pressure of parents themselves, who will not stand for it's
use on their children by those in loco parentis.

Now it begins to extend into the sector of private schooling, as you'll
see below, after so many states have been persuaded to stop it in
public schools.

PARENTS question child abuse statutes
Venice Gondolier - Venice,FL,USA
.... a Venice day-care center are still scratching their heads over news
on Tuesday the State Attorney's Office does not plan to file charges of
child abuse in its ...
http://www.venicegondolier.com/NewsArchive3/052005/tp2vn15.htm


Kane:

What follows may put you and I in the forefront of discoverying yet
another way of abusing children...but it's been around for a very long
time. Parents (and I saw this myself for the first time in 1980) have
used drugs not meant for children on children to control them for a
very long time. Even, as we saw a year or two ago, killing infants to
"to quiet them" by using one's own perscription drugs.

I suspect there is a good deal more of this going on than we, the
public, are made aware of, and a great deal of it never uncovered at
all. Or passed off as a child "getting into the medicine cabinet" when
it does surface as a "poison control center" call or emergency room
visit. Or a child's death.

CHILD-ABUSE drugs 'easy to buy'
News24 - Cape Town,South Africa
.... given to children with the aim of abusing them were freely
available
over the counter, a psychiatrist told experts in the field of child
abuse
on Thursday. ...
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1707790,00.html


Kane:

One of the arguments made in this newsgroup is that using interventions
before the abuse conditions can come about, "up front services," would
reduce the number of children taken from parents and put into out of
home care.

A counter argument (which of course tends to come...R R R ...from the
same quarter) is that it's all about making money off children and
families and violating the parental rights of families.

Well, here's the common mindset of the authorities on this issue. Now
give us some arguments from both sides of this question.

RECOGNIZING, Preventing Child Abuse
Burke Connection - VA,USA
In fiscal year 2004, Fairfax County's Child Protective Service's
telephone
hotline received 35,000 calls reporting suspected child abuse and
neglect,
or ...
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=50677&paper=61&cat=112


Kane:
Ah, good old school days, good ol' golden rule days.....R R R R....

Gosh, if only they could whap'm with a board, eh?

TEACHER Who Allegedly Taped Boy Charged With Child Abuse
TheDenverChannel.com - Denver,CO,USA
.... Authorities say an Aurora elementary school teacher is charged with
misdemeanor child abuse for allegedly wrapping Scotch tape around a
fifth-grader's
head. ...
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4508574/detail.html

Kane:

And this one's just for bobber.

So, bobber. If any child had gotten in the car with this man would that
have constituted consent in your mind, and excused anything that
happened afterward?

Just thought I'd ask.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4507335/detail.html