FD: so this is not true then (from a UK Site):
Hard to tell, it's not easilly verifiable. It could be statistical valid, but there's no way to test it.Both the websites you link to, suggests smoking is a risk factor, not a cause. There is a significant difference. I would love to see a site documenting (as opposed to claiming) exactly how smoking increases the risk of SIDS, in a way that is potentially falsifyable (aka. scientific).
the post-mortem reason for cot death is still unknown but studies show that more babies die of cot death when the parents smoke.
Bad math proves nothing. There are more smoker babies that don't die unexplained deaths than the total number of SIDS. Doesn't prove anything, but it's still a statistical fact. Like those others, it's a meaningless statistical fact, that doesn't prove anything, but they can make it look like it's scientifically valid, by making up these horrible numbers. Over 120,000 deaths each year from smoking related illnesses - well first of all, that number is arbitrary, since they count everyone who dies from lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung disease (bronchitis and emphysema) or coronary heart disease, regardless of whether they where smokers or not and regardless of their exposure to second hand smoke. Secondly that's a whole lot less, than than the number of people who die of non-smoking related illnesses (it's roughly 1/5th). So if we're taking odds again, that makes it 30 times as likely to die of a smoking related illness, as killed in traffic for instance. However as a smoker, you're still 4 times as likely to die from a non-smoking related illness.Again, I'm not argueing that smoking is good for you. I'm just saying that I don't care much for people who want to make up bull@#!*, call it science, and use it to force their views on correct behavior onto people with a difference of opinion.
FD: I guess you smoke then.
You'd be wrong. For the record, I don't smoke, and I hate second hand smoke. The difference is I'm not prepared to force legislation to prevent them from smoking, and I hope that in return, they aren't prepared to pass legislation that prevents me from playing violent video games. It's just that when some things seem to be proven by multiple different organisations over many years, you kinda got to start wondering if perhaps there might be something to it, haven't you?
No. First of all, multiple different organisations haven't proven anything. Many organisations use this EPA study as basis for their conclusions. The only problem with the study is that it's a politically motivated fraud, created by selectively choosing studies that support their predetermined conclusion. Thankfully the study has been exposed as a fraud by the Federal US court and even the Congressional Research Service conclusively falsifies that there is evidence to support the claims that Environmental Tobacco Smoke is a health risk.Unfortunately people with a politically motivated agenda aren't going to let a little thing like facts get in the way of their crusade. Much like the religious right, they know whats best for you, and they prey on your fears to get you to subscribe to their views.