Re: Smoking (and diet) and respiratory health

[Guest guest]

>In addition to the shoddy science dealing with tobacco, and in addition to

>the failure to make a distinction between tobacco per se and tobacco cured by

>methods unique to modern America and laden with toxic additives, it should also

>be considered that diet may control the amount of damage done by tobacco smoke

>as much as it controls the amount of damage done by other environmental

>factors. Just like skin cancer may be more a function of carotene intake and

>PUFA/SFA ratio than it is a function of sun exposure.

Chris:

I do agree with all this ... statements like " x causes y " are shorthands for

something

like " in recent history, folks who do lots of x tend to get more y " . There is no

single " cause and effect " relationship to *anything* I can think of. I mean, if

I drop a glass, that may " cause " it to break. Or, is it the fact it was a cheap

glass?

Or was it that fancy slate floor my designer insisted I install? Or that my cat

tripped

me so " made " me drop the glass?

It does seem, based on lawsuits, studies, and my experience, that folks who

smoke (normal cigarettes) tend to get lung damage at a higher rate than other

folks.

Also they make me sick (as do other kinds of smoke, which I'm willing to say is

due to earlier

damage from a multitude of factors). As for how smoking affected Native

Americans ...

that's another study! I'd guess they didn't smoke as much, probably women and

children didn't smoke, and they weren't exposed to all the other weird chemicals

and food problems we are.

But I've found that since my body is healing, I can tolerate all kinds of things

I never could before. Being on a junk food diet would make you more sensitive

to *everything* ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/27/04 3:44:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

I do agree with all this ... statements like " x causes y " are shorthands for

something

like " in recent history, folks who do lots of x tend to get more y " . There is

no

single " cause and effect " relationship to *anything* I can think of. I mean,

if

I drop a glass, that may " cause " it to break. Or, is it the fact it was a

cheap glass?

Or was it that fancy slate floor my designer insisted I install? Or that my

cat tripped

me so " made " me drop the glass?

Yes! But it seems that most people gravitate toward a monocausal paradigm,

despite it's poor reflection of reality. I don't know if it's cultural, or if

it's an inborn deficiency in the typical person's paradigmatic capacity. I

think a lot of the problems with crappy science is attributable to the tendency

to think in monocausal terms.

Chris

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

I don't know if it's cultural, or if

> it's an inborn deficiency in the typical person's paradigmatic capacity. I

> think a lot of the problems with crappy science is attributable to the

tendency

> to think in monocausal terms.

>

> Chris

>

>

Hmmm - so you're saying that the 'tendency to think in monocausal terms' causes

'crappy science'. LOL!

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Yes! But it seems that most people gravitate toward a monocausal paradigm,

>despite it's poor reflection of reality. I don't know if it's cultural, or if

>it's an inborn deficiency in the typical person's paradigmatic capacity. I

>think a lot of the problems with crappy science is attributable to the tendency

>to think in monocausal terms.

>

>Chris

Yep!

It's all because eating SAD *causes* stupid thinking ;--)

Heidi Jean