↓
 

The dragon and the amoebas

Head Rambles Posted on by

One of the things that annoys me most about modern society is the way it laps up the most incredible nonsense without question.

So called ‘facts’ are laid before the people that are patently ridiculous, yet the people lap them up just because words like ‘research’ have been used.  Even the simplest logic will demonstrate that these so called ‘facts’  are so far off the wall that anyone with an IQ level above single figures should dismiss them.  Yet they don’t.

One of the greatest curses is the survey.  Surveys are fine for gathering opinion, yet they are being used to prove scientific fact.  55% of people believe the Earth is flat, so de facto, the Earth is flat.  Statistics are also the curse of intellectual thinking.  It snowed here yesterday, and statistically it didn’t snow here on March the 30th last year or the year before, ergo we are entering an ice age.

I read a survey recently.

It was a survey on opinion, therefore it was fine.  I have no problems with surveys that test opinion.

I was horrified at the apparent lack of intelligence that the survey revealed, and the depth to which people suck up junk science and believe it to be true.

The first question was “Do you believe smoking is unhealthy?”

95% of respondents said ‘yes’ which didn’t surprise me.  I will let that one pass.

The second question was “Do you believe that second hand smoke causes cancer?”

49% of people said ‘yes’ to this one.  Here we are getting into the junk science area, because as yet, no one has ever found any evidence that second hand smoke causes anything other than annoyance.  There is no evidence.  There is no proof.  Yet it is accepted as being a fact of life.

The third question was “Third-hand smoke refers to the tobacco residue left on and by smokers when they are not smoking cigarettes. Do you believe that third-hand smoke causes cancer?”

A staggering 18% said yes to this one.  I use the word ‘staggering’ because ‘third hand smoke’ is the invention of a fanatic in the States who proposed this theory without any proof whatsoever.  Scientists have tried to prove his hypothesis, and have failed abysmally.  So nearly one in five people believe in something just because some crackpot suggested it.

The next question is interesting because it is born out of pure propaganda – “Do you believe that smoking bans can lead to an instant 20-30% drop in the rate of heart attacks”?

32% of respondents said ‘yes’ to this one which really saddens me.  Many ‘studies’ have been done by crackpot organisations such as ASH to ‘prove’ this theory.  Every single ‘study’ has been shown to be completely flawed, distorted or just patently invented.  No reasonable study has ever shown any decline whatsoever.  It is junk science at its worst, yet ASH and their ilk declare it as Gospel and a third of the population believe it simply because ‘they have read it somewhere’.

I will pass on the next question as it concerned e-cigarettes, but the one after left me wondering if there was any hope for humanity at all.

Do you agree with this statement: “Smoker’s breath can be harmful to health, especially to children, the elderly and those especially sensitive to many chemicals.”?

29% said ‘yes’.  What?  What the fuck?  Where in the name of God did this come from?  I have never even heard of this theory before, let alone seen any proof of it.  I consider myself to be a reasonably logical person, and on the basis of logic alone I know this has to be patent bullshit, yet three out of every ten people believe it to be true?  Am I really a death breathing dragon where every person I meet is likely to drop dead from cancer?  For fuck’s sake!  And, incidentally, 59% of non smokers believe this utter bilge!

The final question is another for the amoebas out there.

Do you agree with this statement: “Someone else’s smoke can kill you if even if you can barely smell it, and even if you can’t smell it.”

A staggering 29% said ‘yes’ to this claptrap!

So nearly a third of the population believe that something that isn’t there can kill you?  And even if we are talking about odourless particles lingering in the air, they are supposed to be so deadly that they can kill you?  That would rank smoke as being up there with plutonium.

It is a frightening survey.  It beautifully illustrates the mindless state of the population.  It nicely demonstrates that people are nothing more than brainless sheep being merrily led along without a care in the world provided they have access to an mobile phone or a television.

I despair.

-oOo-

The survey is here

 

Comments

The dragon and the amoebas — 22 Comments

  1. 268 people took the survey, says a lot, doesn’t it. Was this the same ecig company who’s CEO said tobacco should be banned but leave us the feck alone? Will have to look out that link.
    .-= TheBigYin´s last brainfart .. The 2nd TICAP world conference. =-.

  2. BigYin – It doesn’t really matter how many or who took the survey.  The fact is that more than 90 people think that smoke that is so dilute that you can’t even smell it can kill you?  Or that a smoker’s breath will damage your health? It beggars belief.

    The fact that anyone could believe such shite is worrying.

    I wouldn’t even have expected those results from a survey taken in The Supreme Command in ASH, and God knows they have very few brain cells to rub together.

  4. I love Surveys .. especially the kind conducted in the street .. Its my opportunity to have a little fun at their expense .. Heh heh ..

    Now .. if smoker’s breath is so poisonous .. please may I be allowed to go into the Chamber of the House of Commons, when its full ? …

    So that this ludicrous hypothesis can be tested under realistic “field” conditions .. if true, the world population will be reduced by 646 otherwise useless, lying, troughing fuckers ..

    If untrue .. we’ll still be as deep in the shit as we are now …

    I’m more than happy to play my part by smoking 2oz of either St Bruno (Ready-Rubbed) or B&H Mellow Virginia beforehand .. all in the name of “research” , you understand ..

  7. Hi GD,

    Looks like there’s been a few (beautiful!) fireworks here since last visit. Anyway, and i wish i’d kept the link, was reading a UK article recently where a ‘professor’ was stating it is now important that we “think about who sees us smoking”. The reference was to children and the example given was at an outdoor barbecue.

    Basically the argument is being steam-rollered onwards so that the debate moves away from the science, and into the what is politically correct/incorrect arena.

    I’n not arguing that smoking is either harmless or harmful, more intrigued by the methods of crowd control employed.

    Rather interesting that the more affluent were willing (and able) to protest at the possibility of a stag hunt ban, yet the majority are huddled up and quiet when it comes to issues round the HSE, NAMA, FAS and all the other good stuff. Keep the masses in fear (or distracted) and life ‘ll be just grand!
    .-= mick´s last brainfart .. Ireland Homecoming Study Programme =-.

  8. Grandad,

    Third hand smoke is dangerous! Herself could always tell if I had been in a pub on the way home.

  9. Haddock – This whole thing gives me a mental picture of myself walking through a city leaving a trail of death, destruction and bodies behind me.  Am I really so fatal?  Is my mere presence going to cause people to shrivel up and die?  What fun!!  😈

    Johnie – I have the same reaction myself.  Do I want to laugh at them or cull them?

    Mick – Welcome back [from wherever you have been!].  Yes, there has been a little bit of a quiet debate here.  Nothing of any consequence though.

    The Antis are beginning to show their true colours all right.  They are finally admitting that they want smoking banned not for any ‘health’ reason but purely because they don’t like the look of it.  I think you are referring to that eejit John Britton from the Royal College of Surgeons who wants smoking banned in cars, private homes and all public places?

  12. After 15months of working in a market research company, I have to laugh when I see new surveys being paraded around! They’re SO flawed….interviewers can make things up and interviewees take the piss to get the survey finished as quick as possible! The whole thing is a joke! I do miss cold-calling complete strangers during their peaceful evenings to ask them about ice cream, banking, tourism and colonic irrigation though (that’s NOT a joke!).

    As for this survey, some of those results are unbelievably stupid, but even though they’re isn’t definitive proof regarding secondhand smoke, I do believe that it can cause harm! That’s from studying biology and personal logic, not random surveys though! I mean if the smoke can cause cancer in the the smoker, isn’t is kinda logical that that same smoke could have a similar effect on the stander-by (not as a once off, but say if you live with a smoker or spend a lot of time in smokey pubs….well in the old days anyway)? It wouldn’t be AS lethal, of course, but it’s not exactly good health practice!
    .-= Hermia´s last brainfart .. Quelle horreur!!!! =-.

  13. Not only is there NO definitive proof that a smokers breath, second, third or even tenth-hand smoke is dangerous to health ..

    There is NO definitive proof that Smoking itself causes Cancer ..

    The oft flung-in-the-faces of Smokers cry of .. “Well, what about Roy Castle then” ? .. is a typical scare story which has become part of Anti-Smoking folk-lore ..

    Before he died of cancer, Roy Castle himself said that he could just as easily have contracted cancer through prolonged exposure to and contact with the chemicals with which he cleaned his Trumpet ..

    But to date, I haven’t heard near-hysterical calls for those chemicals to be banned .. nor spiteful campaigns for Trumpeters to be forced out into the cold & rain to play their instruments ..

  14. Surely this means that Ireland can sue the catholic church for dangling all those smokey chaucibles around in masses for decades?

    Won’t somebody think of the altarboys?

  15. Seriously though the only reason these surveys exist is because there is such a low level of education/intelligence around that people believe anything they see in a newspaper.

    Its lowest common denominator advocacy. Start a panic and guide the herd intoa regulatory corral where you want them to be.

    ASH are basically the sort of cunts that no-one on earth wants to live next door to. The sort of people who are fustrated that no-one will obey their puritan zealotry in arranging the world around them and try to scare the populace into it.

    Its long past time when there should be a mechanism to challenge such junk surveys before they are allowed to publish. I se Gordon Brown in the UK has just been publicly upbraided by the statistics office for deliberately using non-comparable statistics in the House of Commons and has had to issue a correction.

    Its about time ASH and a few others were publicly challenged.

  17. Cap’n Con ..

    Ha ha .. You mean the old “smoking handbags” .. I well remember swinging one of those around ..

    Though I always recall them being called “Censers” .. or “Thuribles” ..

    Yes, believe it or not, I was once an Altar Boy .. Shit, they must have been desperate … Lol

  19. ‘That would rank smoke as being up there with plutonium.’

    Indeed, good if you are talking about inhaling the plutonium, otherwise a very bad analogy.
    (Or conversely a very good analogy for the subject of your article)

    I suppose you could injure someone by throwing the plutonium at them, otherwise it’s an alpha emitter, hardly scary.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

  20. Welcome, Chuckles.  What I am saying is that if smokers breath is so poisonous it must rank amonst the top poisons in the world.  Maybe I should have used Botulism or Dimethylmercury to illustrate my point?  Leastwise, if my breath is so damned toxic, how come I’m still alive?

  21. What I found interesting was that e-cig users were least likely to believe the anti-smoker claims.

    Why should that be?
    —-

  22. Welcome, West2.  I found the survey results more than a little strange as well as very disturbing.  I think the e-cig anomalies can easily be explained by the fact that the suvey was undertaken by a company that sells e-cigarettes and is also anti smoking?  One can only assume that the majority of people who heard about the survey would have come via the company’s site, and would therefore presume that a) they would roughly follow the same philosophy, and b) would either be e-cigarette users or would be contemplating quitting?

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting
↑