[]captain__sock [score hidden] 8 hours ago That was a needlessly patronizing question.

I'll ignore the undertone and answer it anyway. If the urgeon !eneral states so"ething# I a" highly likely to trust hi". $e's a credi%le source of infor"ation# likely "ore so than "ost authorities on health "atters. &f course# if I inhaled one lungful of second hand s"oke or recei'ed one in(ection of radioacti'e iodine for an )*I# I would likely not de'elop so"e sort of disease fro" those e+posures. $owe'er# they did har" "y %ody slightly. It is safe to assu"e that the geno"e of at least one cell was affected %y each of these aggregates. If the "utation caused %y the che"icals or radiation was recognized %y the cell and the cell underwent apoptosis# then e'erything is fine. ,n infinitesi"ally s"all a"ount of har" was done to "y %ody. I lost a couple of cells# %ig deal. $owe'er# each ti"e the geno"e of a cell is da"aged and "utated# there is a chance that the %ody will not recognize it. If the part of the geno"e that codes for cell reproduction is da"aged# then I ha'e a potentially cancerous cell. I ha'e increased "y chances of getting cancer thanks to one s"all e+posure to these aggregates. In the real world we are e+posed to higher doses of carcinogens and to+ins than the person in "y analogy is. )y point# and I %elie'e the urgeon !eneral's point# is that the risk of e+posure to these things is har"ful in that it does do so"e "easura%le a"ount of %odily har" and increases one's chances of cancer# e'en if only slightly. ,lso# when I a" on ca"pus and inhale the s"oke of se'en different s"okers e'ery day# I continually increase "y chances of de'eloping cancerous cells. )y point is that# e'en though this is likely a s"all risk# people who propagate the risk -s"okers. do not ha'e the right to e+pose "e to potentially har"ful che"icals. They should not %e allowed to s"oke in pu%lic. Their con'enience is significantly less i"portant than the health of the people around the". o saying /any s"oke it %ad/ is not (ust the regulators looking for the si"plest rules. It is si"ply har"ful# and this is a fact.

per"alink sa'e0*1 source parent

[]2nti"ely)editations [score hidden] 3 hours ago I did not intend for the last sentence to sound so patronizing# I apologize and ha'e struck it out. Everything is har"ful. There are (ust 'arying degrees of risk. )ost risk insignificant# and is treated as such -walking# standing# tieing your shoes etc..

, no0threshold "odel i"plies that any e+posure carries risk significant enough that it can %e differentiated fro" %ackground. In the []captain__sock [score hidden] 8 hours ago That was a needlessly patronizing question. I'll ignore the undertone and answer it anyway. If the urgeon !eneral states so"ething# I a" highly likely to trust hi". $e's a credi%le source of infor"ation# likely "ore so than "ost authorities on health "atters. &f course# if I inhaled one lungful of second hand s"oke or recei'ed one in(ection of radioacti'e iodine for an )*I# I would likely not de'elop so"e sort of disease fro" those e+posures. $owe'er# they did har" "y %ody slightly. It is safe to assu"e that the geno"e of at least one cell was affected %y each of these aggregates. If the "utation caused %y the che"icals or radiation was recognized %y the cell and the cell underwent apoptosis# then e'erything is fine. ,n infinitesi"ally s"all a"ount of har" was done to "y %ody. I lost a couple of cells# %ig deal. $owe'er# each ti"e the geno"e of a cell is da"aged and "utated# there is a chance that the %ody will not recognize it. If the part of the geno"e that codes for cell reproduction is da"aged# then I ha'e a potentially cancerous cell. I ha'e increased "y chances of getting cancer thanks to one s"all e+posure to these aggregates. In the real world we are e+posed to higher doses of carcinogens and to+ins than the person in "y analogy is. )y point# and I %elie'e the urgeon !eneral's point# is that the risk of e+posure to these things is har"ful in that it does do so"e "easura%le a"ount of %odily har" and increases one's chances of cancer# e'en if only slightly. ,lso# when I a" on ca"pus and inhale the s"oke of se'en different s"okers e'ery day# I continually increase "y chances of de'eloping cancerous cells. )y point is that# e'en though this is likely a s"all risk# people who propagate the risk -s"okers. do not ha'e the right to e+pose "e to potentially har"ful che"icals. They should not %e allowed to s"oke in pu%lic. Their con'enience is significantly less i"portant than the health of the people around the". o saying /any s"oke it %ad/ is not (ust the regulators looking for the si"plest rules. It is si"ply har"ful# and this is a fact.

per"alink sa'e0*1 source parent

[]2nti"ely)editations [score hidden] 3 hours ago I did not intend for the last sentence to sound so patronizing# I apologize and ha'e struck it out.

Everything is har"ful. There are (ust 'arying degrees of risk. )ost risk insignificant# and is treated as such -walking# standing# tieing your shoes etc.. , no0threshold "odel i"plies that any e+posure carries risk significant enough that it can %e differentiated fro" %ackground. In the