Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Michael Crichton on the Unproven Dangers of Secondhand Smoke

Michael Crichton on the Unproven Dangers of Secondhand Smoke  
 
Customize

More From: Sidewinder77

Loading...

QuickList(0)

87 ratings
Sign in to rate
18,631 views
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...

Video Responses (0)

This video has no Responses. Be the first to Post a Video Response.
Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (196)   Options

Loading...
weallknowitstrue (1 week ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Good WORK Lord Monckton.
I hope that you will noted and honoured as you should be.
Please continue until this matter of Global Warming is sealed to never return again.
So that we can all get back to focusing on local pollution - were we actually can effect change to our local environment, without needing a global carbon tax to do it.
Cheers to you Monckton
St37One (1 month ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
The simple rule of thumb is that more smoke exposure is worse for you, and that a little is worse than none at all.
The fact that the effects of second hand smoke fail to show up in a statistical analysis testifies to the petty insignificance of those effects. But I agree that thes junk science methods are a bad precedent, which is also used with other political issues like global warming and domestic violence, where hysteria prevails over facts.
St37One (1 month ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
statistical significance is not the issue here, because the question of whether or not there is any effect at all has no value in this context.
If direct smoking increases cancer risk, then why wouldnt breathing in second hand smoke?
It is not a question of causality but of quantity.
How much smoke exposure is bad for you?
How much does it increase your risk?
How much should your own personal freedom be compromised in the interest of public good or public taste?
bbkingzor (2 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
When Crichton says 2nd hand smoke DOES NOT cause cancer, he is right. However, he still wants to outlaw people who do smoke. I fail to see the logic in this. Because he, in his own words "don't like it when people smoke", he'd take part in making it ILLIGAL to smoke certain areas. Maybe he doesn't like smoke after a meal, but some people do. Why are his likes and dislikes better than others making it morally acceptable for him to makes law to outlaw smokers. Let it be said that I am a NONSMOKER.
bbkingzor (2 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
to smoke IN certain areas lul
Comment(s) marked as spam Show
Jonnymont (2 months ago) Show Hide
+1
Marked as spam
He's spot on,

:( if only there were more people around like Crichton
willym62 (2 months ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Groundless:
Another mind numbed robot. Never let the facts get in the way of your religion of Second Hand Smoke.
groundless (2 months ago) Show Hide
 -5
Marked as spam
Michael Crichton is a damn fool
groundless (2 months ago) Show Hide
 -2
Marked as spam
good argument. you are retarded.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.