just like it isn't clear exactly how big a detriment to health is caused by smoking. Does that mean we shouldn't get into a tizzy and tell people to stop smoking until we absolutely know for sure that it's bad for them? Or can we say "We're not 100% sure exactly how bad it is, but all indications point to Really, Really Bad. So, um, stop. Now."
Smoking is a good example. It is clear that smoking is bad for some people; it is equally clear that smoking isn't bad for everyone. Obviously smoking increases the incidence of emphysema and lung cancer in populations but not everyone who smokes will develop either of these problems. In fact the majority of smokers won't. So we should be honest about that and not make it sound like everyone who ever takes a drag on a cigarette is going to end up dying of lung disease. Overstating the problem just makes a lot of people believe there is no problem.
no subject
Smoking is a good example. It is clear that smoking is bad for some people; it is equally clear that smoking isn't bad for everyone. Obviously smoking increases the incidence of emphysema and lung cancer in populations but not everyone who smokes will develop either of these problems. In fact the majority of smokers won't. So we should be honest about that and not make it sound like everyone who ever takes a drag on a cigarette is going to end up dying of lung disease. Overstating the problem just makes a lot of people believe there is no problem.