[William Tell]

r9etb said: "Well, Mr. Milloy seems to be telling us (without evidence) that second-hand tobacco smoke has no ill effects, which is nearly as dishonest as the claim he's addressing here. "

Really?

Could you point out where that claim is made?

I don't see it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The author is pointing out that there is an absence of evidence that reduction of SHS in Helena caused a reduction in heart disease. Pointing out that science has not been done does not constitute science in and of itself. The burden is squarely on those who claim to have proven a connection.

[r9etb]

I said "seems to be," which was a caveat (in case you missed it).

My comment was an inference from the tone of the article which, as you'll no doubt agree, is generally dismissive of SHS research in general. (And at least some of it is, in fact, quite poor.)

The meaning of the very last line, that SHS research is just "blowing smoke in your eyes," is ambiguous, but easily interpreted as a claim that SHS research is junk science: that there are no ill effects from it. Hence my comment.

There are no doubt data available -- for example, correlations of the absences or medical costs -- that would show whether or not there was a significant difference between when smoking was, and was not, allowed in the workplace.