I guess these aren't "effects" of that "cause" then:
# An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke.6
# Each year, secondhand smoke is associated with an estimated 8,000–26,000 new asthma cases in children.4 Annually an estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months (7,500–15,000 of which will require hospitalization) are associated with secondhand smoke exposure in the United States.4
# Approximately 60% of people in the United States have biological evidence of secondhand smoke exposure.7
# Among children aged less than 18 years, an estimated 22% are exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes, with estimates ranging from 11.7% in Utah to 34.2% in Kentucky.8
Associated with, is not causation. It is much the same as stating as fact that 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths occur annually among adult nonsmokers in the US as a result of riding in cars.
Are you positive it is the SHS or could it be air polution in general?
Now, for the asthma cases, that one is easy to debunk. If second hand smoke is causing asthma cases, why has the rate of asthma gone up while the rate of smoking has gone down. Using your logic, I would say that the negative correlation should lead to a fact that SHS is a useful tool in preventing asthma.
Your last two points indicate that people are exposed to SHS. No kidding.
Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects
I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"
You obviously have no clue as to the difference between effect and illness.
Lumping together all neuroses makes it impossible to have a rational discussion.
No scientifically valid connection between second hand smoke outside and illnesses has ever been documented, and God knows, they have ben trying for over 50 years...
One of the big problems with all smoking studies is that those illnesses associated with it are not dropping along with the rate of smoking as a percentage of the population; no one tries to explain this and those who are for more regulation will accept any correlation at all.
Overall air pollution has dropped even more dramatically since 1967 than the number of people who smoke yet asthma cases are increasing at an almost inverse ratio to the reductions.
Even lung cancer cases are showing a greater percentage of patients who aren't smokers than in the past decades.
Nobody is quite sure why this is so.