It'll be available for free if you wait a year. But you haven't read the 708 free studies I already cited, so I doubt you'll read this either.
And where do I find these 708 studies? You didn't give the actual study names and when I try to follow the links at the left it gives me a server error.
OK, you're too lazy to do your own work? Here we go. I discounted any studies that had to do with first hand smoking. That's not what this discussion is about.
Active and passive smoking and the risk of subarachnoid hemorrhage: an international population-based case-control study - Compared with never smokers not exposed to passive smoking, the adjusted odds ratio for SAH among current smokers was 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1 to 8.1); for past smokers, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8 to 2.0); and for passive smokers, 0.9 (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.5).
Not statistically significant
Active smoking, household passive smoking, and breast cancer: evidence from the California Teachers Study - Irrespective of whether we included passive smokers in the reference category, the incidence of breast cancer among current smokers was higher than that among never smokers (HR = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10 to 1.57 relative to all never smokers; HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.53 relative to only those never smokers who were unexposed to household passive smoking).
Once again, not staistically significant.
Cohort study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and risk of first ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack - No significant associations were found between ETS exposure outside home and ischemic stroke or between exposure to ETS at home or out of home and the risk of transient ischemic attack. Although potentially important confounders (such as dietary habits) were not included in the analysis (a sloppy study to begin with)
Effects of passive smoking on outcome in pregnancy - The multiple logistic regression analyses showed that ETS exposure during pregnancy was significantly associated with a higher risk of small-for-gestation babies (OR 2.10; 95% CI: 1.27- 3.48).
Barely statistically significant.
Environmental tobacco smoke exposure among pregnant women: impact on fetal biometry at 20-24 weeks of gestation and newborn child's birth weight - ETS exposure (passive smoking) was assumed to occur when the level of serum cotinine ranged from 2-10 ng/ml.
Another sloppy study.
Passive cigarette smoking is a risk factor in cervical neoplasia - The adjusted relative risk and 95% confidence limits for passive smoking was 2.1 (1.3, 3.3) in the 1963 cohort and 1.4 (0.8, 2.4) in the 1975 cohort.
Barely significant in the first cohort, not statistically significant in the second cohort. Call it a draw.
Passive smoking and breast cancer risk among non-smoking Chinese women - Overall, there was no apparent association between any passive smoke exposure or exposure to a husband's smoke and breast cancer risk. There was some evidence of an elevated breast cancer risk associated with passive smoking exposure of 5 hr or more per day in the workplace (OR = 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.0-2.4
Not statistically significant.
Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: prospective study with cotinine measurement - Relative hazards (95% confidence intervals) for coronary heart disease in the second (0.8-1.4 ng/ml), third (1.5-2.7 ng/ml), and fourth (2.8-14.0 ng/ml) quarters of cotinine concentration compared with the first ( 0.7 ng/ml) were 1.45 (1.01 to 2.08), 1.49 (1.03 to 2.14), and 1.57 (1.08 to 2.28), respectively…….. There was no consistent association between cotinine concentration and risk of stroke.
No statistical significance
Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies - The OR for ever exposure to spousal smoking was 1.18 (95% CI = 1.01-1.37) and for long-term exposure was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.01-1.51). After exclusion of proxy interviews, the OR for ever exposure from the workplace was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.99-1.36) and for long-term exposure was 1.27 (95% CI = 1.03-1.57). Similar results were obtained for exposure from social settings and for exposure from combined sources. A dose-response
NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Do you really want me to go on?
There is no preponderance, even majority, even large minority, of evidence that ETS will harm anyone that doesn't have a preexisting medical condition.