Here's a 69-page document (http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf) listing studies about secondhand smoke. Do you mean to tell me that 80% of these find that secondhand smoke is harmless? Common sense and my own personal experience tells me that either smokers and families of smokers sure have bad luck when it comes to health (and conversely, nonsmokers and families of nonsmokers sure have good luck) or smoking causes problems for those who do it and those who are around it.
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf
I have to assume that they're all government stooges out to grab your cigarettes.
I'll have to take a look at the list on a study by study basis and get back to you.
Common sense and my own personal experience tells me that either smokers and families of smokers sure have bad luck when it comes to health (and conversely, nonsmokers and families of nonsmokers sure have good luck) or smoking causes problems for those who do it and those who are around it.
So now we are to take anecdotal evidence?
Please don't try to mix muscrats and geese. They don't go well together.
You have to rely on one or the other so tell me which you will take.
I have to assume that they're all government stooges out to grab your cigarettes.
I don't really care if they grab my cigarettes or not. I routinely go for 4 or 5 days at a time without a cigarette.
I do, however, hate the taking of liberties on false pretenses.
It’s not a study, it’s a book that lists some of the different chemicals in tobacco smoke.
"Chronic productive cough in school children: prevalence and associations with asthma and environmental tobacco smoke exposure,"
Conclusion: In a population of young teenagers, CPC was strongly associated with report of current asthma symptoms and also with ETS exposure. This suggests that asthma and ETS exposure may contribute to CPC in children. However, this study was not designed to determine whether asthma was the actual cause of CPC in this population of children.
”Suggests” and “may” does not prove a link. Also this study was not on ETS it was on CPC. ETS just happened to be on variable.
Second Hand Smoke Exposure and Survival in Early-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients
Number one, this is a study done on patients that already have lung cancer, not otherwise healthy humans and number two, the RRs in this study don’t reach 2.00.
"Sidestream cigarette smoke toxicity increases with aging and exposure duration,"
This isn’t even a study, It doesn’t have any RRs, it doesn’t make any statements besides 90 day old ETS is worse than fresh ETS. Common sense you said?
Plus, anything put out by Stanton Glantz is suspect to begin with. This is the same man that said it would take a 700 MPH wind to get rid of ETS in a room.
A brief exposure to moderate passive smoke increases metabolism and thyroid hormone secretion
This one doesn’t say anything about any type of harm to a human. It states exactly what the title says.
"Maternal exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke and pregnancy outcome among couples undergoing assisted reproduction,"
Look at the synopsis on the page with it. “However, this may be a chance finding due to multiple comparisons." Further research was recommended.”
Do you really want me to go on and on?
Of the first 6 studies one was done on already ill humans, and that one doesn’t reach epidemiological standards, one was done on a different illness and ETS was a variable, one admits to confounders, one is a list of chemicals in ETS, one says that aged ETS is worse than fresh ETS, etc, etc ,etc.