Replies

The EPA was thrown out in court because the data they used was cherry picked to come up with a predeterminined designation - the rest of them use all of the same flawed data.

The WHO completed the largest ever, multinational study on SHS and the only statistically conclusive effect they found is that children exposed to SHS have a 22% less chance of getting lung cancer later in life.

2 weeks ago the British Medical Journal pubilshed a study from California that was based upon more than 30 years of following the same people started by the Cancer Society in the 60s. There is no statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer even after 40 years of spousal and workplace exposure.

The Department of Energy, through it's Oak Ridge National Laboratory had bar and waitstaff where air monitoring devices and determined that working in a smoking-permitted environment exposes them to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year.

For a study to be epidemiologically significant the elevated risks should never cross parity (parity =1)and should show an elevated relative risk of at least 2 or better yet 3 to rule out any possibility of confounding factors.

Example. There is an elevated RR of 1.65 for lung cancer in drinkers of whole milk. Are you going to stop drinking whole milk because of this risk, of course not, it's way too low for it to prove drinking whole milk can cause lung cancer. Do you know what the RR for lung cancer is for exposure to SHS, even 20-30 years of daily exposure at home and work? 1.19 - 1.43...........in other words statistically INsignificant.

I am not at my own computer and therefore do not have the links at my finger tips - but believe me I am not pulling this info out of thin air. I'm sure one of the others has links for these and others closer at hand.

The WHO completed the largest ever, multinational study on SHS and the only statistically conclusive effect they found is that children exposed to SHS have a 22% less chance of getting lung cancer later in life.

Are you saying that exposure to SHS worked as a vaccine against cancer? That SHS is a healthy thing to expose children too?

A couple of points: how many death certificates have ever been issued in history listing ETS as the "cause"? Answer: none. Because it CAN'T be proven. The only reason for smoking bans is that some people just "don't like" smoking. since smokers are a minority of the population, a majority will always vote to restrict their freedom. As to the band not wanting to "work" with smoke around them, I want them to not play their music loud. It IS true that loud music damages hearing. How dare they subject innocent people to this? The only fair thing to do is to BAN loud music everywhere.