Replies

One study, especially one that conflicts with all others, doesn't mean very much. It may not have been published because the methodology was screwed.

I don't see any reason to believe that this study is the truth and all others are fatally flawed. You should expect some studies to fail to find correlations that exist. They are designed to make such errors unlikely, but not impossible.

Actually this was the largest study ever done and did not conflisct with the other studies.

All the others studies have said basically the same thing - the increased relative risks due to exposure to SHS are not statistically significant.

And this is part of the reason a Federal Court threw out most of the EPA's findings about SHS - because that report was SERIOUSLY flawed. All they did was take the studies existing at the time and lump them all together - when the relative risks didn't come out the way they wanted them - they changed the parameters until they did. In other words - they cooked the numbers to suit their agenda.

I don't see any reason to believe that this study is the truth and all others are fatally flawed.

Most of the studies that the anti-smoking cartel use have been PROVEN to be fatally flawed, by the Congressional Research Institute, OSHA, or some other governmental agency.

I don't see any reason to believe that this study is the truth and all others are fatally flawed. You should expect some studies to fail to find correlations that exist. They are designed to make such errors unlikely, but not impossible.

You haven't been paying attention have you.
Yes, all those other "studies" are fatally flawed, and the courts found them to be so: contrived, invented, unscientific and assembled to fit a preconceived conclusion.
See the link to the court findings elsewhere in this thread.

Neurotic controllers always assume that the end justifies the means, and that the universe (of course) revolves around them.

I don't see any reason to believe that this study is the truth and all others are fatally flawed. You should expect some studies to fail to find correlations that exist. They are designed to make such errors unlikely, but not impossible.

This is definitely NOT just one study.

The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society

Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Second Hand Smoke

Oak Ridge Labs & SHS

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?

Also: Second Hand Smoke Frauds

One study, especially one that conflicts with all others, doesn't mean very much. It may not have been published because the methodology was screwed.

No, the methodology was not "screwed" and far from conflicting "with all others," it bolstered their findings. It was a well-designed, very large study whose conclusions did not match the preconceived goal.

I don't see any reason to believe that this study is the truth and all others are fatally flawed. You should expect some studies to fail to find correlations that exist. They are designed to make such errors unlikely, but not impossible.

This is actually funny. You make a good point, not realizing that the vast majority of all studies ever done on ets found that the risk is statistically insignificant. Very few showed a significant risk, and only one was far enough above unity to be of any value. Of the 30 or so studies meta-analyzed by the EPA for their "report," 24 of them showed no risk. And even after putting all those into the mixmaster trying to come up with SOMETHING they could screech about, they were forced to drop the confidence interval from the standard 95% to 90%.

Do you guys just enjoy being manipulated and lied to? Big Anti-Tobacco is at least as bad as Big Tobacco ever was, but you're too blind to see it.