[basil]

Actually, an intensive study taken by WHO proved that there was NO EVIDENCE of second hand smoke being harmful to anyone. The study wasn't publicized very much, of course, but Rush quotes it once in a while. There was also a new study done recently, also without much publicity, that came to the same conclusion. What little publicity this study has gotten has been demeaning towards the results, because that dirty old tobacco money paid for the study.

[Gabz]

What little publicity this study has gotten has been demeaning towards the results, because that dirty old tobacco money paid for the study.

That's just what the antis want everyone to believe.

What the naysayers refuse to mention is the fact that for 38 of the 40 years of the study published in the BMJ it was funded primarily by the NCI and the ACS, among other anti-smoker groups.

What happened was they antis realized that the numbers coming out of the study were not going their way and so they stripped all the funding. In order to finish the work they had been doing the scientists took money from where they could get it. some of that money happened to come from a Tobacco Company.

The money didn't change the outcome of the study, it just allowed it to be completed - something the antis didn't want to happen.

If anyone notices there has been no real attack on the science of the study, just on the funding of the researchers.

I would like to know where those same attackers are when it comes to the funding sources of research that gives the results they seek????????? There is no attack, nor question.

[Zipporah]

Hmm as the anti-smoker say, IF being exposed to 2nd hand smoke 3 or 4 more harmful than smoking.. gee maybe we should encourage nonsmokers to smoke.. LOL

[maryz]

There was also a new study done recently, also without much publicity, that came to the same conclusion. What little publicity this study has gotten has been demeaning towards the results, because that dirty old tobacco money paid for the study.

There was also a study done in the 70s on second-hand smoke; the author of the study had a letter in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago -- in response to a report on the recent study you mention. The 70s study found that an hour of exposure to heavy second-hand was the equivalent of smoking .004 cigarettes (or maybe it was .0004). It was paid for the American Cancer Society, who apparently dropped it into the circular file because it was never heard of again.