[bajabaja]

And if you want the results of studies, Here's a list of studies and their associated risk findings. Keep in mind that most epidemialogical studies discount a risk percent if it is lower than 2.00. I count 94 studies that have statistics associated and 14 that have a risk of 2.00 or more.

Your studies regard SECOND HAND SMOKE, not SMOKER/LUNG CANCER risk. You do not mention that rather relevant distinction at all in your post. Instead you site the studies and correlational numbers, but fail to mention these studies are on a separate question, NON-SMOKER/SECOND HAND SMOKE/CANCER risk. If you have studies that show such poor correlations between SMOKERS and LUNG CANCER, then we are talking about the same thing. I am sure you will post those actually relevant studies -- if they exist.

[Just another Joe]

Show me a study. One that has the data needed to draw a conclusion.
I don't necessarily believe everything I read, hear, or see without corroborating evidence.

I said that approximately 10% of smokers contract any type of life threatening illness, you wanted proof.

You said that approximately 10% of all smokers contract lung cancer. I ask you for proof.
Not press releases, not hypothetical estimates of hypothetical groups, just studies that I can look at.

I have said that I will attempt to find the study that had the 10% for any life threatening illness.
I can't do so right now because I'm at work without access to my external hard drive.

If you want to swap veiled insults we can do that.

If you want to convince me, show me the studies.