Quote:
Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004
The above link is from an anti smoking ban movement? hardly unbiassed imo.
They will grip onto anything to keep these death sticks around, if anyone as an adult wants to poison their own bodies go ahead and do it, just dont think it right to expose kids whose lungs are developing to second hand smoke let alone anyone.
|
Would you consider a study published in the British Medical Journal to be valid?
From
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
Quote:
The results of the California CPS I cohort do not support a causal relation between exposure to environental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. Given the limitations of the underlying data in this and the other studies of environmental tobacco smoke and the small size of the risk, it seems premature to conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes death from coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
What is already known on this topic
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is generally believed to increase the risk of coronary heart disease and lung cancer among never smokers by about 25%
This increased risk, based primarily on meta-analysis, is still controversial due to methodological problems
What this study adds
In a large study of Californians followed for 40 years, environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with coronary heart disease or lung cancer mortality at any level of exposure
These findings suggest that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed
Active cigarette smoking was confirmed as a strong, dose related risk factor for coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
|
So, while there may be an effect, it is apparently small, and certainly smaller than other possible environment causes of cancer such as, say, Fuller's Earth.