Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrak
Thats a horrible article. What was the point of the experiment? What were the conclusions?
Anyone over 10 years old could conclude that "particulates" would be higher inside the ballroom.
I think his experiment backfired since it showed that particulates were well within the EPA's acceptable levels outside the ballroom and throughout the hotel.
|
I agree 100%.
The funny thing is all of their claims revolve around thing. They believe that second hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer. In fact there has never been a
SCIENTIFIC study to prove that it does. There have been scientific studies that tried to prove it, but none were successful.
Compare the junk "science" of our own Surgeon General. Read how second hand smoke exposure is "calculated".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901158_pf.html
"Typically,
the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.
In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory.
"
To the actual scientific study done by the WHO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901158_pf.html
"The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.
The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." "
It's hard to argue with a real scientific study.