"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
o.uk...
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

Do you deny that there are any health problems caused by passive
smoking?

I'm saying the burden of proof is on the proponent of the argument.
There is no credible scientific evidence to support the argument
that passive smoking is a health risk.

Well, that's just obviously complete and utter tosh. Trivially easy to
demonstrate that it is so - if the smoky atmosphere in a pub caused
somebody to so much as cough, it's evidence of a health risk.

Obviously complete and utter tosh? Give me some scientific study that
back up your claim. The BMA & Guvmint can't.

Trivially easy to demonstrate. If the smoke causes somebody to cough when
they wouldn't have done so before, it's adversely affected their health. I
could arrange a formal survey for this if you want - except it's a bit
harder these days since the atmosphere in most public places no longer has
the problem.

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things. Non smokers also cough.

Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

You seem to be desperately clinging to the idea that smoke is some wonderful
benign stuff - it isn't. You've actually gone so far into that belief that
you're denying the obvious - the more obvious effects of smoke have been
known for ages, and even entered popular culture ("Smoke gets in your
eyes").

Give me the credible scientific evidence and I'll fall over & retract my
opinion - oh but you can't can you?

If you weren't so blinkered, you'd have noticed I'm only arguing at the
moment for the most blatently obvious effects - those which were known about
well before the link to cancer was demonstrated. Yet you still insist they
don't exist. Why is that? Why do you attempty to deny what is staring you in
the face?

(I've normally seen you as a fairly reasonable man - but on this subject
you're well off the mark.)

clive