The Medway Handyman wrote:
I could enter into a ****ing contest here and quote as many articles that
show no connection, some from FOREST.
That's FOREST as in 100% sponsored by the tobacco industry?
You would no doubt 'rubbish' any of these as being biased in favour of
smoking. You need to be aware that the sources you quote are certainly
not gospel, they are also heavily biased towards the anti smoking lobby.
Because of course the repeated assertions of a tobacco addicted odd-job
man are so much more valuable as insights than the evidence published in
peer reviewed journals. And someone who thinks that absence of evidence
is evidence of absence is obviously so qualified to make observations on
statistical risk.
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/hea...obacco/howdowe
know/#Passive
Studies have consistently found that non-smoking spouses of people who
smoke at home have 20-30% higher risks of lung cancer.[44] And a review
of 22 studies found that people exposed to second-hand smoke in the
workplace have 24% higher risks of lung cancer. Those who were exposed
to the highest levels of second-hand smoke at work had twice the risks
of lung cancer.[45]
One study estimates that passive smoking may kill over 11,000 people
every year in the UK from cancer, heart disease, strokes and other
diseases[46].
Second-hand smoking also causes other health problems in non-smokers
including asthma and heart disease. One study showed that even 30
minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke can reduce blood flow in a
non-smoker's heart [47].
[44] Taylor, R., F. Najafi, and A. Dobson, Meta-analysis of studies of
passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent.
Int J Epidemiol, 2007.PubMed
[45] Stayner, L., et al., Lung Cancer Risk and Workplace Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Am J Public Health, 2007.PubMed
[46] Jamrozik, K., Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking
among UK adults: database analysis. BMJ, 2005. Epub ahead of
print.PubMed
[47] Otsuka, R., et al., Acute effects of passive smoking on the
coronary circulation in healthy young adults. JAMA, 2001. 286: p.
436-41.PubMed
No doubt the long words confused you.