Some of you actually believe and state that diluted secondary smoke is a PROVEN cause of lung cancer. But if you go to nycclash/triplerisk.html. virtually every study done on the subject between 1980 and 2000. Only about a dozen were able to find even a statistically significant correlation, much less anything provable causally. Some, most notably a very large UN one looking at exposure of children to parental smoking, actually found a protective effect: a significant reduction in risk of up to 22%. Even if you DO accept the correlations as causal fact its still silly to talk about it as an actual risk in ordinary life: on the average it would take 40,000 worker-years of constant exposure to produce a single lung cancer. nycclash/triplerisk.html
Posted on: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:53:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015