In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

On 3/3/2012 4:21 PM, oscar wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 16:03:27 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 3/3/2012 8:57 AM, BAR wrote:
In
,
says...

In ,

says...

In
,
says...

In ,
says...

Read the first link through, all I saw was a study that
said "we were
successful in cutting down on second hand smoke (we
think)"... Nothing
to do with the discussion we were having about the effects
of second
hand smoke... And you wonder why I don't read his posts?

Really? That's all you got out of it? Can you read?

Link #1's first few sentences:

Secondhand smoke is a major cause of morbidity and
mortality. It has
been associated with serious health problems in both
children and
adults. Efforts to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke in
Nebraska have
included programs to prevent tobacco use among young people
and
campaigns for smoke-free workplaces and homes. Despite these
interventions, young people continue to be exposed to
secondhand smoke
at an unacceptably high rate


Link #2's first few:

Every authoritative, peer-reviewed assessment of the
scientific evidence
over the years has concluded that Secondhand smoke causes a
lengthening
list of diseases.

The only dissent has come from Big Tobacco and the
scientists and
organizations affiliated with it. Researchers supported by
Big Tobacco
are eighty-eight times more likely than independent
researchers to
conclude there is no evidence that Secondhand smoke is
dangerous.

The most current knowledge first...

The first studies showing that Secondhand smoke causes
respiratory
problems in children were published over thirty years ago.
First
evidence that Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer was
published in 1981.
Since then, the list of dangers has steadily grown. This
page sums up
the major, independent, consensus statements produced by
scientific
bodies since 1985, most recent first.

2006 US Surgeon General. The Health Consequences of
Involuntary Exposure
to Tobacco Smoke. California Environmental Protection
Agency. Update of
the landmark 1986 Surgeon General's report. Emphasizes the
effects of
secondhand smoke on the heart, particularly the fact that
effects occur
within minutes to increase the risk of a heart attack.
Confirms that
there is no economic effect of smokefree laws on the
hospitality
industry, and concludes the ventilation systems cannot
control
secondhand smoke. Full report

Effects Causally Associated with Secondhand Smoke
Lung cancer
Coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
Low Birth Weight
Lower respiratory illnesses in infants and children
Middle ear disease in children (including otitis media and
chronic
middle ear infusion)
Respiratory symptoms in children (cough, phlegm, wheeze, and
breathlessness)
Asthma in children
Reduced development of lung function in children


Yep, keep telling yourself that second hand smoke is good
for your
children.

Where is the data?

Can you not read???

Where are the links to the documents? You have read them
haven't you.
You do have their URLs handy?
He posted a list, I spent some good time reading the first one,
but it
had NOTHING to do with the effects of second hand smoke.... Just
a feel
good article to explain another $tudy at another university. Feel
good
seems to be the most reliable science for them. Just like Global
Taxing...


Here you go, and BAR too!! Now, please post your "peer reviewed
articles" that claim that second hand smoke is not harmful.


http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2483572/


http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ATS/14294


http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/m...ng-050907.html


Need more, just ask!

More more more
Thanks

All propaganda... full of "may cause" and "thought to cause" and "we
think".. and of course... "I Feel" which is the basis of all of these
studies... I have read several of them now, not one has really been
what it was supposed to be...

It still hasn't provided the peer reviewed studies.

Bull****.

Where are the URLs to the peer reviewed studies. The the article
reviews. But the peer reviewed studies. You do know what a peer reviewed
study is don't you? It is the study itself, not somebody else's
editorial on the study. Studies have graphs and descriptions of the data
collected and how it was collected. I read "Science" each month and that
contains peer reviewed studies. I read various IEEE periodicals that
have peer reviewed studies.

A peer reviewed study is a study, the actual study, that has been
reviewed by peers of the person or persons who performed and wrote the
study.

Where is the study itself!!!!!