Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

A few more peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in respected scientific journals that somehow seem not be present in Cyprus Grump's so-called comprehensive list of studies:

1. Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. (February 2010). "Atmospheric Chemistry Special Feature: Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America (PNAS). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf.
2. ^ Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00564.x. PMID 11494987.
3. ^ He J et al. (1999). "Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease—a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.". N Engl J Med 340: 920–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199903253401204. PMID 10089185.
4. ^ Svendsen KH, Kuller LH, Martin MJ, Ockene JK. (1987). "Effects of passive smoking in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.". Am J Epidemiol 126: 783–95. PMID 3661526.
5. ^ "1986 Surgeon General's report: the health consequences of involuntary smoking". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35 (50): 769–70. 1986. PMID 3097495.
6. ^ National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects, NRC, Washington, DC (1986).
7. ^ a b US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disordersPDF
8. ^ "Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency". Tob Control 6 (4): 346–53. 1997. doi:10.1136/tc.6.4.346. PMID 9583639.
9. ^ "Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health to the Chief Medical Officer, Part II". http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... part-2.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
10. ^ Hackshaw AK (1998). "Lung cancer and passive smoking". Stat Methods Med Res 7 (2): 119–36. doi:10.1191/096228098675091404. PMID 9654638.
11. ^ National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1997).
12. ^ Brennan P, Buffler P, Reynolds P, Wu A, Wichmann H, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel K, Benhamou S, Greenberg R, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham E, Kreuzer M, Darby S, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P (2004). "Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies". Int. J. Cancer 109 (1): 125–31. doi:10.1002/ijc.11682. PMID 14735478.
13. ^ Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2003). "Epidemiology of lung cancer". Chest 123 (1 Suppl): 21S–49S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21S. PMID 12527563.
14. ^ Theis RP, Dolwick Grieb SM, Burr D, Siddiqui T, Asal NR (2008). "Smoking, environmental tobacco smoke, and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study". BMC Cancer 8: 387. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-8-387. PMID 19108730.
15. ^ Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, et al. (2007). "Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study". Cancer 109 (12): 2547–56. doi:10.1002/cncr.22724. PMID 17492688.
16. ^ Mother's active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children FILIPPINI G. (1) ; FARINOTTI M. (1) ; LOVICU G. ; MAISONNEUVE P. ; BOYLE P. ; International journal of cancer ISSN 0020-7136 CODEN IJCNAW. 1994, vol. 57, no6, pp. 769-774 (31 ref.)

[cyprusgrump]

This is the stuff we are talking about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3235820.stm

What's in the smoke?

Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases.
The particulate phase includes tar, nicotine, benzene and benzo(a)pyrene.
The gas phase includes carbon monoxide, ammonia, dimethylnitrosamine, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide and acrolein.
It has been estimated that tobacco smoke contains as many as 60 substances which cause - or are suspected of causing - cancer.
And many irritate the tissues of the respiratory system.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA has classified environmental tobacco smoke as a class A carcinogen - ranking it alongside asbestos and arsenic.

Do people have the right, despite being fully aware of the risks, to inhale this stuff of their own free will? Absolutely.

Do these same people have the right to force others, who of their own free will chose to have healthy life styles and not to smoke tobacco, to inhale this filth? Absolutely not.

You can keep pulling this stuff out of the (smoky) air, but it has all been debunked elsewhere...

Nobody denies those chemicals are present - you are burning organic substances (leaves) and they are to be expected... However the concentrations are absolutely tiny...

These are the scare tactics commonly used by the anti-smoking lobby...

LOOK SMOKE CONTAINS ALL THESE TERRIBLE CHEMICALS!!!

They fail to tell you that smoke from a BBQ or a garden bonfire contains the same stuff - and in considerably larger concentrations than you'd get in second hand smoke...

But the point is that if somebody wants to smoke they should be allowed to... for goodness sake, there have been enough warnings...

And nobody denies you the right NOT to breathe in the smoke...

Nobody has ever prevented YOU Tim from opening a non-smoking bar, restaurant or shop yet that same right is now denied to smokers... can that be fair...?

I was talking to a friend about it... I suggested there should be smoking and non-smoking restaurants... She said that wouldn't be fair because the smoking restaurant might be better and she'd want to eat there!

Do you see the mentality...?

"I don't like smoke so nobody should be allowed to smoke"

That's fine, jump on that bandwagon but remember, when they start to curtail your right to drink, eat fatty foods, wear cologne and whatever else they have up their sleeves don't expect to see smokers backing you when you complain...

[cyprusgrump]

A few more peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in respected scientific journals that somehow seem not be present in Cyprus Grump's so-called comprehensive list of studies:

1. Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. (February 2010). "Atmospheric Chemistry Special Feature: Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America (PNAS). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf.
2. ^ Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00564.x. PMID 11494987.
3. ^ He J et al. (1999). "Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease—a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.". N Engl J Med 340: 920–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199903253401204. PMID 10089185.
4. ^ Svendsen KH, Kuller LH, Martin MJ, Ockene JK. (1987). "Effects of passive smoking in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.". Am J Epidemiol 126: 783–95. PMID 3661526.
5. ^ "1986 Surgeon General's report: the health consequences of involuntary smoking". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35 (50): 769–70. 1986. PMID 3097495.
6. ^ National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects, NRC, Washington, DC (1986).
7. ^ a b US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disordersPDF
8. ^ "Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency". Tob Control 6 (4): 346–53. 1997. doi:10.1136/tc.6.4.346. PMID 9583639.
9. ^ "Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health to the Chief Medical Officer, Part II". http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... part-2.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
10. ^ Hackshaw AK (1998). "Lung cancer and passive smoking". Stat Methods Med Res 7 (2): 119–36. doi:10.1191/096228098675091404. PMID 9654638.
11. ^ National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1997).
12. ^ Brennan P, Buffler P, Reynolds P, Wu A, Wichmann H, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel K, Benhamou S, Greenberg R, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham E, Kreuzer M, Darby S, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P (2004). "Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies". Int. J. Cancer 109 (1): 125–31. doi:10.1002/ijc.11682. PMID 14735478.
13. ^ Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2003). "Epidemiology of lung cancer". Chest 123 (1 Suppl): 21S–49S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21S. PMID 12527563.
14. ^ Theis RP, Dolwick Grieb SM, Burr D, Siddiqui T, Asal NR (2008). "Smoking, environmental tobacco smoke, and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study". BMC Cancer 8: 387. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-8-387. PMID 19108730.
15. ^ Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, et al. (2007). "Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study". Cancer 109 (12): 2547–56. doi:10.1002/cncr.22724. PMID 17492688.
16. ^ Mother's active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children FILIPPINI G. (1) ; FARINOTTI M. (1) ; LOVICU G. ; MAISONNEUVE P. ; BOYLE P. ; International journal of cancer ISSN 0020-7136 CODEN IJCNAW. 1994, vol. 57, no6, pp. 769-774 (31 ref.)

Nice list Tim!

I take it you haven't read any of the reports...?

The problem of downloading stuff from the Intermong is that you associate yourself with ridiculous concepts like third-hand-smoke...

If you believe in such fantasies, there really is no point discussing this with you - a belief in third-hand smoke would effectively bar you from ever venturing out into the real world...

See my earlier points about personal liberty. Don't get yourself worried about third-hand-smoke...

[Tim Drayton]

[...]
And nobody denies you the right NOT to breathe in the smoke...
[..]

That is fine, then, so what are we arguing about? Except you tell me that I am being hysterical for saying that I object to being forced to inhale a carcinogen. Please do not deny me the right to object, nor to state the reasons why I object.

[Tim Drayton]

A few more peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in respected scientific journals that somehow seem not be present in Cyprus Grump's so-called comprehensive list of studies:

1. Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. (February 2010). "Atmospheric Chemistry Special Feature: Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America (PNAS). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf.
2. ^ Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00564.x. PMID 11494987.
3. ^ He J et al. (1999). "Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease—a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.". N Engl J Med 340: 920–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199903253401204. PMID 10089185.
4. ^ Svendsen KH, Kuller LH, Martin MJ, Ockene JK. (1987). "Effects of passive smoking in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.". Am J Epidemiol 126: 783–95. PMID 3661526.
5. ^ "1986 Surgeon General's report: the health consequences of involuntary smoking". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35 (50): 769–70. 1986. PMID 3097495.
6. ^ National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects, NRC, Washington, DC (1986).
7. ^ a b US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disordersPDF
8. ^ "Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency". Tob Control 6 (4): 346–53. 1997. doi:10.1136/tc.6.4.346. PMID 9583639.
9. ^ "Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health to the Chief Medical Officer, Part II". http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... part-2.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
10. ^ Hackshaw AK (1998). "Lung cancer and passive smoking". Stat Methods Med Res 7 (2): 119–36. doi:10.1191/096228098675091404. PMID 9654638.
11. ^ National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1997).
12. ^ Brennan P, Buffler P, Reynolds P, Wu A, Wichmann H, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel K, Benhamou S, Greenberg R, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham E, Kreuzer M, Darby S, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P (2004). "Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies". Int. J. Cancer 109 (1): 125–31. doi:10.1002/ijc.11682. PMID 14735478.
13. ^ Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2003). "Epidemiology of lung cancer". Chest 123 (1 Suppl): 21S–49S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21S. PMID 12527563.
14. ^ Theis RP, Dolwick Grieb SM, Burr D, Siddiqui T, Asal NR (2008). "Smoking, environmental tobacco smoke, and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study". BMC Cancer 8: 387. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-8-387. PMID 19108730.
15. ^ Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, et al. (2007). "Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study". Cancer 109 (12): 2547–56. doi:10.1002/cncr.22724. PMID 17492688.
16. ^ Mother's active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children FILIPPINI G. (1) ; FARINOTTI M. (1) ; LOVICU G. ; MAISONNEUVE P. ; BOYLE P. ; International journal of cancer ISSN 0020-7136 CODEN IJCNAW. 1994, vol. 57, no6, pp. 769-774 (31 ref.)

Nice list Tim!

I take it you haven't read any of the reports...?

The problem of downloading stuff from the Intermong is that you associate yourself with ridiculous concepts like third-hand-smoke...

If you believe in such fantasies, there really is no point discussing this with you - a belief in third-hand smoke would effectively bar you from ever venturing out into the real world...

See my earlier points about personal liberty. Don't get yourself worried about third-hand-smoke...

You are still missing the point. My point is that the list of studies which Christopher Snowdon has included in his book - which was specifically written from a pro-smoking point of view - is not, as a you seem to believe, comprehensive.

[cyprusgrump]

[...]
And nobody denies you the right NOT to breathe in the smoke...
[..]

That is fine, then, so what are we arguing about? Except you tell me that I am being hysterical for saying that I object to being forced to inhale a carcinogen. Please do not deny me the right to object, nor to state the reasons why I object.

We agreed early on on that point...

But you seem to feel the need to prove something about the dangers of second-hand smoke....

Keep your flithy, disgusting, gut-wrenching, foul, toxic, cancerogenic cigarette smoke away from me and I am happy. Do and believe as you wish.

I said that was hysterical...

[cyprusgrump]

A few more peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in respected scientific journals that somehow seem not be present in Cyprus Grump's so-called comprehensive list of studies:

1. Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. (February 2010). "Atmospheric Chemistry Special Feature: Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America (PNAS). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf.
2. ^ Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00564.x. PMID 11494987.
3. ^ He J et al. (1999). "Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease—a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.". N Engl J Med 340: 920–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199903253401204. PMID 10089185.
4. ^ Svendsen KH, Kuller LH, Martin MJ, Ockene JK. (1987). "Effects of passive smoking in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.". Am J Epidemiol 126: 783–95. PMID 3661526.
5. ^ "1986 Surgeon General's report: the health consequences of involuntary smoking". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35 (50): 769–70. 1986. PMID 3097495.
6. ^ National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects, NRC, Washington, DC (1986).
7. ^ a b US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disordersPDF
8. ^ "Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency". Tob Control 6 (4): 346–53. 1997. doi:10.1136/tc.6.4.346. PMID 9583639.
9. ^ "Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health to the Chief Medical Officer, Part II". http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... part-2.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
10. ^ Hackshaw AK (1998). "Lung cancer and passive smoking". Stat Methods Med Res 7 (2): 119–36. doi:10.1191/096228098675091404. PMID 9654638.
11. ^ National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1997).
12. ^ Brennan P, Buffler P, Reynolds P, Wu A, Wichmann H, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel K, Benhamou S, Greenberg R, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham E, Kreuzer M, Darby S, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P (2004). "Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies". Int. J. Cancer 109 (1): 125–31. doi:10.1002/ijc.11682. PMID 14735478.
13. ^ Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2003). "Epidemiology of lung cancer". Chest 123 (1 Suppl): 21S–49S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21S. PMID 12527563.
14. ^ Theis RP, Dolwick Grieb SM, Burr D, Siddiqui T, Asal NR (2008). "Smoking, environmental tobacco smoke, and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study". BMC Cancer 8: 387. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-8-387. PMID 19108730.
15. ^ Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, et al. (2007). "Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study". Cancer 109 (12): 2547–56. doi:10.1002/cncr.22724. PMID 17492688.
16. ^ Mother's active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children FILIPPINI G. (1) ; FARINOTTI M. (1) ; LOVICU G. ; MAISONNEUVE P. ; BOYLE P. ; International journal of cancer ISSN 0020-7136 CODEN IJCNAW. 1994, vol. 57, no6, pp. 769-774 (31 ref.)

Nice list Tim!

I take it you haven't read any of the reports...?

The problem of downloading stuff from the Intermong is that you associate yourself with ridiculous concepts like third-hand-smoke...

If you believe in such fantasies, there really is no point discussing this with you - a belief in third-hand smoke would effectively bar you from ever venturing out into the real world...

See my earlier points about personal liberty. Don't get yourself worried about third-hand-smoke...

You are still missing the point. My point is that the list of studies which Christopher Snowdon has included in his book - which was specifically written from a pro-smoking point of view - is not, as a you seem to believe, comprehensive.

Have you read them all, or any of them?

I don't have the time to go through them... I'm sure you'd be able to suck lists of stuff off the Intermong significantly faster than I could refute them...

However...

The first one is on third-hand smoke... I think we can ignore that!

The second and third are cumulative meta-analysis - that means that they simply re-analyse the results of previous epidemiological studies...

So, you've hardly proved a point with the first three on your list have you...?

[Tim Drayton]

A few more peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in respected scientific journals that somehow seem not be present in Cyprus Grump's so-called comprehensive list of studies:

1. Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. (February 2010). "Atmospheric Chemistry Special Feature: Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America (PNAS). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf.
2. ^ Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00564.x. PMID 11494987.
3. ^ He J et al. (1999). "Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease—a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.". N Engl J Med 340: 920–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199903253401204. PMID 10089185.
4. ^ Svendsen KH, Kuller LH, Martin MJ, Ockene JK. (1987). "Effects of passive smoking in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.". Am J Epidemiol 126: 783–95. PMID 3661526.
5. ^ "1986 Surgeon General's report: the health consequences of involuntary smoking". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35 (50): 769–70. 1986. PMID 3097495.
6. ^ National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects, NRC, Washington, DC (1986).
7. ^ a b US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disordersPDF
8. ^ "Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency". Tob Control 6 (4): 346–53. 1997. doi:10.1136/tc.6.4.346. PMID 9583639.
9. ^ "Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health to the Chief Medical Officer, Part II". http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... part-2.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
10. ^ Hackshaw AK (1998). "Lung cancer and passive smoking". Stat Methods Med Res 7 (2): 119–36. doi:10.1191/096228098675091404. PMID 9654638.
11. ^ National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1997).
12. ^ Brennan P, Buffler P, Reynolds P, Wu A, Wichmann H, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel K, Benhamou S, Greenberg R, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham E, Kreuzer M, Darby S, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P (2004). "Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies". Int. J. Cancer 109 (1): 125–31. doi:10.1002/ijc.11682. PMID 14735478.
13. ^ Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2003). "Epidemiology of lung cancer". Chest 123 (1 Suppl): 21S–49S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21S. PMID 12527563.
14. ^ Theis RP, Dolwick Grieb SM, Burr D, Siddiqui T, Asal NR (2008). "Smoking, environmental tobacco smoke, and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study". BMC Cancer 8: 387. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-8-387. PMID 19108730.
15. ^ Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, et al. (2007). "Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study". Cancer 109 (12): 2547–56. doi:10.1002/cncr.22724. PMID 17492688.
16. ^ Mother's active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children FILIPPINI G. (1) ; FARINOTTI M. (1) ; LOVICU G. ; MAISONNEUVE P. ; BOYLE P. ; International journal of cancer ISSN 0020-7136 CODEN IJCNAW. 1994, vol. 57, no6, pp. 769-774 (31 ref.)

Nice list Tim!

I take it you haven't read any of the reports...?

The problem of downloading stuff from the Intermong is that you associate yourself with ridiculous concepts like third-hand-smoke...

If you believe in such fantasies, there really is no point discussing this with you - a belief in third-hand smoke would effectively bar you from ever venturing out into the real world...

See my earlier points about personal liberty. Don't get yourself worried about third-hand-smoke...

You are still missing the point. My point is that the list of studies which Christopher Snowdon has included in his book - which was specifically written from a pro-smoking point of view - is not, as a you seem to believe, comprehensive.

Have you read them all, or any of them?

I don't have the time to go through them... I'm sure you'd be able to suck lists of stuff off the Intermong significantly faster than I could refute them...

However...

The first one is on third-hand smoke... I think we can ignore that!

The second and third are cumulative meta-analysis - that means that they simply re-analyse the results of previous epidemiological studies...

So, you've hardly proved a point with the first three on your list have you...?

I think I have adequately proved the point that the list of studies in Christopher Snowdon's book is not comprehensive.

[Tim Drayton]

[...]
And nobody denies you the right NOT to breathe in the smoke...
[..]

That is fine, then, so what are we arguing about? Except you tell me that I am being hysterical for saying that I object to being forced to inhale a carcinogen. Please do not deny me the right to object, nor to state the reasons why I object.

We agreed early on on that point...

But you seem to feel the need to prove something about the dangers of second-hand smoke....

Keep your flithy, disgusting, gut-wrenching, foul, toxic, cancerogenic cigarette smoke away from me and I am happy. Do and believe as you wish.

I said that was hysterical...

That proves to me that you are a smoker. Non-smokers would not find that reaction to being forced to inhale other people's tobacco smoke hysterical.

[cyprusgrump]

A few more peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in respected scientific journals that somehow seem not be present in Cyprus Grump's so-called comprehensive list of studies:

1. Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. (February 2010). "Atmospheric Chemistry Special Feature: Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America (PNAS). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf.
2. ^ Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00564.x. PMID 11494987.
3. ^ He J et al. (1999). "Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease—a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.". N Engl J Med 340: 920–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199903253401204. PMID 10089185.
4. ^ Svendsen KH, Kuller LH, Martin MJ, Ockene JK. (1987). "Effects of passive smoking in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.". Am J Epidemiol 126: 783–95. PMID 3661526.
5. ^ "1986 Surgeon General's report: the health consequences of involuntary smoking". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35 (50): 769–70. 1986. PMID 3097495.
6. ^ National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects, NRC, Washington, DC (1986).
7. ^ a b US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disordersPDF
8. ^ "Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency". Tob Control 6 (4): 346–53. 1997. doi:10.1136/tc.6.4.346. PMID 9583639.
9. ^ "Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health to the Chief Medical Officer, Part II". http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... part-2.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
10. ^ Hackshaw AK (1998). "Lung cancer and passive smoking". Stat Methods Med Res 7 (2): 119–36. doi:10.1191/096228098675091404. PMID 9654638.
11. ^ National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1997).
12. ^ Brennan P, Buffler P, Reynolds P, Wu A, Wichmann H, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel K, Benhamou S, Greenberg R, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham E, Kreuzer M, Darby S, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P (2004). "Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies". Int. J. Cancer 109 (1): 125–31. doi:10.1002/ijc.11682. PMID 14735478.
13. ^ Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2003). "Epidemiology of lung cancer". Chest 123 (1 Suppl): 21S–49S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21S. PMID 12527563.
14. ^ Theis RP, Dolwick Grieb SM, Burr D, Siddiqui T, Asal NR (2008). "Smoking, environmental tobacco smoke, and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study". BMC Cancer 8: 387. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-8-387. PMID 19108730.
15. ^ Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, et al. (2007). "Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study". Cancer 109 (12): 2547–56. doi:10.1002/cncr.22724. PMID 17492688.
16. ^ Mother's active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children FILIPPINI G. (1) ; FARINOTTI M. (1) ; LOVICU G. ; MAISONNEUVE P. ; BOYLE P. ; International journal of cancer ISSN 0020-7136 CODEN IJCNAW. 1994, vol. 57, no6, pp. 769-774 (31 ref.)

Nice list Tim!

I take it you haven't read any of the reports...?

The problem of downloading stuff from the Intermong is that you associate yourself with ridiculous concepts like third-hand-smoke...

If you believe in such fantasies, there really is no point discussing this with you - a belief in third-hand smoke would effectively bar you from ever venturing out into the real world...

See my earlier points about personal liberty. Don't get yourself worried about third-hand-smoke...

You are still missing the point. My point is that the list of studies which Christopher Snowdon has included in his book - which was specifically written from a pro-smoking point of view - is not, as a you seem to believe, comprehensive.

Have you read them all, or any of them?

I don't have the time to go through them... I'm sure you'd be able to suck lists of stuff off the Intermong significantly faster than I could refute them...

However...

The first one is on third-hand smoke... I think we can ignore that!

The second and third are cumulative meta-analysis - that means that they simply re-analyse the results of previous epidemiological studies...

So, you've hardly proved a point with the first three on your list have you...?

I think I have adequately proved the point that the list of studies in Christopher Snowdon's book is not comprehensive.

read some of them and see...