Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp  Its difficult to take a blog seriously that provides few direct links to the studies cited but rather cherry picks snippets to support an obvious bias. Most of the references are back to other articles in the blog, or to obviously biased libertarian links.
For example, it cites a Johns Hopkins study to support the hypothesis that second hand smoke is harmless, yet clicking on the link in the blog to the study shows the actual conclusion of the study:
http://www.jhsph.edu/global_tobacco/...ore_bars2.html |
Did you read what the Hopkins link said? It measured Nicotine levels.
Here a fact about nicotine for you -
The carcinogenic properties of nicotine in standalone form, separate from tobacco smoke, have not been evaluated by the IARC, and it has not been assigned to an official carcinogen group. The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties.
**Nicotine is the addictive agent in tobacco not a known cancer causing agent.
The graph at the start of this thread dealt specifically with known cancer causing agents.
Nothing I found in the Hopkins study reputed the graph I posted at the bottom of the open statement of this thread.**