Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp  Here is what the JHU study reported about nicotine levels. I highlighted it to make it easier for you. Seems to me you are misreading the chart, or reading it the way you want it to read.
Now compare that to the large body of evidence that proves exposure to second hand smoke is a known health rish and the facts speak for themselves. Thank God Maryland law now mandates smoke-free establishments.
Your "facts" have proven to be pretty meaningless without significant supporting evidence. |
That is a erroneous conclusion considering no study has been done that concludes nicotine is a cancer causing agent.
Again, the chart they post does not point to any actual cancer causing agents.
Further, the bottom range of that scale- below a 3.0 is so low that the EPA declined to regulate high-voltage power lines because it said the RRs seldom exceeded 3.0
Ever hear of the New England Journal of Medicine?
"It is no wonder, therefore, that Dr. Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the world’s leading medical journals, says, “As a general rule, we are looking for a relative risk of 3.0 or more.” Dr. Robt. Temple, director of drug evaluation for the FDA, says, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” And the EPA declined to regulate high-voltage power lines because it said the RRs seldom exceeded 3.0."
One of the people linked to the study you quoted is Professor Jonathan Samet. He states "Moving air in and out of buildings doesn't work, and neither do air filters; if someone is smoking somewhere in a building, other people in that building are likely being involuntarily exposed,"
That statement flies in the face of any common sense. How would gas masks work against chemical/biological agents if his statement was true?
There is a agenda at work here. The agenda is the profit that can be made by the drug companies.
Follow the trail outlined earlier in the posts I made.