8 ms·
I guess one of the questions is about second-hand smoke. Interestingly, Sir Richard Doll [1], one of the scientists who first proved the link between smoking an
by sn41 10y ago
I guess one of the questions is about second-hand smoke. Interestingly, Sir Richard Doll [1], one of the scientists who first proved the link between smoking and lung cancer, was not convinced that second-hand smoke was harmful [2] - it seems that on this, Sir Doll was wrong.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll
[2] http://www.bcmj.org/articles/commonplace-condemned-discovery-tobacco-kills-and-how-richard-doll-shaped-modern-smoking-ce http://www.bcmj.org/articles/commonplace-condemned-discovery...
- phonon 10y ago> it seems that on this, Sir Doll was wrong. Ummm, did you read the article? Its whole point was that the dangers of second-hand smoke had been greatly exaggerated. So Sir Doll was right. Despite the mounting evidence that transient exposure to secondhand smoke is more an annoyance than a mortal threat, smoking bans have become widespread and politically entrenched.
- sn41 10y agoOh, I read the article. I'd rather believe the scientific studies which showed a 17 percent drop in heart attacks.
- phonon 10y agoWhen a topic continues to be studied, and the trend for the magnitude of the effects keeps dropping the better and larger the study is designed, coupled with just-so-story physiological explanations that don't real stand up to analysis, it's probably a sign that there is no effect at all... So believe what you wish, but I don't think it's correct.