4 ms·
> 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 exagger
by 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.