Passive smoking

[Scotman84]

Has it ever been PROVED (to court standards ie beyond reasonable doubt) that passive smoking puts people at more risk of cancer?

[Grunty]

According to the July 2004 issue of New Internationalist,

In 1978, the US Tobacco Institute said � What the smoker does to himself may be his business, but what the smoker does to the non-smoker is quite a different matter � This we see as the most dangerous development yet to the viability of the tobacco industry.

In the 1990s, Philip Morris spent millions of dollars on a campaign to sabotage a study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer on the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke. Their strategy was
1. Delay the progress and/or release of the study
2. Affect the wording iof its conclusions and official statement of results
3. Neutralise possible negative results of the study
4. Counteract the potential impact of the study on governmental policy, public opinion and actions by private employers and proprietors.
The issue is largely devoted to smoking and the actions of tobacco companies.
www.newint.org

[Scotman84]

Thanks Grunty - just what I expected - either a 'tobacco industry' or a 'political' answer - not a medical one. What prompted the question was my wife applying for life insurance - she was asked if she smoked, and said no, but volunteered the fact that her husband did - they said that it didn't matter !!

[aka estie]

Yes, way beyond a reasonable doubt. Have a look here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed and type in "second hand smoke". You can read all the scientific journal articles you want. Second hand smoke, among many other adverse effects, causes problems in wound healing and also promotes angiogenesis (blood vessel development) to aid developing tumors in their growth. I could go on for hours, but I have a feeling you don't really want to hear this answer.

[Grunty]

Thanks estie - I knew it existed but couldn't find it.

Scotman - my experience of dealing with insurance companies over many years leads me to believe that they rarely get proper advice on risks. They tend to believe what they have always believed.

As an example, a friend was refused house insurance because of flooding, on the basis of her postcode. This despite millions of pounds having been spent on eliminating flooding in the area.

[Scotman84]

Many thanks Grunty and estie