| Revision as of 05:43, 11 March 2006 editCotixan (talk | contribs)49 edits Need a fix!← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:44, 11 March 2006 edit undoCotixan (talk | contribs)49 edits Need a fix!Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Someone with a minute of spare time, please look over the following == | == Someone with a minute of spare time, please look over the following == | ||
| The first line of the "Studies of Passive Smoking" section has some sort of typo and/or vandalism. I'm not sure what it's supposed to say, but there is definitely something wrong. | The first line of the "Studies of Passive Smoking" section has some sort of typo and/or vandalism. I'm not sure what it's supposed to say, but there is definitely something wrong. ] 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:44, 11 March 2006
Someone with a minute of spare time, please look over the following
The first line of the "Studies of Passive Smoking" section has some sort of typo and/or vandalism. I'm not sure what it's supposed to say, but there is definitely something wrong. Cotixan 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Which is better passive smoking or second hand smoking?
Passive smoking is known to be called second hand smoke. I made searches in WHO web site. When I searched with the words "passive smoking," 3000 articles were found. With the words "second hand smoking," 7480 articles were found. And when I searched with the words "passive smoke," 2590 articles were found. On the other hand, with the words "second hand smoke," 5080 articles were found.
Is the words "second hand smoking" better for the title of this page than "passive smoking" ?
Criticism removed
Looks like someone (68.100.238.219) is trying to remove any criticism on ETS science from this page. This needs to be a balanced page, not an anti-smoking ad!