This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nephron (talk | contribs) at 06:26, 16 March 2006 (NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:26, 16 March 2006 by Nephron (talk | contribs) (NPOV)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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!
Bullshit?
Penn & Teller: Bullshit had a rather interesting take on Second Hand Smoke (Session 1 Episode 5 -- occassionally aired on SHOUTCast Internet TV, search for "Bullshit"), debunking various claims (in particular, stating that the EPA study was revealed to have been made up on the spot and the WHO study showing the opposite conclusion of what the press releas claimed). While I don't think an American TV show is the most trustworthy source of information, they seemed to have a point.
Anybody know whether the facts have changed since the original airing of that show?
Since the risks of active smoking are commonly blown out of proportion (which, of course, doesn't make it non-harmful to the smokers) I wouldn't be surprised if most of the anti-smoking hysteria is really only based on strong feelings against smoking (i.e. people who don't like smoking and feel offended by other people smoking).
PS: I'm a non-smoker, but that doesn't make me as much of a psycho as some of the 'Merkins that have apparently started the whole anti-passive-smoking trend. -- Ashmodai 11:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV
There is a very selected reading of the evidence in this article. Many physician organizations have spoken-out again it and there is broad agreement that it is associated with harm, both from epidemiological perspective and a toxicological one. The article looks like it was written by a tobacco lobbyist. Nephron 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)