If the studies on global warming doesn't link global warming to our use of fossil fuel, then I believe the studies on shs are even weaker.
And, well, I really do doubt the intentions of those studies, especially when the lawyers that all the legal battles very quickly went on to battle
the junk food resturants and such.
And, well, have you looked at price of those cigarette cessation aids that are sold....boy, some big corporations are really cashing in on this one
It's a very Big Business!!
And, well, if you trace the money, you will probably find that the researchers are funded by people are are cashing in...
Majic, I just used the same argument that you did to refute global warming. If the results of that test isn't credible to you, why should the
studies on second hand smoke? How in the world can anyone take in all the variables that might cause a medical problem....chemicals at home,
chemicals at the workplace, chemicals added to their environment around their home, in their food, in their water.....and walk away saying that second
hand smoke killed anyone? God, Kodak in Rochester increases the risk of those living closeby for pancreatic cancer...guess what...all those people
are more prone to diabetes...so, are how feasable is it that the weeklly big macs and fries that they consumed really caused the problem.
Is this a pick your own poison thing or what?
If you are going to accept one, you should at least accept the other, since the integrety of the science is about equal.
Instead of scapegoating.