Here is a research study which the pro-smoking ban movement kept silenced for obvious reasons, it did not support their agendaThanks to Kevin, a regular commentator from Dr. Siegel's website, who reminded me of this research study:
Placing Scientific Credibility at Risk
Littlewood & Fennell is an independent public and health policy research group, with no ties whatsoever to industry or any government agency. I am here today on my own time and at my own expense to address the clear possibility that the National Toxicology Program has actively undermined the process by which risk assessments should be conducted. NTP overlooked a substantial body of evidence showing uncertainty, vagueness, and lack of statistical support of what is and is not carcinogenic. In addition, NTP conducted its assessments in a manner reminiscent of a rubber stamp proceeding, which favored politics over science.
I have included a history of our involvement with the NTP carcinogen listing process as an addendum to this paper. Briefly, we became interested in the topic of environmental tobacco smoke (or ETS) during an ongoing study of increasing rates of asthma in the U.S. Because a review of the literature indicates a negative correlation between ETS and asthma, and because ETS is physically and chemically quite different from mainstream tobacco smoke, we were curious about NTP’s decision to list ETS as a carcinogen.
This research article calculated the number of cigarettes which would have to be simultaneously lit in order for secondhand smoke to be a health hazard. Oh, one other minor detail, these cigarettes would have to be smoked in an unventilated room 20' x 9' x 9' for secondhand smoke concentrations to approach hazardous levels:
(Click to enlarge)
For acetone levels from secondhand smoke to be a health hazard it would require 118,700 cigarettes being simultaneously smoked in our 20' x 9' x 9' unventilated room , an impossible feat to be sure.
Or for toluene levels to reach hazardous concentrations it would require 1,000,000 cigarettes being simultaneously smoked in our 20' x 9' x 9' unventilated room , an unlikely event even in a pro-smoking ban activist's wildest exaggeration.
No wonder pro-smoking ban activists are not interested in science or facts......neither supports their exaggerations and lies about secondhand smoke.