Cases and controls did not vary significantly in the total hours exposed to ETS during childhood or adulthood at home (data not shown). Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk (Table 2). In general, the effect estimates for ETS exposure were similar between the total population and only among never smokers.So that's another negative association to add to all the others.
If someone can point to any other area of 'science' where around 13% of results proving weakly positive is classed as 'overwhelming evidence', I'd love to see it.
Yet this is the scientific justification for the trampling of property rights and personal freedoms - promoted by those who are paid specifically to do so - on the flimsy basis that tobacco smoke is somehow akin to mustard gas.
The 'debate is over', you see, despite the debate clearly illustrating that the tobacco control loons are wrong. By a very long chalk.
A tiny proportion of studies point to a tiny relative risk (ie, not a real one) in long-term involuntary, unventilated exposure to heavy smoking ... and as a result, short term, voluntary ventilated exposure is prohibited by law under the threat of imprisonment.
All, of course, to save the lives of poor bar workers who have no choice but to be herded into public house gas chambers for slaughter.
Bollocks, isn't it?
Especially if you read the rest of this latest study.
In our examination of the effects of several occupational exposures among never smokers in the greater Toronto area we found several significant potential sources of increased risk including exposure to solvents, paints or thinners, welding equipment and smoke, soot or exhaust (from sources other than tobacco). This information is important as data concerning occupational exposures and lung cancer among never smokers are still lacking in the literature.So painters and decorators, taxi drivers, welders, foundry and shipyard workers, mechanics, and even candlestick makers** are far more at risk of cancer than any bar worker will ever be from passive smoking.
Our results support the concept that exposure to exhaust fumes and or soot/smoke (from non-tobacco sources) is a source of carcinogenic exposure.
All of which kinda rubbishes the desperate anti-smoker argument that destitute souls are forced by poverty to take on bar work which will kill them if not for the existence of comprehensive smoking bans.
When the same 'health' argument is used to 'save' apprentice welders and metal workers, decorator's mates, traineee mechanics, and newbie cabbies from feeling compelled to take low-paid - potentially life-threatening - work in the face of financial adversity, perhaps their daft hyperbole can be taken seriously.
Interestingly, Dutch bar owners are preparing a case for loss of earnings now their ban has been partly rescinded. The sum mooted is only around £2m. Imagine the huge claim British pub companies will one day sue for when this government-funded, anti-science fraud finally comes crashing down.
We're talking £billions here, all the pubcos need to do is grow themselves a spine. The evidence - and a barrowload of resultant compensatory cash - is staring them in the face. If I were a government official, I'd be rather worried about the straw floorboards I was standing on in the passive smoking debate.
** Not to mention solvent cleaned trumpet-players. Roy Castle, anyone?