Is it just pure coincidence or what ?
After years of states passing no-smoking laws affecting public places, a number of states are now seriously pushing for no-smoking laws affecting apartment buildings, condos etc. Latest example can be found at
but, all of a sudden, mainstream media is starting to run stories like these ...
" The Bogus Science of Second-Hand Smoke" ... which is essentially reminding Americans of what every European study has discovered
'Passive Smoking doesn't cause cancer - Official"
and my personal favorite, Dr. Michael Crighton on 'Concensus Science' alternately titled
'Aliens cause Global Warming'
(snip)"In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.
This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.
As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed."(snip)
Granted that the 'concensus science' crowd has taken some bad press lately on other fronts as well (i.e. the Weather Channel broadcast calling for the decertification of Meterorologists who don't agree with the global warming 'concensus'), but seeing the Washington Post publishing a story which claims that the second hand smoking studies upon which all US anti-smoking laws were based was 'rigged' to achieve the desired outcome ???
~




So as to not repeat myself here is the

Bookmarks