| Where the confusion lies |
| I am not surprised to find that people really are confused about whether or not secondhand smoke causes real damage to one's health. Back in 1998 two studies were out that put doubts in the mind's of many. |
| A study done by an affiliate of the World Health Organization took 650 lung cancer patients in Europe but only found "weak evidence" of a relationship between lung cancer and exposure to secondhand smoke. |
| Another report by the New York based American Council on Science and Health, a nonprofit consumer education consortium, also concluded that secondhand smoke is a "weak risk factor" for lung cancer or heart disease among adults ( SS Hazy,989). |
| The worst was still yet to come. In July of 1998 Federal Judge William Osteen in Winston-Salem North Carolina vacated the Environmental Protection Agency's report claiming secondhand smoke is hazardous. Now this hurt any argument for smoking restrictions since the main point is that secondhand smoke is unhealthy. The report was vacated due to both procedural and substantive defects including: first off, the EPA failed to comply with a congressional mandate to include industry representatives on an advisory panel that helped prepare the report. They also deviated from standard stastical pratices so to exaggerate the health risks of ETS. |
 |