Quote:
I don't know, but someone from the pro-smoking campaign was on the telly last night arguing that the evidence about risks of passive smoking (ETS) to the average pub-goer is flimsy.

Well, that was kind of my point in asking. Seems like you can always find someone from a campaign (these used to be funded by tobacco companies over here until some multi-state settlements) to argue flimsiness, but can you find peer-reviewed researchers not funded by Phillip Morris (Altria!) or BAT who can argue same? As, I suspect is the case with global warming and and creationism, the "flimsy" argument usually manages to get somewhat equal time in the interest of "fairness" ...and to make the news segment more stimulating.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.