FOMBS, Your first SHS link is just about perfect.
“The small and somehow disputable risk of lung cancer development in relation to SHS exposure exemplifies the intricacy of establishing human cancer etiology when omnipresent carcinogens are concerned. Because of temporal variabilities in source, composition and concentration of SHS, conventional exposure assessment using indices of SHS, as measured in the ambient air or in the body fluids of exposed individuals, at certain times has failed to estimate long-term SHS exposure 10.”
The dispute is how small is small? It is not that cancer exists and SHS contains bad stuff.
“Concluding remarks
Environmental factors play a determining role in human cancer 34. Many cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) are present in the air we breathe, in the food we eat, and in the water we drink 34,45. Humans’ constant and to some extent unavoidable exposure to environmental carcinogens makes investigation of cancer etiology extremely complicated. The complexity of human cancer etiology is particularly challenging for those types of cancer with long latency, which are associated with exposure to ubiquitous environmental carcinogens 34. The small and somehow disputable risk of lung cancer development in relation to SHS exposure exemplifies the intricacy of establishing human cancer etiology when omnipresent carcinogens are concerned. Because of temporal variabilities in source, composition and concentration of SHS, conventional exposure assessment using indices of SHS, as measured in the ambient air or in the body fluids of exposed individuals, at certain times has failed to estimate long-term SHS exposure 10. Consequently, although the causal link between SHS exposure and lung cancer development is well-established 1–3, the estimated risk for developing lung cancer consequent to SHS exposure remains somewhat debatable.”
With a “small” risk it is pretty hard not to have a debate. So you have a causal link, SHS does contain bad stuff, but then so does about everything else, so it gets back to exactly how small? When other factors are as bad or are worse than SHS, why focus on the close to insignificant? Could it be the depth of pockets?
I enjoy Biscuits. I am sure there are or could be plenty of papers that show that fresh buttery biscuits with country sausage gravy have to knock at least a year of two off my “projected” lifespan. Notice I used “Buttery” not Transfatty, that could be a confounding issue :) but there isn’t A big biscuit with deep pockets is there? How about Big Wheat?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
