Effect of passive smoking on health

For 50 years, the tobacco industry conspired to "create
the appearance of scientific controversy where there was none" on smoking
and health. "Scientists disagree";
"studies are inconclusive"; "not proven"; "merely statistical" -- the
industry pushed this PR for decades,
long after any real controversy had ended in the
scientific community. The goal for the industry was
"keep doubt alive".

Now the industry is doing the same thing with secondhand
smoke. And you are helping. You are saying there is
controversy. There is not.

Let's be blunt: what controversy? I know of exactly
two scientists outside the tobacco industry and
tobacco industry funding who think secondhand smoke
doesn't cause disease. That's not a "controversy".
Any more than two scientists who believe HIV isn't
the cause of AIDS makes it somehow "controversial"
that HIV causes AIDS.

The overwhelming consensus of
the scientific community is there is sufficient scientific
evidence to conclude that this product causes the same
diseases in its customers and those closest to them.
That is the conclusion of every major review of the
scientific literature, and of virtually every major
scientific, health, and medical organization.
WHO, IARC, EPA, NCI, all agree: the product causes
cancer, heart disease, and lung disease, in its
customers and in bystanders. The scientific
evidence establishes this.

There is no controversy
in the scientific community: secondhand smoke kills.

It's time for you to publish that fact here: there
is no controversy here. There is a poor study which
fails to detect what other studies have.

Or else you must use the same standards and say that
it's "controversial" whether HIV causes AIDS.

Competing interests:  
None declared