Tom Bridgeland <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>By the way, the science on second hand smoke is pretty tenuous,
>depending on very weak statistical links. About as many trials show no
>link to observable harm as show this weak link.

Statistical links here and statistical links there. If at least one person
suffers headache and other problems by inhaling second hand smoke, which is
the case with me personally, then the statement "second hand smoke is not a
health hazard to anyone" done by Crichton, is FALSE, no matter how strong
or weak the statistical link may be. Statistics has its purpose but it's
the individual examples that matter.

Fredrik