Talk:Passive smoking/Archive 5

2964: 175:

defended himself after he tripped a drug test by claiming it was from exposure to passive pot smoke. This article primarily deals with tobacco, but I think the time has come to expand it to include pot as well - there must be studies on both sides of the issue (harmful vs. not harmful) that can be cited. In addition, if you do a google search on the topic you'll find a related issue that gets talked about a lot is odour; even moreso than the odor of second-hand tobacco smoke there is often-emotional complaints about the odor of pot smoke (speaking anecdotally I was exposed to second hand pot smoke about a year ago and while I didn't get any "contact high" from it or anything, the odor made me physically ill to the point where my retching reflex was triggered and I'm one who isn't affected by tobacco smoke or even exhaust fumes). I think the article should also be updated to include discussion of "vaping" as well - using e-cigarettes and vaporizers - which is a relatively new method of delivery for both tobacco and pot smokers. Supporters say that there is no second hand smoke involved, simply water vapor being expelled, but has anyone done any studies to confirm that this is the case?

2391:

for various things, was thrown out by a District Court for making conclusions before research, in the court's own words, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" in addition to significant other violations of sound scientific procedure and the EPA's own policies. The "scientific consensus" statement, which defines the nonobjective tone which continues through the entire article, is refuted as well by the fact that there have been several major scientific studies done which refute the causal link between SHS and cancer or other maladies. That the author may not like the political or industrial funding behind such studies does not exclude them from being part of the community of scientists who create "scientific consensus," nor does it necessarily make the scientists of whose conclusions the author approves any less influenced by political interests. The opposite statement could just as easily be made, depending upon one's view of who has more scientific credibility. Such a blanket statement simply should not be made in a forum that expects to have any credibility.

944:

bullying. Yes, you are bullies. Contacting each other in order to create this illusion of fairness. Each person just shy of breaking the 3 undue rule. Very clever. One person taking over from the next to push someone around. I am not the first either. Others who have tried to make this article more objective were bullied out too. I know your type Zad. Although, this is the first time I have seen it here myself. So, self-righteous you all are, thinking there is something wrong with me and the others who have tried to make good on the science of this delicate subject. Incapable of the self-reflection needed to realize what and who you are. Bullies. Yes, I will be blocked. I will be blocked for being a good editor and trying to do what is right to create objectivity and clarity. I will be blocked because sometimes bullies win. But who knows? Maybe the Knowledge editors will look at the history and see all those who complained in the past and see that I posted a legitimate edit early today. That I obeyed all the rules and guidelines until your crew came along. Maybe.

2172:

which includes an increased hazard ratio but whose confidence interval includes 1.00 is grounds for concern, then there is nothing in this world that does not merit concern, and there are literally 100 of categories in each study and some will show increased hazard ratios by chance. To say the finding was of "borderline statistical significance" is nonsensical - it was not because the confidence interval included 1.00. The fact remains that the researchers themselves said there was no clear link between lung cancer and secondhand smoke, and no one has impugned the study, including the commenter you quote. Reference to this study, the largest and most recent of its kind and in clear contradiction of the prior statements, needs to be in this article or the article is just not complete. I plan on adding it back and will take the issue to administrators if you seek to delete it, as its removal represents clear POV pushing.

1345:

cause" might introduces an ambiguity for some readers, who could interpret this as meaning that the causality is not established yet (and surely the tobacco industry would be pleased to exploit such ambiguity). While for some diseases we can only say that current evidence is suggestive but not efficient to infer a causal relationship (using the US Surgeon General terminology), there are many diseases - and not just lung cancer - where evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship with exposure to passive smoking. Knowledge rules are that "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." This makes the issue easy here: all the major reliable sources we cite say that exposure to secondhand smoke "causes" diseases and none of them use the "can cause" terminology. Even Philip Morris uses the "causes" terminology.

1787:

people's infallible interpretation to see it as "causes." I presented the exact text that "causes" is currently linking to. In that, it says, "the key is in the term inference." It also says, "the 'one cause – one effect' understanding is a simplistic mis-belief. Most outcomes, whether disease or death, are caused by a chain or web consisting of many component causes." Apart from the lead, but found in this article and in the many sources, it is routinely presented as: one cause (smoking/passive smoking) leads to the effect (death, disease, disability). I don't dispute that this is the popular interpretation, but do dispute that understanding of epidemiological causal inference. That it is linked in the article is good, otherwise I'd be disputing it as anti-science. That it is linked and not changed to "can cause" is leading me to dispute it as anti-epidemiological.

3667:. Doc James deleted my edition on the grounds this was not a secondary source, despite the fact that it was a recent, large, peer-reviewed study that directly rebutted other studies referenced in this section (studies that were also NOT secondary sources). So I deleted said studies (I left the meta-analysis as that was a secondary source). Now THAT change was reverted. You can't have it both ways. Either high quality studies that are primary sources are allowed, or they are not. The deciding factor cannot be whether the study supports or rebuts your pre-conceived opinion on passive smoking. Please either restore my original edit or uphold my latest edit deleting the primary source. 1900:

brainpower and effort that goes into identifying the "causes" of disease, we remain unclear on the precise meaning of the word. How crazy is that? Still, Hill's usage clearly predominates in medicine. As he famously put it: “What I do not believe is that we can usefully lay down some hard-and-fast rules of evidence that must be obeyed before we accept cause and effect. None of my nine viewpoints can bring indisputable evidence for or against the cause-and- effect hypothesis and none can be required as a sine qua non.” In other words, look at all the criteria, then make the most reasonable judgement call: is there some better explanation of the evidence alternative to causality?

1646:

then we are misrepresenting the term by leaving it as is. Your entire argument for this is based on the opinions of others and deeming that as "authority." I grant that there is consensus in these opinions, but not that none of these opinions align with the usage of the term as stated in the epidemiology link which I have quoted above. If truly aligning with what is stated in that link, the lead would read, "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke has been found to have a inferred causal relationship to cases of disease, disability, and death." By going with simply "causes" this is clearly changing the way in which epidemiologists use the term.

1120:

damages them, which is the crux of the legal issue. It falls into the "assault and battery" definition of common law, and is sufficient cause for governments to pass laws against it. The fact that people are innocent bystanders and have not consented to be damaged is critical to the argument. If you get into an argument in a bar, and the other guy punches you in the face, the courts may feel you consented to a fight by provoking him, but if a stranger walks up and punches you in the face without provocation, that's assault and he probably should go to jail. "Same, same, only different" as they say in Nepal.

3478: 3836:"no evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke led to a statistically significant increase in rates of lung cancer". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all the other usual caveats regarding scientific research. Also, in the case of second-hand smoke the biggest problem is not lung cancer, which is something of a red herring incidental to the bigger risk of heart disease. As usual in smoking articles watch out for trolls and industry shills reinterpreting the experimental evidence for their own purposes. 209:

the vapor, along with glycol and nicotine. The so-called "contact high" is a purely psychological phenomena. I'm not familiar with the case of the snowboarder, but I imagine it got him off the hook by introducing doubt into the case. Anecdotally, I work in an industry that regularly drug tests, and have lived with roommates who, well, let's just say the house reeked 24/7. I never came up positive, even after months of exposure. Regardless, I believe these are all separate subjects from environmental tobacco smoke.

1562:

Framework Convention, a treaty ratified by 178 countries, the report of the US Surgeon General, the monograph of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, prepared by a panel of the world's best experts, the US Environment Protection Agency, the California Environment Protection Agency, the National Cancer Institute, the US District Court for the State of Columbia, and ... even Philip Morris? If there are other sources which can challenge these, it would indeed be important to consider them.

740:

industry and challenging specific scientific claims concerning the risks of tobacco use. He is also known for advocating the regulation and taxation of cigarettes and other tobacco products based on their specific delivery of carcinogens and other hazardous substances, so as to promote risk reduction." So he admits smoking is dangerous and advocates their taxation and regulation - very radical. Many scientists dispute illnesses attributed to smoking eg. dementia, tooth decay (not gum disease).

4459: 31: 2070:"If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study, for example: "A large, NIH-funded study published in 2010 found that selenium and Vitamin E supplements increased the risk of prostate cancer; it was thought they would prevent prostate cancer." (citing 2448:

smoking be anything but completely trivial? Anyone interested can confirm what I write by comparing the tables here on Smoking by Country with Smoking by Life Expectancy. I don't have links on this but it's still true. There is so much anti-smoking propaganda that is has now become apparently the norm but propaganda it remains. Knowledge should be above this but sadly it presently isn't on this issue.

673:

breaths of the gas as though you were quickly smoking a cigarette. When you wake up you can reflect that the motor vehicle emissions you breath every day were not as bad as that because they are diluted. You could also try this with other vehicle emissions like nitric acid vapour, NO, NO2, benzene, PM10, PM2.5 or OO2 but unless you want an experience similar to a WW1 gas attack I'd advise against it.

3770:

article there seemed to be no reference to the study at all. This is a form of censorship which is completely alien to the spirit of Knowledge (I speak as a regular donor). I don't look up Knowledge to read propaganda, however well-intentioned. I look to Knowledge to tell me the facts, but this article seems to ignore the scientific debate and present only one side, one version of "the facts".

4306: 3429: 2528:

of the legislators. Indeed there is deranged talk of increasing the ban to include open-air public spaces likes parks and squares. ASH, the largest but not the only anti-smoking lobbying group, employs twenty people full-time to continue to churn ever more anti-smoking propaganda while Forest the only group which represents the UK's ten million smokers has but a single employee.

1830:). If you think these sources are misusing the term "causes", I would then invite you to share with us the authoritative sources on which you base this judgement. I for my part would be very interested in knowing them and learning about their arguments. Then we can decide whether it is legitimate to change the present term. In the mean time, I see no reason to change it. 3375: 2940: 879:

Knowledge. Would someone help me with this? I would like to file a complaint in regard to these "Edit Warriors". Please write me with haste because I have little doubt that such ideological fanatics will read this and move quickly to have me blocked somehow. I have never experienced anything like this and it is making me quite disillusioned. :(

4261: 3891: 3461:

with no toxic chemicals. If more people were informed on how negative second smoking is then they would try to avoid it as much as possible. Individuals whom are exposed to this smoke need to take all things into consideration as something so small can be fixed by just avoiding a situation by leaving the smoker.

2387:

significance. This was part of the US District Court's issue with the EPA study that the court threw out, claiming it was "cherry picked." Vacating that judgment was only done on the basis that the study carried no regulatory weight, not a refutation of the study's court-acknowledged lack of scientific basis.

1154:), which has not been challenged. Changing "cause" to "can cause" fails to make the point clearer - it rather obscures it, as it implies a meaning of "cause" which is different from the way the term is used in epidemiology and by the public health community (see definition of causality in epidemiology). 3766:

smokers recorded much higher rates of lung cancer than non-smokers in the ensuing 15 years, there was no evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke led to a statistically significant increase in rates of lung cancer, other than for women who had been exposed to smoke in their home for 30 years or more.

3723:

In what way is this a "low value source?" It comes from a peer reviewed journal and has a very large sample size - much larger than the studies it is rebutting. Moreover, it is not primarily making the point "correlation does not imply causation," but demonstrates that there is not even correlation

3346: 2987:

There are 611,000 google results for "secondhand smoke" and 714,000 for "second-hand smoke" but only 486,000 for "passive smoking". In addition, there are only 3,060 Google News results for passive smoking but 11,000 for second-hand smoke and 13,100 for secondhand smoke. Thus COMMONNAME would seem to

2527:

What 'well-documented campaign' ? I don't know where you live, Reify-tech, but here in the UK there is a blanket ban on smoking in all public enclosed spaces and despite the fact that 6,000 pubs have closed because of the ban, benefiting no-one, and not the slightest talk of moderating the ban by any

2485:

Second the source says "Among NS, prolonged passive adult home exposure tended to increase lung cancer risk" which is better summarized as "Prolonged secondhand smoke exposure also increases the risk of lung cancer" than "However, more recent research has found little or no harm from secondhand smoke

1760:

Apart from the occurrences of "causes" in quotations, it is possible to change "causes" to "can cause" or something closer to the accurate interpretation of epidemiological causal inference. These alleged most authoritative sources are misusing the term. In their quotes, I am glad that we have it the

1645:

The smoking data (via "causes") is written as if "one cause - one effect" and in doing so is misappropriating the term. As noted here, the diseases and death attributed to smoking are caused by a chain consisting of many component causes. If we linking to the epidemiological understanding of "causes"

1368:

Finally, the "causes" terminology seems also more widely accepted. On my side of the world, a Google search for "smoking causes lung cancer" produces 119'000 hits, while "smoking can cause lung cancer" gives only 21'000 hits, almost six times less. For passive smoking, the difference is not as large,

1028:

I observe about 9 instances where the word "causes" is used on the main article page, and on about 5 of those, I do not see a reason to edit or make a change. An example of where I don't think a change is necessary is under Opinions of public health authorities where it reads, "The governments of 168

979:

As it stands now, the use of the word "causes" is incorrect from the way in which epidemiology makes use of the term and as cited by the linked article page. If "causal inference" is deemed too much in vein of academic language, then 'can cause' could be substituted or even 'correlates.' As noted on

917:

at this point you are at 5 reverts on this article in the last 24 hours and threaten to do more. You are almost surely going to be blocked for edit-warring, and then your most recent revert will be undone. What you should do is self-revert your last revert, that will probably avoid a block. Nobody

878:

I am currently being forced into an "Edit War". Since my edits are as legitimate as the "Doc" and anyone else here, it they who are warring. Ironic that legitimate edits are being continuously erased by a few so-called truth seekers. I know how to edit, but I have never filed a complaint before with

776:

All I did was add the word "may" to the are for objectiveness and to make the article look less like a rant. I also added a single link to a scientific body about a study that showed "No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer". It did not say that say it was not unhealthy, it simply found

677:

The first line of this section you commented on says "According to Doll and Peto 1978". The name "Doll" there refers to Sir Richard Doll, he is the guy that conclusively proved that smoking i.e. first hand smoking, causes cancer. There are no serious people out there who deny that this is true. There

305:

I agree. There are many assertions in the article about health effects which are (at best) far from proven, and the science being done in this field is very politicized, (as is the article). The editor often mentions tobacco industry affiliation of opposing research, but does not mention anti-smoking

283:

This article, the whole thing, is intensely skewed. One of many examples is stating that Cato institute being accused of consorting with the tobacco industry...and the citations either lead to bad sources or other wiki articles. This is not healthy citing of sources, and this whole article has cancer

208:

There is no smoke involved with vaping because no combustion takes place. Also, there is no "delivery of tobacco" as the "juice" does not contain tobacco, but rather nicotine extracted from tobacco, in a solution of either propylene glycol, vegetable glycol, or both. Water is the largest component of

3460:

Secondhand Smoke can not only cause lung cancer,stroke and heart disease but make your overall health make a turn for the worse.Due to the fact that a lot of second-hand smoke being inhaled day in and day out,we need to avoid this hazardous smoke at all costs in order to keep a healthy bright future

1786:

I know the body of the article was previously amended to "can cause" and then I discovered yesterday that it was reverted back to "causes" which apparently is based on your recent arguments put forth on Talk Page. I strongly believe, and will continue to argue for "can cause" despite all the popular

1634:

Epidemiologists Rothman and Greenland emphasize that the "one cause – one effect" understanding is a simplistic mis-belief. Most outcomes, whether disease or death, are caused by a chain or web consisting of many component causes. Causes can be distinguished as necessary, sufficient or probabilistic

1035:

But another place besides one I mentioned above where the change is warranted would be, under US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies, where it reads: The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke

839:

This is not an objective article. The tobacco industry must love this page! It is perfect for them since it makes the editors look pathological in their assertion. Any evidence that disagrees with the main contributors here is quickly edited away regardless of the source no matter what university or

739:

And from the wikipedia article he also had a long career at the National Cancer institute and is:- "an epidemiologist and fellow with the Health Policy Center in Bethesda, Maryland where he specializes in risk assessment and scientific research. He is well known for having consulted for the tobacco

240:

2.X and Y, while inherently unrelated, might be correlated through a third factor, or indeed many others ( for example, age ). Sometimes such confounding factors might be known (or thought to be known) and (sometimes dubious) attempts are made to allow for them. Where they are not known they cannot

4436:

I can see benefits from both. On one hand the article's 3rd sentence screams that it's dangerous and so adding it may be superfluous. On the other, it can be imperative to clarify that the health detriment of the smoke isn't either "nothing" or "horrible disease". I would lean more so on adding it.

2447:

The article needs re-writing by someone who hasn't swallowed the currently fashionable and very obvious anti-smoking zeitgeist. The Greeks smoke twice as much as the British and live just as long. The Japanese smoke nearly twice as much and live longer. And that's active smoking. So how can passive

2390:

This article shows it's bias from the beginning, starting with such unscientific language as this: "The health risks of second-hand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus," despite the fact that the legislatively most important large study done on the issue, that concluded SHS was a risk factor

2322:

The Wang, et al study is a very high-quality study and avoids the problem of recall bias. It found no evidence of increased lung cancer risk except in women who live with a smoker for more than 30 years. I just added it earlier today and another editor deleted the sentence and rewrote it to spin it

2144:

And they did find some concern "The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding

1709:

My apologies for the misunderstanding. Do you mean that the explanation provided by the link to "Causal inference" when clicking on "causes" is not clear? Upon re-reading that article, I guess you are probably right. Unfortunately, I don't know of any better explanation. It would be nice if you, as

1618:

Correlation does not imply causation" is a common theme for much of the epidemiological literature. For epidemiologists, the key is in the term inference. Epidemiologists use gathered data and a broad range of biomedical and psychosocial theories in an iterative way to generate or expand theory, to

1157:

Moreover, the lead paragraph is a summary of the article and should be consistent with the body of the article. The "cause" formulation is consistent with all other references to causality in the body of the article, which have been around for a long time and have been well accepted by all editors:

2643:

to support the statement in the lead that secondhand smoke causes disease. The reason is that it doesn't actually appear to say anything about secondhand smoke specifically, but rather about tobacco use in general. I think that instead, we should use the sources that explicitly say that secondhand

2263:

I have previously made the point, but will make it again, that it is not included in literature reviews precisely because it is recent. To accuse me of cherry-picking for using the largest and most recent study is disingenuous at best. And as has also been said, you are not adhering to Knowledge

1692:

Clearly you aren't reading what I'm writing, or for that matter what I am not writing. All I am saying is that we need to provide readers a link to a properly referenced explanation of what "cause" means in an epidemiological context. Doing so would largely avoid the need for the disputation which

1590:

I very much disagree. I challenge the earlier discussion on this after having read it, and will be glad to have that discussion further as may be desired on this talk page. The body of the article ought to be using "can cause" if sticking with WP:NPOV. That it does not, is violation of that pillar

1354:

Interestingly, it seems to me that the "can cause" vs. "causes" debate is rather specific to passive smoking. The sentence "active smoking causes lung cancer" is well accepted and is not subjected to the same objections, while it actually makes use of exactly the same epidemiological definition of

1344:

True. However, when talking about this subject, health authorities and other pertinent sources use the epidemiological definition of causation (the verb "causes" in the lead links to such definition to make this clear). In the context of causality used by such sources, replacing "causes" with "can

228:

Where it says:- This approach to epidemiological analysis was criticized in the American Journal of Public Health: A major component of the industry attack was the mounting of a campaign to establish a "bar" for "sound science" that could not be fully met by most individual investigations, leaving

943:

you gotta be kidding Zad?! No agenda? I have never, ever seen such behavior! The other editors have already done 3 edits each. Just because you are more organized than I am does not make your, yes, agenda right. This is so petty on your behalf to ruin the objectivity of this article with bias and

122:

Nearly all of the key sources (i.e., ones asserting "scientific consensus") do not directly link to articles providing any evidence. In one particular case, the link is dead. I agree with a couple of the other posters that this article is seriously flawed; the fact that very strong assertions are

3777:

The study is entitled: "Active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in the Women's Health Intiative Observational Study prospective cohort". It was presented to the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, and published later that year in the

3765:

In 2013 the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published a study from a team at Stanford University which made world wide news. The study, by a large number of authors headed by Ange Wang, followed up a database of 76,304 women compiled in the 1990s, and found that while current and former

2815:

Might could be but there's no consensus in the archives and the current article uses both American and British English. If we're establishing a consensus now, my own preference would be to resolve the tie in favor of American English, as spoken and read by a much wider audience in general and on

2171:

These were not "issues" with the paper, and have not been raised by the scientific community as problems with it. Every study has its limitations. In fact, the study is the largest of its kind - no other study on secondhand smoke and lung cancer boasts as high a sample size. And if a category

2059:

Firstly, I added the primary source to a long list of other primary sources, that had been there for years until you removed it. It is... interesting that these primary sources bothered no one until an important primary source took an opposing viewpoint and was added. Secondly, this article is

1899:

were published (1965): "Besides Hume and Mill, the epidemiologic literature is clueless about a plausible, pre-1965 philosophical origin of Hill's viewpoints. Thus, Hill's viewpoints may be philosophically novel, sui generis, still waiting to be validated and justified." For all the time, money,

975:

Causes is being used incorrectly here. The link to the Epidemiology page always uses the word "causes" as a noun, whereas the Passive Smoking article uses it as a verb. From epidemiology perspective, it would be more appropriate on the passive smoking page to say "Exposure to second-hand tobacco

3769:

This was a startling finding, and an important one given the size of the database it drew on, and the fact that the NCI itself had published the study. I looked up this article on Knowledge to find out the considered reactions of expert opinion to the study, and was astonished that in this long

1119:

How about "Scientific studies have shown that exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and premature death in innocent bystanders." That sounds about as neutral as required. It doesn't imply that it always damages innocent bystanders, but does imply that it sometimes

672:

I think you are on the wrong page. This is the passive smoking page. Let me give an example of the difference. I advise you to do this near a hospital or with an ambulance standing by (just a suggestion). Take a gas canister of carbon monoxide and with an attached tube try and take about 8 deep

2240:: "Among NS, any passive smoking exposure did not significantly increase lung cancer risk." Without a well-qualified defintion of "any" this is hard to use. Again, we should be looking to secondary sources and not cherry-picking items not even included in the conclusions of primary studies. 1561:

And, BTW, I thought it was clear that the whole point of my comment above was to draw attention to the numerous quotations of highly reliable sources already present in the body of the article where "causes" is used instead of "can cause". Do you mean we need more reliable sources than the WHO

352:

An organisation lying about one thing does not equate to everything they say being a lie though, and as others on the talk page have noted, from the biggest studies, the relative risks do not count as being statistically significant. The page also doesn't make note of the fact that large scale

2386:

Indeed, "increases risk" is incredibly vague, and does not indicate statistical significance. A study run by someone who expects a certain conclusion may point to "increased risk" by only paying attention to statistical differences that support their opinion, despite infinitesimal statistical

232:

If X% of people exposed to a putative cause suffer a certain effect and Y% not exposed to the cause (or alternatively the general population) suffer the same effect, the RR is X/Y. If the effect is “bad”, then a RR greater than unity denotes a “bad” cause, while an RR less than unity suggests

174:

With the growing number of jurisdictions allowing for legal recreational use of marijuana, people will want to know about "second hand smoke" with regards to pot smoke. There are concerns over so-called "contact highs" and there's the well-known case of an Olympic snowboarder who successfully

2087:

Well, this is precisely a large trial with surprising results (not to anyone with knowledge of the field, but certainly to anyone who relied upon this article for their information), and enough time has not passed since its publication for a review to include it. Digging indicates that your

1457:

view of the tobacco industry. Their first objective is to mitigate the degree of causality between exposure to passive smoking and diseases, in spite of the fact that it is perhaps by far the most reliably established of all links between environmental factors and diseases. There are tobacco

356:. I think the Knowledge page making out that all studies which cast doubt on the dangers of second hand smoke are linked to the tobacco industry heavily biases the article and certainly casts doubt on the sentence, "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death." 686:

If you attach a tube of some kind, like a hose pipe, from the exhaust and then put the other end round to the window with the window done up as much as possible and then start the engine running most people die between 1 and 1 and a half hours. It is a popular suicide method in the UK - CO1

898:

I wanted to apologize if I seemed a little intense. I am bit wired on coffee. However, I am just a bit flustered. I have edited under another screen name so many times and have never been brought into anything like this. It is very distressing and has been taxing me emotionally as well as

92:

It is necessary to include contrary evidence on the harmfulness of second hand smoke like the Stanford or Women's Health Initiative studies to provide a complete reference to this subject. The absence of such calls into question the motives of the author(s).15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)~

1029:

nations have signed and currently 174 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."

2109:

But just from a common sense perspective, can it really be right not to mention the largest, most recent study if its conclusions fly in the face of the article's text, given that no reputable researcher has even tried to impugn the study (as in the case of Enstrom and Kabat, say)?

1761:

way they are stating it. Makes them look like they lack clear understanding on how causation works within science and reason. Yet, on Knowledge, the "can cause" is presentation of NPOV content that aligns with understanding of terms, not popular, albeit misguided, interpretations.

1920:

as some of our cognitive biases (no judgment implied) are probably at play in our understanding of the concept of causality and different groups of people may understand it differently. In the mean time, the safest is probably to stick to the language used in authoritative

1043:

In my quick review of the article, these would be the only other 2 additional places where I think the "can cause" wording ought to be employed to align with what scientific consensus is stating when it invokes the causal inference that is associated with passive smoking.

1209:"The governments of 168 nations have signed and currently 174 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke 2202:

Here's something very strange, the Peres article says "found no link between and secondhand smoke" but the abstract of the study itself says "Among NS, prolonged passive adult home exposure tended to increase lung cancer risk." I'm having trouble reconciling the

1301:

I see therefore no valid reason to change the formulation which has been in place for years now and has withstood the test of time. It is succinct, articulate, corresponds to the worldwide consensus of public health experts and authorities. What else do we want!

1024:

For consistency in the article, where it says "passive smoking causes," wouldn't it be better to have it state "can cause?" Such as in the the Effects heading, where it reads: Second-hand smoke causes many of the same diseases as direct smoking, including.....

3773:

I can only agree with the comments made by others on the talk page about this article. It is biased. It is unscientific: with good intentions, no doubt, but Knowledge exists to promote knowledge, not good intentions. This is a lapse of Knowledge's standards.

3184:

The article was originally started in American English, if you look through the archives, it comes off of the article on tobacco smoking, which was also started in American English. The article has always thus been in American English. Cheers, ~~ipuser

682:

Just as an anecdotal aside, I wonder how long it would take you die from tobacco smoke if you were sitting in a car with 4 people all chain smoking fat cigars with the windows done up and the air-con off. My guess is that you would die of dehydration.

247:

In epidemiologic research, are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident . (i.e. the RR must be higher than 2)

1825:

Dear Gw40nw: "These alleged most authoritative sources are misusing the term." Well, whether we like it or not, and in the absence of better sources, we have to stick to what these authoritative sources say - that is the rule on Knowledge (see:

3107:

The United States often uses their own terminology separate from that of the rest of the world. This is similar to how they use miles while the rest of the world uses metric. Sometimes we use American terminology others global terminology.

2967:

case insensitive and by extending the time frame to 2008, the results favour secondhand smoke. However I would be interested to know if people in the US have heard of passive smoking. I don't remember hearing usage of secondhand smoke.

976:

smoke holds a causal inference to disease, disability, and death." Where "causal inference" is linked and is in noun form that matches what the linking page, and science, is saying about the appropriate usage of 'causal relationship.'

1544:

rules does not apply to discussions on the Talk pages, where Wikipedians are free to express their views with the entire palette of arguments they deem suitable, as long as the debate remains civil and respectful, like the one we have

1483:

astonishment, as common usage of the word "cause" is closer - and even perhaps identical - to the way epidemiogists use it. A good evidence of this is provided by the following search I conducted on Google: when typing "drunk driving

2326:

We also need to abandon the dichotomous oversimplification of risk and actually specify risks. "Increases risk" is extremely misleading when the risk is a very low probability. We need more rigor and more statistics knowledge.

918:

is pushing an agenda here, all we are doing is summarizing high-quality sources. The source you are bringing isn't of the same standard as the ones in use in the article and the qualifier you're trying to add isn't necessary.

1287:

diseases, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheezing, otitis media (middle ear infection) and sudden infant death

236:

1.Even where there is no correlation, the RR is never exactly unity, since both X and Y are estimates of statistical variates, so the question arises as to how much deviation from unity should be acceptable as significant.

4337:

In the intro of the section 'effects' please add that "There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be harmful to health." This is supported by citation no. 133 from the CDC fact sheet

652:

It's not just lung cancer, there are also chronic pulmonary obstruction and heart disease to consider. Also maybe in the 1970's Italian science wasn't that reliable, kind of like cheap Italian cars and cheap Italian wine.

1462:, and this page needs to be protected against their attacks (of course, not all Wikipedians who modify this article in a way that moves its contents away from established evidence are denialists, but some definitely are.) 3682:

Yes, "recent", "primary" and "rebutted other studies" is considered to be a bad combination here, just as MEDRS says. There is clearly a need to update that section, but it should use the best available sources, such as

4364:

Also in the same section's sub-section 'Cancer: General' , please add "Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, of which hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer." source: citation no.133 from CDC:

2309:

This article is most politically biased science article I've yet seen on Knowledge. We have a serious problem on Knowledge of science pages being hijacked by political activists. It makes Knowledge much less credible.

229:

studies that did not meet the criteria to be dismissed as "junk science." This source 131 does not even mention relative risk. They would not go so far. It is only good epidemiology to not accept RR's of less than 2.

3373:

When I use the ngram tool and look only at uses since 1950, it seems that "secondhand smoke" is used somewhat more often than "passive smoking", which is, in turn, used more often than "environmental tobacco smoke".

1601:

Although epidemiology is sometimes viewed as a collection of statistical tools used to elucidate the associations of exposures to health outcomes, a deeper understanding of this science is that of discovering causal

353:

studies that have been done in the 21st century also fail to prove risk, and that these studies were not done by the tobacco industry but by, for example, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute

233:

beneficial cause. An RR of exactly unity suggests that there is no correlation. There are a number of problems in a simplistic application of RR that require an RR to be over 2 to be significant. In particular:

2016:

I added a comment on this study under Effects. It seems appropriate given that it is the largest and most recent study on the subject, and plenty of smaller and older individual studies are directly referenced.

257:"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist 2060:

still littered with references to primary sources, which you apparently are not interested in replacing. But thirdly, note the following quote from the Knowledge Policy you so thoughtfully referenced for me.

1427:

Good point. It seems however that the Google search settles the issue of least astonishment, since "causes" far outnumbers "can cause" on the web. In the current article, I see no reason to compromise on the

2323:

as "prolonged exposure increases risk" or something like that, deleting the fact that it's only people who live with a smoker for more than 30 years. This is a ridiculous, irresponsible approach to science.

3803:

Despite the industry's awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke as early as the 1980s, the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products

4136: 1591:

for it is placing opinion (however much that is met with consensus) over the epidemiological understanding of causal inference. Let us quote that here so there is no mistake about what that is saying.

3808:

Since the opposing lawyers got their hands on evidence of tobacco industry malfeasance, it has cost them hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. It must be getting closer to $ 1 trillion by now.

4375: 1959:

There have been strong suggestions that dementia is a deficiency of acetylcholine in studies. Since literally all nicotine does is produce acetylcholine, does that not suggest a therapeutic use?

1242:"The U.S. District Court, in U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al., found that '...despite their internal acknowledgment of the hazards of secondhand smoke, Defendants have fraudulently denied that ETS 1874:

Looking closer at the question, it's not that they are "misusing" the term, so much as that the term does not have a single agreed-upon definition. Rather there are ongoing debates, as seen in

3823:

In this prospective cohort of postmenopausal women, active smoking significantly increased risk of all lung cancer subtypes; current smokers had significantly increased risk compared with FS.

323:

Yup the tobacco industry managed to hide the fact / confuse the fact that smoking was and is harmful for many years. The evidence of harm however is as rock solid as it can get in toxicology.

2513:

I support efforts to add more of the extensive documentation of harm caused by passive smoking, in spite of the well-documented campaign to suppress and confuse evidence about this issue.

843:

I hate smoking, I really do. I do not date people who smoke and I have never smoked. I do not like second hand smoke. You cannot defend what you believe in by looking one sided like this.

3887:

However, this was published in 2015, not 2013, and not in J. NCI (or maybe it changed it's nae to J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncology). Is there another article to which this discussion refers?

3377:

It also appears that this arrangement has existed since approximately 1997. Similarly, there are 1,820 Google Books results for "secondhand smoke" and only 1,540 for "passive smoking".

2206:

The other side of "Nobody has discredited this study" is, "If the study is so good and useful, how come it hasn't been picked up in a literature review?" Without a good, high-quality

251:"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine" 3827:. These data support continued need for smoking prevention and cessation interventions, passive smoking research, and further study of lung cancer risk factors in addition to smoking. 1391:

The issue is apparently a difference between common-language English and specialist terminology. A link to the epidemiologist's definition of "cause" seems necessary, but our article

4437:

If we can reasonably get away with further hammering home that smoking is bad, I think we should take it, and the requested addition is extremely inobtrusive from my point of view.

4116: 3707:, however: in the absence of time travel, nobody has yet proposed a plausible mechanism whereby a later-date reduction in disease might cause an earlier-date passage of legislation. 980:

the epidemiology page, under Legal Interpretation, "epidemiology addresses whether an agent can cause a disease, not whether an agent did cause a specific plaintiff's disease."

2199:

the medical sourcing guideline. Has the study been taken into account in a high-quality literature review? If so we might be able to use the review, but this a primary study.

2088:

secondary source nowhere considered this study (not surprising since it is from late 2013 and this review is dated 2014, but really is much older than that). So I don't think

1369:

but still in the same direction: "passive smoking causes lung cancer" gives 7'490 hits, while "passive smoking can cause lung cancer" produces 3'360 hits, i.e. less than half.

1916:

Thanks a lot for the explanation and for the fascinating references. This is indeed an interesting subject. It seems to me that one way to approach the question would be via

2891:

I'll leave it to others but I don't see a problem with the current title. It's more accurate — secondhand sounds like something sold at a rummage sale — and we should note

1231:"...the District Court for the District of Columbia found that the tobacco industry ... responded with 'efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that ETS 1496:

results, while everybody knows that driving a car while drunk does not inevitably lead to an accident. So perhaps people are more educated about epidemiology than we think.

1293:"The World Health Organization External reference (WHO) provides information on its website which states that secondhand tobacco smoke is dangerous to health and that it 3380: 244:

4.Statistical results are often subjected to a chain of manipulations and selections which (whether designed to or not) can increase the deviation of the RR from unity.

4106: 4137:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090104145317/http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=%2Fmadison.com%2Fhtml%2Farchive_files%2Fwsj%2F2005%2F09%2F25%2F0509240280.php

1269:

All the instances of "causes" read very naturally, some being quotation of people (such as the judge of the Federal court) who are not specialized in epidemiology.

4178: 4174: 4160: 4008: 4004: 3990: 3582: 3578: 3564: 4416:

I find the first sentence about no risk-free level to be helpful information for readers. It looks supported by the sources. I'd probably support adding it. ––

2113:

This article has used too many primary sources for some time. The solution is not to use even more primary sources but to replace them with secondary sources.

4140: 3739: 1220:"In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the United States were 1198:"The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2002 that there was sufficient evidence that secondhand smoke 254:"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration. 4086: 1355:

causation, as indeed active smoking does not cause all smokers to get lung cancer. Restricting the view to a particular individual, his/her active smoking

190:

Just to follow on the preceding, an incident has occurred on CNN which again raises the question of the impact of passive marijuana smoke on non-smokers:

780:

Despite my best efforts, I keep getting these two simple edits undone. I was not trying to rewrite the article and definitely was NOT defending smoking.

2757: 1453:

Finally, regular editors of this article know well that it is the target of attacks by people whose position on the issue coincides strangely with the

3966: 4117:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120206182922/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4101474

1635:

conditions. If a necessary condition can be identified and controlled (e.g., antibodies to a disease agent), the harmful outcome can be avoided.''

1479:

This "causes" formulation has been around for years in the current article and seems very well accepted. I even claim it is the one which creates

191: 354: 3946: 3241:

above. I am inclined to support "secondhand smoke" (or "secondhand smoking"), as I have never heard it called "passive smoking"; but of course

2579:... Knowledge articles need to document what's happening but article Talk pages are not for discussing personal opinions about article topics. 711: 4357: 1061:

Wouldn't make sense in this sentence "found that passive smoking causes about 603,000 death a year, which represents 1% of the world's death"

4146: 4096: 2343: 123:

made and the references are intentionally or unintentionally obtuse makes this article very unhelpful for someone looking for clear answers.

1257:"The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke 3976: 3936: 3704: 3186: 124: 4120: 2077:) After enough time has passed for a review in the area to be published, the review should be cited in preference to the primary study. 3856:"Active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study prospective cohort" 3542: 2710:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

3785: 2398: 2271: 1999: 1148:

I repeat here what has been said before about the two variants ("causes" vs "can cause") of the second sentence in the lead paragraph.

571: 518: 434: 291: 264: 194: 176: 4379: 1619:

test hypotheses, and to make educated, informed assertions about which relationships are causal, and about exactly how they are causal.

1180:"Another research financed by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and Bloomberg Philanthropies found that passive smoking 4369: 4354: 3956: 1966: 613:

The UCLA research explored changes in smoking trends and death rates among female nurses enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study between

1895:. Indeed, the first of these (Morabia) makes it clear that the philosophers have yet to get their act together fifty years after the 4156:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

4107:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070914162226/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

3986:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

3378: 4366: 4339: 3015: 4360: 2749: 2644:

smoke is harmful, e.g. the Surgeon General, IARC, etc. Should no one object to this I will remove the FCTC source from the lead.

1432:. And also, should one invoke the least astonishment principle to justify the "can cause" formulation, one would also have to be 4477: 3121: 2676: 2561: 2499: 2370: 2158: 2141:

There was many issues with this paper including that they state "It’s hard to say anything conclusive with such small numbers”

2126: 2046: 1074: 1010: 818: 2316:

6.1 Industry-funded studies and critiques 6.2 Tobacco industry response 6.3 US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies

1664:

It's not possible to change "causes" into "can cause" in the body of the article, since these occurrences of "causes" are in

484:

Doc James, thanks for that, the above link is good because it shows the full text. I hate giving links that don't show that.

109: 72: 67: 59: 4110: 1276: 4141:

http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=%2Fmadison.com%2Fhtml%2Farchive_files%2Fwsj%2F2005%2F09%2F25%2F0509240280.php

4126: 3740:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/secondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html

3263: 2761: 3724:

across any kind of decent sample size. You cannot just exlude primary sources you don't like and leave ones that you do.

4221: 4087:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110911020755/http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/factsheets/Prevention/pdf/smoking.pdf

4051: 3029: 548: 468: 390: 336: 153: 3125: 2680: 2565: 2503: 2374: 2357:

Political activists like the Surgeon General, IARC and World Health Organization? They all state similar conclusions.

2162: 2130: 2050: 1078: 1014: 822: 751:

This article has no information about cannabis/marijuana smoke. Is there a separate article that I am overlooking? ---

3345:. "Passive smoking" being twice as commonly used as "Secondhand smoke" with "Secondhand smoking" not even featuring. 2264:

policy by deleting this reference - the cited policy makes specific provisions for just this type of primary study.

3641:(Electronic cigarette) are banned everywhere, even in open air near train station. Same restrictions as cigarettes. 4473: 4348: 1521: 859: 759: 38: 4351: 3967:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131126094031/http://gothamist.com/2011/05/18/smokers_just_daring_bloomberg_to_ti.php

3484:

it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

4090: 3400: 2701: 2339: 4177:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4007:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3778:

Journal of the National Cancer Institute (which unfortunately is not accessible from the institute's webpage).

3581:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2007: 3259: 875:"Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so." Mark Twain 552: 472: 394: 340: 157: 3238: 3190: 128: 3789: 2402: 2275: 575: 522: 438: 268: 4312: 4212: 4078: 4042: 3947:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140212191352/http://www.nphp.gov.au/publications/legislation/smoke_passive.pdf

3928: 3435: 3018: 2003: 1970: 1917: 678:

is no conclusive statistical evidence however that shows that ETS or passive smoking is harmful in any way.

295: 198: 180: 4393:

the first sentence; it's not like the article implies otherwise. Leaving request open for another opinion.

3855: 2753: 1989: 1726:

Just note though that in my note above I was addressing Gw40nw proposal to amend the body of the article...

1089:

Agree that change there is not needed, but feel it is still necessary in other 2 areas I noted previously.

4147:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080716173310/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf

4097:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080716173310/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf

4074: 3970: 3924: 3466: 3385: 3349: 3066: 2992: 2892: 2768: 2648: 2611: 2535: 2455: 2420: 2335: 2030:

That is a primary source. We should be using review articles and other high quality secondary sources per

1896: 1151:

I have expressed the case for the first formulation very extensively in a previous Talk contribution (see

241:

be compensated for, by definition. 3.Sometimes biases are inherent in the method of measurement employed.

3649: 598: 4345: 4196:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4184: 4026:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4014: 3977:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070905172350/http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html

3937:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070905172350/http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html

3841: 3729: 3712: 3672: 3620: 3600:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3588: 3410: 3308: 3288: 3143: 3096: 2711: 2436: 2177: 2021: 1905: 1698: 1529: 1404: 1329: 1125: 752: 658: 105: 4121:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4101474

4077:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3927:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2659:

Page 8 says "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to

840:

even The National Cancer Institute! I was even reported to in effort to snuff me out of the equation!!

3725: 3668: 3543:

https://web.archive.org/20090327101821/http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/docs/IHCP_annual_report/ihcp03.pdf

3304: 3139: 2173: 2017: 4471:. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. 4446: 4423: 3781: 3638: 3462: 3203: 3172: 2923: 2874: 2849: 2518: 2394: 2331: 2267: 1995: 1962: 1928: 1837: 1733: 1717: 1693:

other editors seem to have found necessary. Is that so complicated? We wikilink things all the time!

1675: 1569: 1552: 1503: 1396: 1382: 1310: 847: 720: 567: 514: 430: 287: 260: 97: 47: 17: 3950: 3663:

Under the effects section, I added a recent large study from a peer-reviewed journal. Here it is -

3645: 972:

The statement in lede: Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.

491: 4467:

Remember to change the answered no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected

4406: 4285: 3957:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071013185238/http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2063791182-1187.html

3664: 3357: 3254: 3117: 2898: 2797: 2672: 2576: 2557: 2495: 2366: 2154: 2122: 2042: 1070: 1006: 814: 101: 4150: 4100: 3546: 2641: 2210:-compliant secondary source, the article shouldn't be quoting this (or any other) primary source. 357: 4269: 4248: 3980: 3940: 3489: 3333: 3039: 3012: 2972: 2947: 1788: 1647: 1090: 1045: 983: 490:

The the study was first published in "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology" Volume 14 issue 1.

4181:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

4011:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3585:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

951: 503: 4197: 4027: 3601: 914: 900: 880: 851: 789: 781: 3899: 3875: 3684: 3518: 3382: 3063: 2989: 2841: 2781: 2765: 2728: 2645: 2604: 2602:

The whole article is a soapbox for the currently fashionable Healthist anti-smoking hysteria.

2530: 2450: 2415: 2187: 2071: 1827: 940: 361: 3867: 3837: 3746: 3708: 3696: 3690: 3616: 3325: 3321: 3282: 3246: 3242: 3234: 3164: 3160: 3090: 3004: 2819: 2793: 2432: 1901: 1889: 1882: 1875: 1792: 1694: 1651: 1541: 1525: 1513: 1400: 1325: 1121: 1094: 1049: 987: 654: 544: 464: 424: 386: 332: 311: 214: 149: 4204: 4034: 3960: 3608: 3021: 709:

went on to a long career of consulting for tobacco companies. If he is editor in chief of

597:

Let us all fall down in awe at the brilliance of 1970's Italian scientists! What about the

508:

The homepage of the The International Society of Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology

4438: 4417: 4316: 4070: 3920: 3526: 3508: 3439: 3250: 3225: 3168: 3138:

The "mile" isn't US terminology - it was inherited from the UK, who also still use miles.

3008: 2835: 2739: 2588: 2514: 2481: 2477: 2249: 2219: 2207: 2196: 2142: 2089: 2031: 1924: 1833: 1729: 1713: 1671: 1565: 1548: 1499: 1378: 1306: 955: 927: 716: 452: 374: 4111:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

1320:

I tend to agree, but it isn't open and shut for individuals, just for populations. There

3693: 3061: 2866: 2723:. The ENGVAR/RETAIN concerns have not been adequately addressed for there to be a move. 1892: 1885: 1878: 4394: 4273: 4163:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 4127:

https://web.archive.org/web/20061118145334/http://www.rjrt.com/smoking/summaryCover.asp

3993:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3567:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3353: 3109: 2870: 2664: 2549: 2487: 2358: 2146: 2114: 2034: 1184:

about 603,000 death a year, which represents 1% of the world's death." (same paragraph)

1062: 998: 904: 884: 855: 806: 793: 785: 706: 4481: 4450: 4431: 4411: 4383: 4290: 4252: 4226: 4203:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

4056: 4033:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3903: 3845: 3793: 3750: 3733: 3718: 3676: 3653: 3628: 3607:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3493: 3470: 3388: 3361: 3337: 3312: 3291: 3268: 3216: 3194: 3176: 3147: 3129: 3099: 3069: 3043: 2995: 2975: 2951: 2931: 2907: 2882: 2857: 2806: 2785: 2732: 2684: 2651: 2619: 2596: 2569: 2543: 2522: 2507: 2461: 2442: 2426: 2406: 2378: 2347: 2279: 2257: 2227: 2181: 2166: 2134: 2054: 2025: 1974: 1932: 1911: 1841: 1796: 1737: 1721: 1704: 1679: 1655: 1573: 1556: 1535: 1507: 1410: 1386: 1335: 1314: 1152: 1129: 1098: 1082: 1053: 1018: 991: 959: 935: 908: 888: 863: 826: 797: 766: 743:

In any case none of this detracts from the studies he quoted like Doll and Peto 1978.

724: 662: 579: 556: 526: 476: 442: 398: 365: 344: 315: 299: 272: 218: 202: 184: 161: 132: 4244: 3485: 3329: 3035: 2969: 2960: 2943: 1429: 947: 3812: 3032: 2840:. Certainly SHS is the preferred American name for the phenomenon, as documented by 2431:

Suggest you review the cited sources. Tong & Glantz are pretty direct about it.

4233: 3895: 3825:

Among NS, prolonged passive adult home exposure tended to increase lung cancer risk

3208: 2777: 2724: 1392: 3894:(they've put one up I guess in the last two years), I don't find anything either. 3860:

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology

2413:

I entirely agree with the above editor. This article is obviously heavily biased.

3811:

In this particular case, you can find the results of the study by Googling, e.g.

3536: 4170: 4000: 3742: 3574: 2942:, and in my locality is also used more commonly. So per "common name", oppose -- 1517: 1261:

disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants." (under

536: 456: 378: 324: 307: 210: 141: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4130: 3761:

2013 Stanford study on the impact of passive smoking on lung cancer among women

3703:. We don't really need to use a low value source to support the assertion that 4169:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 4091:

https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/factsheets/prevention/pdf/smoking.pdf

3999:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3700: 3573:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 3409:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a

3281:. Passive smoking is the default term, and should not be changed, per ENGVAR. 3086: 3082: 2581: 2242: 2212: 1324:

other causes after all. We should be able to express the distinction somehow.

1283:"Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes 920: 1275:

Even Philip Morris, in stating their official position on the issue on their

494: 3871: 2319:

I assume I don't need to explain how absurdly biased and one-sided this is.

3878: 3687: 3058: 3056: 3027: 2190: 2074: 1992:

per Journal of the National Cancer Research Institute, December 17, 2013.

3850:

Does *anyone* have a proper citation for this? The article I can find is:

2869:

uses "secondhand smoke" without one. No "passive smoking" in sight. So...

1433: 1040:

disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants.

3523:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

1272:

The body of the article contains not a single instance of "can cause".

3971:

http://gothamist.com/2011/05/18/smokers_just_daring_bloomberg_to_ti.php

3257:" was created not long after on September 22, 2004, by another user. — 2862: 2548:

Would help if you would provide refs. The talk page is not a soap box.

1488:

car accidents" I get 12'400 results. When searching for "drunk driving

1032:

No change suggested here as that is opinion being quoted for accuracy.

3055:

It seems that the BBC at least sometimes does use "secondhand smoke",

1540:

Sure, and I wouldn't refer to a Google search in the article. But the

1191:

between 3,000 and 5,000 premature deaths per year" (last paragraph of

3644:

What are the risks of passive vaping? Is it safer or more dangerous?

2486:

except for those who had lived with a smoker for at least 30 years."

2305:

Article is cartoonishly biased – we need cleaner science on Knowledge

2748:– "Secondhand smoke" is the primary name for this topic used by the 2824:, though, is to see who got in the first edit. Looks like that was 420:

3.0 cigarettes a day without increased risk of respiratory disease

3531:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

1955:

Use of Tobacco and Passive Smoke Equates to Lower Risk of Dementia

1262: 1247: 1236: 1214: 1203: 1192: 1167: 715:, it calls into question the impartiality of the journal itself. 3951:

http://www.nphp.gov.au/publications/legislation/smoke_passive.pdf

2313:

The section Controversy Over Harm has the following subsections:

1297:

cancer, heart disease, and many other serious diseases in adults.

1213:

death, disease and disability." (last bullet point in list below

1177:

of preventable death" (last bullet point before Children section)

509: 492:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027323009190054Y

279:

Tone, poor citing...this whole page has serious problems with POV

3665:

http://mcr.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/09/12/1077558716668646

2939:"passive smoke" used x2 as much as "second handsmoke" on n-gram 2637: 499:

One of the study authors "Gori" is the current editor in chief.

4151:

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf

4101:

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf

3547:

http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/docs/IHCP_annual_report/ihcp03.pdf

4300: 3423: 3024: 504:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Regulatory_Toxicology_and_Pharmacology

25: 3981:

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html

3941:

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html

2844:. Can anyone see what the British National Health Service or 2476:

First of all we should generally not use primary sources per

628:

Quitting smoking made a big difference in enhancing longevity

417:

4.5 cigarettes a day without increased risk of heart disease

3552:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1225: 688: 606:

the study relied upon surveys completed every two years by

414:

6.3 cigarettes a day without increased risk of lung cancer

4081:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3931:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

691:

he died accidently by running his car in a small garage.

407:

6.3 cigarettes a day without increased risk of lung cancer

4465:

I'm closing this request while it's under discussion per

3659:

2016 study on the impact of smoking bans on heart disease

425:

http://www.forcesitaly.org/italy/download/gori-mantel.pdf

224:

Controversy over harm, Milloy, POV and misleading sources

4243:. Please create "Pop culture" section and mention this. 4239:

Scene: Lonnie Shaver's fellow jurors request him not to

3961:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2063791182-1187.html

2832:

enough Brits also use secondhand smoke that we can find

1166:

the same problems as direct smoking" (first sentence of

3800:

Need I remind everyone of this quote from the article:

3512: 3507:

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

3278: 2825: 2816:

Knowledge in particular. The objective thing to do per

2744: 1990:"No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer" 2988:

support a move from the current title, in my opinion.

3399:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

3352:. There is nothing wrong with the current title. -- 3249:" was created on the same date by the same user as " 4173:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 4003:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 3577:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2714:. No further edits should be made to this section. 3413:. No further edits should be made to this section. 3253:" (originally also a redirect), on June 9, 2004. " 2092:in any way precludes inclusion of this reference. 1668:of the most authoritative sources on the subject. 1263:US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies 1224:by passive smoking annually." (first sentence of 1187:"In France passive smoking has been estimated to 306:organization affiliation of supporting research. 170:Needs discussion re: marijuana smoke and "vaping" 502:This is the wikipedia article about the journal 4389:Second part is done. I don't know if we really 3420:Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015 772:Trying to make more objective with simple edits 610:about their health, including smoking habits... 423:See here for these results and similar studies 4356:5) Australian government Department of health: 4159:This message was posted before February 2018. 3989:This message was posted before February 2018. 3563:This message was posted before February 2018. 3537:http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html 3303:as the current title was the title first used. 2145:of only borderline statistical significance." 948:Comment on the content, not on the contributor 630:, especially among nurses in their late 70s... 3818: 3801: 8: 4131:http://www.rjrt.com/smoking/summaryCover.asp 4297:Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021 2865:uses "second-hand smoke" with a hyphen and 2195:No it's not POV-pushing, it's adherence to 647:by that age than nurses who never smoked... 624:in comparison to nurses who never smoked... 487:Here are the (more authoritative) others:- 3779: 2700:The following is a closed discussion of a 2636:I question whether we should be using the 2392: 2265: 1993: 1960: 555:) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 495:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1947248 475:) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 397:) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 343:) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 160:) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 4069:I have just modified 7 external links on 3919:I have just modified 5 external links on 3277:90.192.101.114 has no point. The article 2828:. So it should remain at passive smoking 1359:indeed cause him/her to have lung cancer. 4376:2409:4042:2E1F:FE5B:9571:54ED:1ED0:DDFD 2663:causes death, disease and disability." 1984:Article Doesn't Reflect Latest Research 1983: 1144:Why "causes" is better than "can cause" 687:poisoning. Look at poor old Micky Cave 4466: 4368:and from the American cancer society: 4062:External links modified (January 2018) 3854:Wang, A; Kubo; et al. (January 2015). 2186:For reference the underlying study is 712:Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 622:twice as many current smokers had died 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3060:as does the NHS's Smokefree website. 1524:to cite that will demystify "cause". 1202:cancer in humans" (first sentence of 7: 3705:correlation does not imply causation 3639:Electronic nicotine delivery systems 3224:per nom, common name, and accuracy. 2719:The result of the move request was: 1436:and apply it throughout the article. 1215:Opinion of public health authorities 427:(study by the American University) 3813:Oxford Journals: Annals of Oncology 1252:Position of major tobacco companies 997:Can cause sounds good and changed. 636:among former smokers that age were 4341:Also additional sources are from: 1395:does not address it well, and the 689:http://en.wikipedia.org/Micky_Cave 645:2.3 times more likely to have died 600:2008 UCLA School of Nursing study? 24: 4073:. Please take a moment to review 3923:. Please take a moment to review 3511:. Please take a moment to review 3237:does not seem to apply here, per 1710:an expert editor, would find one. 968:"Causes" incorrectly used in lede 615:1976 and 2003, a span of 27 years 4457: 4304: 4272:, not important to the subject. 4259: 3476: 3427: 899:intellectually. I am at a lost. 608:237,648 female registered nurses 411:According to Doll and Peto 1978 29: 1397:principle of least astonishment 4469:or on hold awaiting user input 4350:3) American Lung Association: 3677:14:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC) 3535:Attempted to fix sourcing for 835:No objectiveness = Bad science 725:22:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 663:22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 557:09:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 510:http://www.isrtp.org/index.htm 399:09:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 366:08:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC) 1: 4359:6) National Cancer Institute: 3904:19:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC) 3846:22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 3794:07:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 3751:19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC) 3494:06:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC) 3471:06:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC) 3389:18:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC) 3362:07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC) 2733:20:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) 2693:Requested move 16 August 2015 2008:22:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC) 1130:16:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC) 1099:22:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC) 1083:20:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC) 1054:20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC) 1019:05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC) 992:21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC) 593:- a startling new study from 4353:4) American cancer society: 4227:06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 4057:04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 3654:05:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC) 2771:18:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC) 1933:01:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC) 1912:22:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 1842:21:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 1797:19:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 1738:18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 1722:18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 1705:18:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 1680:11:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 1656:23:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) 1574:11:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 1557:11:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 1536:01:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC) 1508:17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC) 1411:16:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC) 1387:00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) 1336:17:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 1315:01:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) 960:16:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 936:03:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 909:00:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 889:00:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC) 864:23:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 827:22:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 798:17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 767:21:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC) 640:than those of non-smokers... 580:12:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 203:01:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 185:15:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC) 4482:11:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC) 4331:to reactivate your request. 4319:has been answered. Set the 3734:14:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC) 3719:16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC) 3629:21:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 3454:to reactivate your request. 3442:has been answered. Set the 3338:08:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 3313:06:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 3292:00:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 3269:22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 3217:14:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 3195:23:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 3177:13:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC) 3148:06:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 3130:15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 3100:03:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 3070:13:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 3044:13:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2996:12:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2976:04:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 2952:10:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2932:01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2908:02:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2883:01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2861:On NHS's "Smokefree" site, 2858:01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC) 2807:21:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC) 2786:12:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 2685:22:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 2652:18:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC) 620:In all age groups, roughly 527:08:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 477:01:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 443:13:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 345:18:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 316:17:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 273:08:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 219:17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 4498: 4451:23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) 4432:03:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC) 4412:20:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC) 4291:20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC) 4253:05:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC) 4190:(last update: 5 June 2024) 4066:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4020:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3916:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3594:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3529:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 3504:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3279:started at passive smoking 2508:07:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC) 2379:07:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) 2348:00:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC) 1430:principle of verifiability 1250:section, paragraph before 300:09:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC) 162:19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC) 133:12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC) 4384:18:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC) 3701:10.1186/s12889-015-2041-6 2758:American Lung Association 2750:National Cancer Institute 2620:10:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC) 1975:05:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC) 1248:Tobacco industry response 1237:Tobacco industry response 377:and we can than discuss. 3406:Please do not modify it. 2707:Please do not modify it. 2597:02:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC) 2570:12:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC) 2480:so maybe we should trim 2280:03:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC) 2258:02:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC) 2228:02:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC) 2182:17:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC) 2167:15:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC) 2135:15:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC) 2055:11:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC) 2026:18:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC) 871:Truth not a concern here 4344:1) US surgeon general: 3912:External links modified 3500:External links modified 2754:American Cancer Society 2544:09:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC) 2523:22:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC) 2462:01:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC) 2443:22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC) 2427:19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC) 2407:18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC) 2232:Adding, OK I see it in 1918:experimental philosophy 1239:section, 1st paragraph) 140:To which do you refer? 3890:And on the webpage of 3829: 3815:and get the following: 3805: 1897:Bradford-Hill criteria 1492:car accidents", I get 1279:, say unambiguously: 1162:"secondhand smoke ... 88:Need Contrary Findings 4474:ScottishFinnishRadish 3872:10.1093/annonc/mdu470 643:current smokers were 42:of past discussions. 4419:𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 4171:regular verification 4001:regular verification 3575:regular verification 3560:to let others know. 3515:. If necessary, add 3228:20:19, 24 2015 (UTC) 18:Talk:Passive smoking 4161:After February 2018 3991:After February 2018 3565:After February 2018 3556:parameter below to 3260:the Man in Question 3255:Second hand smoking 1522:wp:Reliable sources 4215:InternetArchiveBot 4166:InternetArchiveBot 4045:InternetArchiveBot 3996:InternetArchiveBot 3738:Interesting read: 3634:Second hand vaping 3570:InternetArchiveBot 3013:Cancer Research UK 118:Misleading sources 4410: 4335: 4334: 4289: 4191: 4021: 3796: 3784:comment added by 3717: 3627: 3595: 3458: 3457: 3266: 2910: 2842:User:Everymorning 2788: 2441: 2409: 2397:comment added by 2351: 2334:comment added by 2282: 2270:comment added by 2010: 1998:comment added by 1977: 1965:comment added by 1910: 1703: 1534: 1409: 1334: 1173:"the 3rd leading 867: 850:comment added by 570:comment added by 517:comment added by 433:comment added by 290:comment added by 263:comment added by 114: 100:comment added by 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4489: 4461: 4460: 4443: 4430: 4428: 4420: 4404: 4397: 4326: 4322: 4308: 4307: 4301: 4283: 4276: 4267: 4263: 4262: 4241:secondhand smoke 4225: 4216: 4189: 4188: 4167: 4055: 4046: 4019: 4018: 3997: 3882: 3832:In other words, 3715: 3711: 3623: 3622:Talk to my owner 3618: 3593: 3592: 3571: 3530: 3522: 3480: 3479: 3449: 3445: 3431: 3430: 3424: 3408: 3285: 3264: 3262: 3247:secondhand smoke 3245:. The redirect " 3213: 3212: 3114: 3093: 2929: 2928: 2905: 2904: 2896: 2880: 2879: 2855: 2854: 2839: 2838: 2823: 2822: 2804: 2803: 2796:issues here. — 2772: 2747: 2745:Secondhand smoke 2709: 2669: 2618: 2616: 2609: 2595: 2593: 2586: 2554: 2542: 2540: 2533: 2492: 2460: 2458: 2453: 2439: 2435: 2425: 2423: 2418: 2363: 2350: 2328: 2256: 2254: 2247: 2226: 2224: 2217: 2151: 2119: 2039: 1908: 1904: 1701: 1697: 1532: 1528: 1407: 1403: 1332: 1328: 1067: 1003: 934: 932: 925: 866: 844: 811: 762: 755: 754:Another Believer 638:1.5 times higher 582: 541: 529: 461: 445: 383: 329: 302: 284:if you ask me. 275: 146: 113: 94: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4497: 4496: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4458: 4439: 4424: 4422: 4418: 4395: 4362: 4324: 4320: 4317:Passive smoking 4305: 4299: 4274: 4260: 4258: 4237: 4219: 4214: 4182: 4175:have permission 4165: 4079:this simple FaQ 4071:Passive smoking 4064: 4049: 4044: 4012: 4005:have permission 3995: 3929:this simple FaQ 3921:Passive smoking 3914: 3853: 3763: 3713: 3661: 3636: 3626: 3621: 3586: 3579:have permission 3569: 3524: 3516: 3509:Passive smoking 3502: 3477: 3447: 3443: 3440:Passive smoking 3428: 3422: 3417: 3404: 3350:WP:TITLECHANGES 3283: 3258: 3251:passive smoking 3210: 3209: 3110: 3091: 3009:Passive smoking 2926: 2924: 2900: 2899: 2893:WP:TITLECHANGES 2877: 2875: 2852: 2850: 2836:MOS:COMMONALITY 2834: 2833: 2818: 2817: 2799: 2798: 2743: 2740:Passive smoking 2705: 2695: 2665: 2634: 2612: 2605: 2603: 2589: 2582: 2580: 2575:Yes please see 2550: 2536: 2531: 2529: 2488: 2474: 2456: 2451: 2449: 2437: 2421: 2416: 2414: 2359: 2336:BlueSingularity 2329: 2307: 2250: 2243: 2241: 2220: 2213: 2211: 2147: 2115: 2078: 2035: 1986: 1957: 1906: 1699: 1530: 1405: 1330: 1146: 1063: 999: 970: 928: 921: 919: 896: 873: 845: 837: 807: 774: 765: 760: 753: 749: 565: 537: 512: 457: 428: 409: 379: 325: 285: 281: 258: 226: 172: 142: 120: 95: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4495: 4493: 4485: 4484: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4434: 4373: 4343: 4333: 4332: 4309: 4298: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4236: 4230: 4209: 4208: 4201: 4154: 4153: 4145:Added archive 4143: 4135:Added archive 4133: 4125:Added archive 4123: 4115:Added archive 4113: 4105:Added archive 4103: 4095:Added archive 4093: 4085:Added archive 4063: 4060: 4039: 4038: 4031: 3984: 3983: 3975:Added archive 3973: 3965:Added archive 3963: 3955:Added archive 3953: 3945:Added archive 3943: 3935:Added archive 3913: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3888: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3830: 3816: 3809: 3806: 3762: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3660: 3657: 3635: 3632: 3619: 3613: 3612: 3605: 3550: 3549: 3541:Added archive 3539: 3501: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3456: 3455: 3432: 3421: 3418: 3416: 3415: 3401:requested move 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3365: 3364: 3340: 3315: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3272: 3271: 3239:90.192.101.114 3229: 3219: 3197: 3187:90.192.101.114 3179: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3133: 3132: 3102: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3047: 3046: 2998: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2963:By making the 2955: 2954: 2934: 2922:. As above. — 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2886: 2885: 2860: 2810: 2809: 2738: 2736: 2717: 2716: 2702:requested move 2696: 2694: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2633: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2572: 2473: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2306: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 1985: 1982: 1980: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1922: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1831: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1727: 1724: 1711: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1669: 1659: 1658: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1602:relationships. 1593: 1592: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1563: 1559: 1546: 1497: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1339: 1338: 1299: 1298: 1290: 1289: 1267: 1266: 1255: 1240: 1229: 1218: 1207: 1196: 1185: 1178: 1171: 1145: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1022: 1021: 969: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 938: 895: 892: 872: 869: 836: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 773: 770: 757: 748: 745: 738: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 707:Gio Batta Gori 694: 681: 676: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 650: 649: 648: 641: 631: 625: 618: 611: 595:ITALY in 1978! 562: 561: 560: 559: 482: 481: 480: 479: 408: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 350: 349: 348: 347: 280: 277: 225: 222: 206: 205: 171: 168: 167: 166: 165: 164: 125:134.68.168.130 119: 116: 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4494: 4483: 4479: 4475: 4472: 4470: 4464: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4442: 4435: 4433: 4429: 4427: 4421: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4408: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4392: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4371: 4370: 4367: 4361: 4358: 4355: 4352: 4349: 4346: 4342: 4340: 4330: 4327:parameter to 4318: 4314: 4310: 4303: 4302: 4296: 4292: 4287: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4271: 4266: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4235: 4231: 4229: 4228: 4223: 4218: 4217: 4206: 4202: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4186: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4168: 4162: 4157: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4122: 4118: 4114: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4067: 4061: 4059: 4058: 4053: 4048: 4047: 4036: 4032: 4029: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4016: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3992: 3987: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3917: 3911: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3886: 3880: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3866:(1): 221–30. 3865: 3861: 3857: 3852: 3851: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3828: 3826: 3822: 3817: 3814: 3810: 3807: 3804: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3786:210.11.146.49 3783: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3760: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3741: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3716: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3695: 3692: 3689: 3686: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3658: 3656: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3642: 3640: 3633: 3631: 3630: 3624: 3617: 3610: 3606: 3603: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3590: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3566: 3561: 3559: 3555: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3538: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3528: 3520: 3514: 3510: 3505: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3453: 3450:parameter to 3441: 3437: 3433: 3426: 3425: 3419: 3414: 3412: 3407: 3402: 3397: 3396: 3390: 3387: 3384: 3381: 3379: 3376: 3372: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3348:. And a big 3347: 3344: 3341: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3316: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3299: 3298: 3293: 3290: 3286: 3280: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3270: 3267: 3265:(in question) 3261: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3233: 3230: 3227: 3223: 3220: 3218: 3215: 3214: 3205: 3204:WP:COMMONNAME 3201: 3198: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3180: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3155: 3154: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3113: 3106: 3103: 3101: 3098: 3094: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3077: 3076: 3071: 3068: 3065: 3062: 3059: 3057: 3054: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3031: 3028: 3026: 3022: 3020: 3016: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2999: 2997: 2994: 2991: 2986: 2983: 2982: 2977: 2974: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2938: 2935: 2933: 2930: 2921: 2918: 2917: 2909: 2906: 2903: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2884: 2881: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2859: 2856: 2847: 2843: 2837: 2831: 2827: 2821: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2808: 2805: 2802: 2795: 2792:There may be 2791: 2790: 2789: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2770: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2741: 2735: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2715: 2713: 2708: 2703: 2698: 2697: 2692: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2668: 2662: 2661:tobacco smoke 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2650: 2647: 2642: 2639: 2631: 2621: 2617: 2615: 2610: 2608: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2594: 2592: 2587: 2585: 2578: 2573: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2553: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2541: 2539: 2534: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2491: 2483: 2482: 2479: 2471: 2463: 2459: 2454: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2440: 2434: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2424: 2419: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2399:174.28.66.163 2396: 2388: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2362: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2314: 2311: 2304: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2272:67.80.187.189 2269: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2255: 2253: 2248: 2246: 2239: 2235: 2230: 2229: 2225: 2223: 2218: 2216: 2209: 2204: 2200: 2198: 2192: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2150: 2143: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2118: 2112: 2111: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2091: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2076: 2073: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2038: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2009: 2005: 2001: 2000:173.58.238.95 1997: 1991: 1981: 1978: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1954: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1909: 1903: 1898: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1696: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1643: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1589: 1588: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1461: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1412: 1408: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1358: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1303: 1296: 1292: 1291: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1278: 1273: 1270: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1176: 1172: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1153: 1149: 1143: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1066: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1041: 1039: 1033: 1030: 1026: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1002: 996: 995: 994: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 967: 961: 957: 953: 949: 946: 945: 942: 939: 937: 933: 931: 926: 924: 916: 913: 912: 911: 910: 906: 902: 893: 891: 890: 886: 882: 876: 870: 868: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 841: 834: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 810: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 778: 771: 769: 768: 763: 756: 746: 744: 741: 726: 722: 718: 714: 713: 708: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 692: 690: 684: 679: 674: 664: 660: 656: 651: 646: 642: 639: 635: 632: 629: 626: 623: 619: 616: 612: 609: 605: 604: 602: 601: 596: 592: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 581: 577: 573: 572:81.136.177.67 569: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 540: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 528: 524: 520: 519:81.136.177.67 516: 511: 506: 505: 500: 497: 496: 493: 488: 485: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 460: 454: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 444: 440: 436: 435:81.136.177.67 432: 426: 421: 418: 415: 412: 406: 400: 396: 392: 388: 384: 382: 376: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 363: 359: 355: 346: 342: 338: 334: 330: 328: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 313: 309: 303: 301: 297: 293: 292:98.210.88.228 289: 278: 276: 274: 270: 266: 265:81.136.177.67 262: 255: 252: 249: 245: 242: 238: 234: 230: 223: 221: 220: 216: 212: 204: 200: 196: 195:68.146.70.124 192: 189: 188: 187: 186: 182: 178: 177:68.146.70.124 169: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 145: 139: 138: 137: 136: 135: 134: 130: 126: 117: 115: 111: 107: 103: 99: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4468: 4462: 4440: 4425: 4399: 4398: 4390: 4372: 4363: 4347:2) The EPA: 4336: 4328: 4313:edit request 4278: 4277: 4264: 4240: 4238: 4234:Runaway Jury 4213: 4210: 4185:source check 4164: 4158: 4155: 4068: 4065: 4043: 4040: 4015:source check 3994: 3988: 3985: 3918: 3915: 3863: 3859: 3833: 3824: 3821:Conclusions: 3820: 3819: 3802: 3780:— Preceding 3776: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3662: 3643: 3637: 3614: 3589:source check 3568: 3562: 3557: 3553: 3551: 3506: 3503: 3481: 3459: 3451: 3436:edit request 3405: 3398: 3383:Everymorning 3370: 3342: 3317: 3300: 3284:RGloucester 3231: 3221: 3207: 3202:per nom and 3199: 3181: 3156: 3111: 3104: 3092:RGloucester 3078: 3064:Everymorning 3052: 3000: 2990:Everymorning 2984: 2965:Ngram search 2936: 2919: 2901: 2845: 2829: 2800: 2773: 2766:Everymorning 2737: 2720: 2718: 2706: 2699: 2666: 2660: 2646:Everymorning 2635: 2613: 2606: 2590: 2583: 2577:WP:NOTAFORUM 2574: 2551: 2537: 2489: 2484: 2475: 2393:— Preceding 2389: 2385: 2360: 2330:— Preceding 2325: 2321: 2318: 2315: 2312: 2308: 2266:— Preceding 2251: 2244: 2237: 2233: 2231: 2221: 2214: 2205: 2201: 2194: 2148: 2116: 2036: 1994:— Preceding 1987: 1979: 1967:173.49.76.16 1961:— Preceding 1958: 1665: 1633: 1617: 1600: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1480: 1459: 1454: 1393:epidemiology 1356: 1321: 1304: 1300: 1294: 1284: 1274: 1271: 1268: 1258: 1251: 1246:disease.'" ( 1243: 1235:disease'." ( 1232: 1221: 1210: 1199: 1188: 1181: 1174: 1163: 1156: 1150: 1147: 1064: 1042: 1037: 1034: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1000: 982: 978: 974: 971: 929: 922: 897: 877: 874: 846:— Preceding 842: 838: 808: 779: 775: 750: 742: 737: 710: 693: 685: 680: 675: 671: 644: 637: 633: 627: 621: 614: 607: 599: 594: 590: 566:— Preceding 563: 538: 513:— Preceding 507: 501: 498: 489: 486: 483: 458: 451:Please read 429:— Preceding 422: 419: 416: 413: 410: 380: 373:Please read 351: 326: 304: 286:— Preceding 282: 259:— Preceding 256: 253: 250: 246: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 207: 173: 143: 121: 96:— Preceding 91: 78: 43: 37: 4400:Ganbaruby! 4374:Thank you! 4279:Ganbaruby! 4270:WP:FANCRUFT 3838:RockyMtnGuy 3726:Darkthlayli 3709:LeadSongDog 3669:Darkthlayli 3411:move review 3305:Speccy4Eyes 3140:Speccy4Eyes 3011:is used by 2712:move review 2472:Ref summary 2433:LeadSongDog 2238:Conclusions 2174:Darkthlayli 2018:Darkthlayli 1902:LeadSongDog 1695:LeadSongDog 1526:LeadSongDog 1520:. We need 1516:test isn't 1401:LeadSongDog 1326:LeadSongDog 1226:EPA lawsuit 1122:RockyMtnGuy 805:Try a RfC. 655:RockyMtnGuy 634:Death rates 36:This is an 4441:Sirdog9002 4321:|answered= 4222:Report bug 4052:Report bug 3714:come howl! 3463:CourtneyLT 3444:|answered= 3226:Randy Kryn 3169:Necrothesp 3087:MOS:RETAIN 3083:MOS:ENGVAR 2871:good to go 2515:Reify-tech 2438:come howl! 1925:Dessources 1907:come howl! 1834:Dessources 1828:WP:SOURCES 1730:Dessources 1714:Dessources 1700:come howl! 1672:Dessources 1666:quotations 1566:Dessources 1549:Dessources 1531:come howl! 1518:verifiable 1500:Dessources 1460:denialists 1455:fraudulent 1434:consistent 1406:come howl! 1379:Dessources 1331:come howl! 1307:Dessources 1288:syndrome." 1204:Risk level 894:An apology 717:Reify-tech 535:Wow 1991. 4232:Scene in 4205:this tool 4198:this tool 4035:this tool 4028:this tool 3646:Rthbvcegf 3609:this tool 3602:this tool 3482:Not done: 3354:SmokeyJoe 3326:WP:RETAIN 3322:WP:ENGVAR 3243:WP:ENGVAR 3235:WP:RETAIN 3165:WP:RETAIN 3161:WP:ENGVAR 3112:Doc James 3005:WP:ENGVAR 2902:AjaxSmack 2863:this page 2826:the Brits 2820:WP:ENGVAR 2801:AjaxSmack 2794:WP:ENGVAR 2721:not moved 2667:Doc James 2552:Doc James 2490:Doc James 2361:Doc James 2149:Doc James 2117:Doc James 2037:Doc James 1988:There is 1542:wp:GOOGLE 1514:wp:GOOGLE 1490:can cause 1399:applies. 1065:Doc James 1001:Doc James 809:Doc James 777:no link. 747:Cannabis? 539:Doc James 459:Doc James 381:Doc James 327:Doc James 144:Doc James 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 4265:Not done 4245:Rizosome 4211:Cheers.— 4041:Cheers.— 3879:25316260 3782:unsigned 3688:26242915 3615:Cheers.— 3519:cbignore 3486:Cannolis 3330:Pincrete 3222:Support' 3122:contribs 3036:Zarcadia 2961:Tom (LT) 2944:Tom (LT) 2925:Llywelyn 2876:Llywelyn 2867:this one 2851:Llywelyn 2848:uses? — 2774:Relisted 2760:and the 2677:contribs 2562:contribs 2500:contribs 2478:WP:MEDRS 2395:unsigned 2371:contribs 2344:contribs 2332:unsigned 2268:unsigned 2236:but not 2208:WP:MEDRS 2197:WP:MEDRS 2191:25316260 2159:contribs 2127:contribs 2090:WP:MEDRS 2075:20924966 2047:contribs 2032:WP:MEDRS 1996:unsigned 1963:unsigned 1921:sources. 1228:section) 1217:section) 1206:section) 1195:section) 1193:Evidence 1170:section) 1075:contribs 1011:contribs 860:contribs 848:unsigned 819:contribs 568:unsigned 549:contribs 515:unsigned 469:contribs 453:WP:MEDRS 431:unsigned 391:contribs 375:WP:MEDRS 337:contribs 288:unsigned 261:unsigned 154:contribs 110:contribs 102:Leisterf 98:unsigned 4075:my edit 3925:my edit 3896:Jimw338 3694:4526291 3625::Online 3554:checked 3513:my edit 3371:Comment 3232:Comment 3211:Calidum 3200:Support 3182:Support 3105:Comment 3053:Comment 3034:, etc. 2985:Comment 2920:Support 2778:Jenks24 2725:Jenks24 2640:source 2234:Results 1893:2706236 1886:3219814 1879:3888277 1277:website 1168:Effects 591:Whoopee 564:1991? 455:. Best 358:Meravie 39:archive 3743:Rka001 3527:nobots 3386:(talk) 3343:Oppose 3318:Oppose 3301:Oppose 3157:Oppose 3079:Oppose 3067:(talk) 3017:, the 3001:Oppose 2993:(talk) 2937:Oppose 2846:Lancet 2830:unless 2769:(talk) 2756:, the 2752:, the 2649:(talk) 2614:TheCat 2607:Smokey 2538:TheCat 2532:Smokey 2457:TheCat 2452:Smokey 2422:TheCat 2417:Smokey 1888:, and 1789:Gw40nw 1648:Gw40nw 1494:only 8 1486:causes 1295:causes 1285:causes 1259:causes 1244:causes 1233:causes 1222:caused 1211:causes 1200:caused 1182:causes 1164:causes 1091:Gw40nw 1046:Gw40nw 1038:causes 984:Gw40nw 308:Sudont 211:Sudont 4463:Note: 4325:|ans= 4311:This 3892:J.NCI 3448:|ans= 3434:This 3167:. -- 3126:email 2681:email 2566:email 2504:email 2375:email 2163:email 2131:email 2051:email 1481:least 1189:cause 1175:cause 1079:email 1015:email 952:Yobol 823:email 553:email 473:email 395:email 341:email 158:email 16:< 4478:talk 4447:talk 4426:talk 4407:talk 4391:need 4380:talk 4286:talk 4249:talk 3900:talk 3876:PMID 3842:talk 3790:talk 3747:talk 3730:talk 3685:PMID 3673:talk 3650:talk 3558:true 3490:talk 3467:talk 3358:talk 3334:talk 3324:and 3320:per 3309:talk 3191:talk 3173:talk 3163:and 3159:per 3144:talk 3118:talk 3081:per 3040:talk 3003:per 2973:Kaye 2970:Greg 2948:talk 2873:? — 2782:talk 2729:talk 2673:talk 2638:FCTC 2632:FCTC 2558:talk 2519:talk 2496:talk 2403:talk 2367:talk 2340:talk 2276:talk 2203:two. 2188:PMID 2178:talk 2155:talk 2123:talk 2072:PMID 2043:talk 2022:talk 2004:talk 1971:talk 1929:talk 1838:talk 1793:talk 1734:talk 1718:talk 1676:talk 1652:talk 1570:talk 1553:talk 1545:now. 1504:talk 1383:talk 1311:talk 1126:talk 1095:talk 1071:talk 1050:talk 1007:talk 988:talk 956:talk 915:Vwjr 905:talk 901:Vwjr 885:talk 881:Vwjr 856:talk 852:Vwjr 815:talk 794:talk 790:Vwjr 786:talk 782:Vwjr 761:Talk 721:talk 659:talk 576:talk 545:talk 523:talk 465:talk 439:talk 387:talk 362:talk 333:talk 312:talk 296:talk 269:talk 215:talk 199:talk 181:talk 150:talk 129:talk 106:talk 4323:or 4315:to 4179:RfC 4149:to 4139:to 4129:to 4119:to 4109:to 4099:to 4089:to 4009:RfC 3979:to 3969:to 3959:to 3949:to 3939:to 3868:doi 3834:NOT 3697:doi 3691:PMC 3583:RfC 3545:to 3446:or 3438:to 3403:. 3030:Ash 3025:BBC 3019:NHS 2762:CDC 2584:Zad 2245:Zad 2215:Zad 1890:PMC 1883:PMC 1876:PMC 1357:can 1322:are 941:Zad 923:Zad 617:... 4480:) 4449:) 4382:) 4329:no 4268:. 4251:) 4192:. 4187:}} 4183:{{ 4022:. 4017:}} 4013:{{ 3902:) 3874:. 3864:26 3862:. 3858:. 3844:) 3792:) 3749:) 3732:) 3675:) 3652:) 3596:. 3591:}} 3587:{{ 3525:{{ 3521:}} 3517:{{ 3492:) 3469:) 3452:no 3360:) 3336:) 3328:, 3311:) 3287:— 3206:. 3193:) 3175:) 3146:) 3128:) 3124:· 3120:· 3095:— 3089:. 3085:/ 3042:) 3023:, 3007:. 2950:) 2927:II 2897:— 2895:. 2878:II 2853:II 2784:) 2776:. 2764:. 2742:→ 2731:) 2704:. 2683:) 2679:· 2675:· 2591:68 2568:) 2564:· 2560:· 2521:) 2506:) 2502:· 2498:· 2405:) 2377:) 2373:· 2369:· 2346:) 2342:• 2278:) 2252:68 2222:68 2180:) 2165:) 2161:· 2157:· 2133:) 2129:· 2125:· 2053:) 2049:· 2045:· 2024:) 2006:) 1973:) 1931:) 1881:, 1840:) 1795:) 1736:) 1720:) 1678:) 1654:) 1572:) 1555:) 1512:A 1506:) 1385:) 1313:) 1305:-- 1128:) 1097:) 1081:) 1077:· 1073:· 1052:) 1017:) 1013:· 1009:· 990:) 958:) 950:. 930:68 907:) 887:) 862:) 858:• 825:) 821:· 817:· 796:) 788:) 723:) 661:) 603:: 578:) 551:· 547:· 525:) 471:· 467:· 441:) 393:· 389:· 364:) 339:· 335:· 314:) 298:) 271:) 217:) 201:) 193:. 183:) 156:· 152:· 131:) 112:) 108:• 64:← 4476:( 4445:( 4409:) 4405:( 4396:◢ 4378:( 4288:) 4284:( 4275:◢ 4247:( 4224:) 4220:( 4207:. 4200:. 4054:) 4050:( 4037:. 4030:. 3898:( 3881:. 3870:: 3840:( 3788:( 3745:( 3728:( 3699:: 3671:( 3648:( 3611:. 3604:. 3488:( 3465:( 3356:( 3332:( 3307:( 3289:☎ 3189:( 3171:( 3142:( 3116:( 3097:☎ 3038:( 2946:( 2780:( 2727:( 2671:( 2556:( 2517:( 2494:( 2401:( 2365:( 2338:( 2274:( 2193:. 2176:( 2153:( 2121:( 2041:( 2020:( 2002:( 1969:( 1927:( 1836:( 1791:( 1732:( 1716:( 1674:( 1650:( 1616:" 1568:( 1551:( 1502:( 1381:( 1309:( 1265:) 1254:) 1124:( 1093:( 1069:( 1048:( 1005:( 986:( 954:( 903:( 883:( 854:( 813:( 792:( 784:( 764:) 758:( 719:( 657:( 574:( 543:( 521:( 463:( 437:( 385:( 360:( 331:( 310:( 294:( 267:( 213:( 197:( 179:( 148:( 127:( 104:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index