| Thanks for posting so many links as I know it is time consuming work.
The first link is not a scientific study, it is a book written by Rod Cunningham who is a famous anti-smoking advocate, his book is bias, he makes a wealthy living writing books and making speeches. He has come under fire a few times for making up his own so-called facts.
The next link (anti-smoking laws) was much better and more supportive of your side of the debate.
It made a claim that cases of cancer in men dropped after bans caused men to stop smoking. They did not say how they knew how many men stopped smoking due to the anti-smoking ban in public places. We must take their word for that on faith.
We do not know if any other changes took place during that time span, did they also effect laws to reduce auto polution? Did people become more health consious during that time span and started to eat more healthy foods?
Also was the study conducted for the whole population or just with people who signed up to become the study group used. As that could make a difference in the outcome of the study.
Without all the other data not included in the study it would be subject to potental "random errors".
As the study concentrated on just one area and overlook other reasons why cancer might have dropped.
That is unacceptable. Not sound science as presented.
I will return later to review the other links you provided as "proof". |