[gela]

If I went to our science forum and did that they would demand I show them my evidence, what experiments I conducted, what methods did I employ. Etc. Your link did not reveal any of those detials or answers.

Then go out and buy the medical journal.
Sorry, you don't get that kind of info for free.

The person spearheading the study has a PhD in "Applied Statistics". And no background or education about diseases (was mentioned). In other words he conducted a poll. Much like our poltical polls are conducted. And for some reason has a urge to get laws passed to ban smoking in Asian countries which would suggest a bias. His study conflicts with a study done here in the USA. He is promoting his own company and his lecturing tours, which is his source of living.

Of course he doesn't study diseases. He studies populations.
He studies patterns in populations.
He studies patterns between smoking and lung cancer.

It is a very simple concept. One I have been trying to explain to you this whole debate.
Epidemiology - looking at the numbers.

Comparing it to a political poll is ignorant. They just ask yes or no questions.
These surveys ask pages of questions on your life style, and your medical problems.

Obviously he promotes his own company. Its based on sponsorship. If he doesn't have faith in his own company, then how would other people have enough faith in it to sponsor his research?

'And for some reason he has an urge to pass laws in Asia'?
Why on earth would he care about laws in Asia, besides for the health of the country?
The study set out to find if the laws are necessary - the study found that the laws are necessary.
Its a very simple stream of events. Because he was convinced by the results, does not mean he was biased while getting results.
There is no reason for him to be biased for getting a law passed in Asia.

I do not think that a non-smoking bar maid should be subjected to a lot of smoke in a closed in, compacted area. That makes sense. But I also do not think that the blame falls on the smokers. The problem is that the building does not have a good air-circulating system. Which is the fault of the owner of the establishment. If you create smoke by cooking hamburgers inside, or if you have a fireplace - you provide a way to remove that smoke up the chimmey, or you open a lot of windows. You would not just let the smoke from hamburger cooking fill up the kitchen with smoke, that makes sense. But they took the cheap way of doing things - make the smoker go outside instead of installing the proper air-circulation system that is needed for that building. What a bunch of cheap skates!

Wait.. I go to bars all the time, It doesn't smell of smoke at all... But its suppose to smell like smoke without smokers there..
Now I'm confused.
I have never heard of any establishment having a fire place without a chimney..