Not exact matches
Think of it this way: if the complainer were
smoking, would you sit there all afternoon inhaling the
second -
hand smoke?
That's good ol Roy Spencer, creationist and fellow at the ExxonMobil funded Heartland Institute, a libertarian
think tank and propaganda machine whose past endeavors include working with Philip Morris to question the science linking
second hand smoke and cancer.
He spent 15 minutes offering his analysis of several peer - reviewed reports and making an analogy to earlier scientific
thinking on
second -
hand smoking.
Although there are limited amounts of research into the effects of passive
smoking on dogs specifically, I
think it is safe to assume that they will also be subject to the myriad of problems experienced by humans who are subjected to
second and third
hand smoke.
These surface accumulations are known as third
hand smoke, and are
thought to be even more carcinogenic than
second hand smoke.
While
smoking is involved in bladder cancer development in people, it is
thought that exposure to
second -
hand smoke may play a role in dogs as well.
Do I
think that scientists should continue to evaluate the link between cancer and
second hand smoke?
Dana (sks) does the smear here (look at the photo): http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism note this is the updated version after complaints, but even so it still misrepresents, LIndzen
thinks the link between
second hand smoking is tenuous, they still imply actual
smoking..