Tobacco free for eleven years today

[Guinevere]

Findings in the report indicate that there is about a 25 to 30 percent increase in the risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to secondhand smoke.

Well unless that report contains answers to questions like these:

1.What exactly is is it that they are measuring that they are calling "second hand smoke"?
2.What concentrations of gases from "second hand smoke" are they measuring?
3.What sort of exposure times are they working with?
4.What methodology did they use to isolate "second hand smoke" as the cause for this increase?

There are a number of others...

But yes, unless the study has good answers to those sorts of questions, then it's junk science and the claims are specious, no matter what the source.

You have to pay to obtain the full study, the CDC links only to the abstract, but you can be reassured that the CDC does not publish studies that are not done with appropriate protocols and scientific methodology. Forgive me if I take the conclusion of the CDC over those of a, well, smoker, with no scientific background. Actually, don't forgive me.

[Big RR]

Let's not forget that this is the same CDC that participated in (actually ran I think) the Tuskegee Syphillis study which allowed many black men to suffer for decades from syphillis; so I don't automatically think they're above reproach.

[Guinevere]

That was the U.S. Public Health Service, I believe. The CDC wasn't even in existence when that study began.

I'm not saying any scientist or organization is above reproach, but generally scientific methods and processes are unbiased and more reliable than mere opinion.

[Lord Jim]

CDC does not publish studies that are not done with appropriate protocols and scientific methodology.

I have no doubt that is generally the case, but when I've drilled down on other such studies on this particular subject, it has uniformly been my experience that otherwise reputable scientific organizations behave in most unscientific ways....

Shame on them.

I take absolutely nothing on faith on this subject, regardless of the source, because I've seen too much garbage.

[Sean]

This was the statement in question:

Making smoking outdoors in public illegal cut the rate of strokes and heart attacks amoung non-smokers by quite a lot.

So unless the CDC study covers that particular area, then unfortunately it's completely irrelevant in this context. I don't think that anybody here would argue that second-hand smoke is not a health risk. The only debate is to what extent it is a health risk, specifically with regards to second-hand smoke in the open air.

[Big RR]

That was the U.S. Public Health Service, I believe. The CDC wasn't even in existence when that study began.

I'm not saying any scientist or organization is above reproach, but generally scientific methods and processes are unbiased and more reliable than mere opinion.

True, but it was after the study was underway and participated in the study, utilizing the results. And that's my only point, even the best of organizations have skeletons in their respective closets and have done things that draw their objectivity into question. So yes, I would give the pronouncements of the CDC more weight than that of any uncredentialed individual, but I also would be skepticl as they have proven they are not above the influence of politics.

Edited to add: This link from the CDC shows their participation www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.html; note especially how they defended the study in 1969. Politics? That's my guess.