You would think this notion that passive smoking causes cancer would be settled after more than 30 years of research. Apparently not...

At http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page180.asp and article that refers to a May 2003 study in the British Medical Journal which refuted many claims.

At http://www.fumento.com/smoke2.html an article that discusses in particular the increased risk of getting cancer from passive smoke. (It's a negligible risk)

At http://www.forces.org/ets_for_dummies/intro.htm a slightly over the top discussion. (On other occasions I have read of false data being used to support the argument that passive smoking causes cancer but I can't comment on the rest of the article.)

At http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/788186/posts some comments re a WHO report that found passive smoking not prticularly dangerous.

A search for "false" and "passive smoking" will turn up a heap more articles.

It seems to me that there's a conflict between the notions/claims and the observational data.

It's not the first time that this has happened with Science.

Aside from the argument regarding passive smoke and cancer, second hand smoke causes physical discomfort and makes your clothes stink. This creates an unpleasant working environment for hospitality workers and certainly puts them at risk of asthma attacks, sore eyes and other health problems. The risk of cancer is simply one of a list of smoking related problems.

Hospitality workers are unequal to other workers in that they don't currently have the right to a smoke free work place. This will change but it has been a long time coming.

DavidJS,

I agree with you. Working in a smoky environment does make your clothese stink and seems to be associated with health problems. (Are you sure the problems are from the smoke or from the customers breathing in one's face?)

I don't want to sound like a hard right radical but surely hospitality industry workers know before accepting the job that the environment may be smoky. I mean a miner knows the atmosphere down a mine is claustrophobic, a steeplejack knows that heights are involved, a crew member on a ship knows that sea-sickness is a possibility.

Just why do hospitality industry workers accept jobs in smoky environments? If no-one accepted the job because of the environmental conditions the clubs (etc.) would need to improve their working conditions or lose money.

One alternative of not putting up with a dangerous work environment is to go on strike. The AHA and the government would come down on hospitality workers like a ton of bricks.

No, I can't agree that bar workers should have to accept unnecessary risks in their line of work - considering I don't in my job. How could I possibly suggest bar workers should put up with smoke at work when I don't have to?

There are other jobs where risks must go with the job - such as firefighting or espionage. However, they are either being paid appropriately for such risks or should be. And, as I said, smoking in pubs is an unnecessary risk.

An alternative is to give bar workers an appropriate industrial allowance but the AHA would scream about that aswell.