Sorry, don't have time to comment on the feature that appeared in The Times today. Unless you subscribe you can't read it online but I have read it in the cuttings. Rose W calls it "execrable". I agree. It almost (but not quite) put me off my mince pies.
If, like Rose, you want to read "the truth about secondhand smoke", I recommend this definitive report, published in 2005 and entitled, funnily enough, Prejudice & Propaganda: The Truth About Passive Smoking.
PS. Journalist Simon Crompton has his own website HERE.
I have emailed Simon Crompton as follows:
Your article in The Times today gave an appallingly one-sided picture of the threat of secondhand smoke. Not only was it highly partisan (some of your statements were pejorative to say the least), you completely ignored those who believe that the stats have been grossly exaggerated and are based on intuition and estimates rather than scientific evidence.
I appreciate that you may dismiss what a group such as Forest has to say, but there are people within the medical and scientific community who have studied the evidence, as we have, and have concluded that the relentless scaremongering is simply not justified by the hard evidence.
I attached a report, published by Forest in 2005, entitled Prejudice & Propaganda: The Truth About Passive Smoking. If you don't want to plough your way through it I suggest you read the introductory note that appears on our website.
Now, what do you think the odds are on a reply?