Amanda Sandford of ASH was interviewed in 2003 by the Professor of Journalism Tim Luckhurst and for once by someone did not let ASH wriggle off the hook. Over to you Rollo.
“When I interviewed her in 2004, Amanda Sandford of Ash acknowledged unintentionally that much secondary smoking science is unscientific. She said: ‘A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis.’ In plain English, that means that if secondary smoking were not already the focus of a torrent of moral sanctimony, few reputable scientists would dare to assert that it causes lung cancer, heart disease or any of the other life-threatening conditions with which it is routinely associated.”
LifestyleReviews 
Oh come on Dave! You’re not relying on carefully selected “quotes” from a heavily biased article as representing Amanda Sandford’s views, are you? Is that the sort of argument you’re reduced to now?!
That’s exactly as I read it too Dave. Amanda Sandford of ASH is clearly admitting the passive smoking and lung cancer correlation “are not statistically significant”
Well they do seem to have been a little careless at first, probably not expecting the public to investigate.
For example – I wanted to know if herbal cigarettes were acceptable if people had become so worried about tobacco. I was quite happy to smoke herbals instead.
Briefing on the evidence base and ASH Scotland conclusions regarding the definition of smoking materials in the current draft legislation
“The main arguments are as follows, explained in further detail and with references below.
Second-hand smoke from non-tobacco cigarettes poses a health hazard to those who are exposed
The wider public health aims of the legislation – to denormalise smoking with a view to reducing uptake and to support smokers who are trying to quit – will be best served by a wider definition
A narrow definition may undermine the health message that is the basis for the legislation
Omitting non-tobacco cigarettes from the legislation leaves a loophole that is likely to be exploited by opponents
Implementation will be easier with a level playing field
We are aware of no documented legal challenges based on the inclusion or exclusion of non tobacco cigarettes
There is one known instance of (state) legislation adopting a narrower definition, and two known instances of (state and national) legislation being subsequently broadened to capture non-tobacco cigarettes. No legal challenges ensued that we are aware of.
1. Second-hand smoke from non-tobacco cigarettes poses a health hazard to those who are exposed.
The main components of tobacco that are of concern with regard to active smoking are carbon monoxide, tars and nicotine. Nicotine has impacts on the metabolism and circulatory system but is mainly of concern in this context due to its ability to addict the smoker.
With secondhand smoke, the main concerns are exposure to levels of carbon monoxide and respirable particulate matter. While air nicotine metabolised as cotinine provides a marker for measuring exposure to tobacco smoke, the nicotine is not present in such quantities as to present health concerns.”
http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/non-tobaccosmokingmaterials.doc
Now mysteriously missing.
“the nicotine is not present in such quantities as to present health concerns.”
I never imagined it was.
ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE –
ESTIMATION OF ITS CONTRIBUTION TO RESPIRABLE SUSPENDED PARTICLES –
METHOD BASED ON SOLANESOL DETERMINATION
“Many plants of the Solanaceae family, which includes the genus Nicotiana, of which the tobacco plant is a member, contain solanesol; particularly those that contain trace amounts of nicotine.
These include the tomato, eggplant, potato, and pepper.
The potential interference due to these sources is negligible, cooking being the only likely potential source of interference. An interference of this type would bias results high, overestimating the contribution of ETS to RSP.”
Coresta
Wonderful blog post!