Some quick thoughts:
It may help to include references to peer reviewed articles/studies showing the dangers of second-hand smoke. This article makes the assumption the reader assume that for a fact. Therefore, if this article is to be use for those not sure about the topic it appears the article is just "preaching to the choir."
The article appears to be disjoint. It may help to quote some of Crichton's speech to provide better context for the arguments against it.
It may be worth noting that Crichton is selective in his criticism, or at least in the examples he provides that allegedly illustrate the problem of "bad" science affecting public policy. For example, the couple of times I have heard him talk (on C-SPAN, with one time in front of high schoolers and the other at the AEI), he does not mention the atrocious "science" being pushed by the current administration and the policies it forces upon governmental scientific agencies (e.g. NIH, EPA, etc).
His selectiveness on what he criticizes definitely raises questions on what his agenda is and if he is being backed by special interests.
Termigator 16:01, 11 May 2005 (EDT)
Hi Termigator, yes good points. On re-reading it needs tightening up. WIll put it on the list but if anyone gets to it first all the better. cheers --Bob Burton 19:45, 11 May 2005 (EDT)
Dangers of secondhand smoke "well recognized"?
Hardly. Emerging research paints secondhand smoke as a vastly smaller risk than the propaganda machine has painted it. The very fact that this article simply asserts accepted wisdom rather than checking the facts illustrates Crichton's point perfectly.