Should the full smoking ban be delayed?
Lam Kwok-tung's claim (Talkback, December 13) that the University of Hong Kong's study of second-hand smoke lacks validity is classic tobacco-industry-style misinformation.
Our full report, to be published in a peer-reviewed international scientific journal, does demonstrate clear evidence for a causal relationship between workplace air quality and respiratory health ('Stick by full smoke ban, urge academics', December 10).
Higher levels of particulates, wherever they occurred, were associated with greater reductions in lung function.
Your correspondent's implausible explanation for this is that the most vulnerable workers, with previous respiratory problems, somehow selectively occupied jobs in the most polluted workplaces during the two years since the smoking ban legislation.
His shroud waving is baseless. For example, why does he claim that 'thousands are no longer employed' given that government statistics since 2006 show the catering business has increased by 30 per cent and bars were exempted from the ban?
The only 'competing interest' in this issue is the tobacco industry and a small section of the hospitality trade which says it cannot make a profit in Hong Kong without serving food and drink in filthy air.