"2014 worst published study award" - The nominees are

Looks like Clive Bates managed to find another canditate for the "2014 worst published study award": www.clivebates.com/?p=2426. Quite an amusing post by Clive pointing out how utterly useless this "research" really is.

There you go - problem solved

The topic at hand now is "3rd hand exposure" to nicotine, and you can read the whole study here: http://goo.gl/o0BkK9. The authors of the study found out that nicotine is actually left on walls, windows and so on in a chamber, and from that they conclude that people will be exposed to it "3rd hand". But, as Clive points out, there is a quite important difference between deposition of nicotine and exposure to nicotine. This is Clive's response to our dear Dr. Glantz's praising of the study on his blog:

The main risk appears to be to people who lick windows – or ‘window-lickers’ as they are known on the Internet.  However, even these people, who have other problems and priorities, would have to lick the deposition from 38 square meters* of glass in this chamber to be exposed to 1mg of nicotine (47/6*1000/205).

I don't really think there is anything else to say about this. Go read Clive's post if you haven't yet. Oh, and I've put up a poll on the right hand side so you can vote on which of the 3 studies I've written about lately that you think should get the "2014 worst published study award". Who will win this prestigious award? The nominees are:

• "3rd hand exposure" by Goniewicz and Lee
• "Scary warning labelz" by Popova and Ling 
• "Creative Cancer research" by Borderud, Li, Burkhalter, Sheffer and Ostrof