[Max McGarrity]

Interesting Q&A. Just curious though, is the source where you were researching any less biased against the possibility of danger of SHS than the sources it criticizes. It seems the author may be using the same twisting of facts that he/she deplores in the organizations being criticized.

If you question the source, which it is always wise to do, follow the facts and find out for yourself. For every argument I put forth, I have at my fingertips the proof behind it. Unlike those who parrot the anti-smoker line.

[nobdysfool]

The thing that amazes me is the disconnect with common sense. Think about it. When I take a drag on a cigarette, I am inhaling a significantly concentrated amount of smoke. That same amount of smoke diluted in the airspace of an average sized room is much less concentrated, and therefore any effects from that smoke will be much less severe. Given that a smoker may, after 40 years of smoking develop health problems, the so-called second-hand smoke cannot logically produce the kind of effects that the anti's say they do, because of the dilution factor. Non-smokers simply cannot be affected in any statistically significant way by exposure to so-called second-hand smoke, because the concentration is so much less compared to what a smoker gets by direct inhalation from the end of the cigarette in his/her mouth. The larger the space the smoke is diluted in, the less effect it will have, and if it's outdoors, the possibility of effects drops to near zero, or at least to the same level as other pollutants in the air, to the point where it cannot be ascertained which pollutant could be the cause of an adverse health reaction. This is 9th grade Science, folks!