[sagar]

This just junk science. Everybody knows smoke is good for babies. Especially newborns.

[WideGlide]

This just junk science. Everybody knows smoke is good for babies. Especially newborns.

I agree. (:^*)

[trumandogz]

My mom smoked while she was pregnant with me and I am okay, therefore pregnant women who smoke do not harm their babies.

[Publius6961]

This just junk science. Everybody knows smoke is good for babies. Especially newborns.

Nice change of subject.
Of course we all know that the world's knowledge base began when you were born, as is limited to what you know. < /sarc >

Controlling neurotics, next to ignarance, are Science's worst enemy.

[Edit35]

Pregnant macaques were exposed to smoke levels equal to those that a pregnant woman would breathe if someone in her home or workplace smoked.

Newborn macaques were exposed to secondhand smoke levels similar to those a human baby would breathe if it was cared for by a moderate-to-heavy smoker.

These are rather vague factors that could be easily distorted by an anti-smoking scientist, or a pro-smoking scientist for that matter.

For example: How many cigarettes were smoked each day, and how far away was the baby monkey?

Was the baby monkey forced to inhale smoke blown directly in its face? All day? Twenty-two hours a day? One hour a day?

Was there only one room in the monkey's house?

I find it hard to believe that second hand smoke is that much more dangerous than say, a diesel-fueled public bus driving past a house (containing a baby) every hour on the hour.

Or a house located next to an Interstate highway.

Or a house in which people cook and perhaps burn their food on a regular basis.

Or a family which barbeque's dinner every night.

Or one of a thousand other factors which could be antedoctally used to infer danger.

[Unicorn]

Ajenda driven reports.