Replies

And silly me, I thought unborn children didn't use their lungs, so I'm kinda wonderin' how the smoke gets in there to damage 'em.

= = = = = =

I dare to assume that a scientific education would provide one with more than ample resources with which to understand that at least too much of too many of the carcinogens flooding into the mother's blood stream would get to cells in the baby via the blood stream.

Isn't science teaching about the blood system these days?

Isn't science teaching about cell walls and the various factors compromising health at the cellular levels these days?

Isn't science teaching about the greatly increased understanding we have these days about the various permeability factors of various chemicals etc. through various cell walls to the cells' detriment?

Or am I living in an alternate reality where "science" is all based on SELFISH BIASES, SELFISH ASSUMPTIONS, SELFISH RATIONALIZATIONS?

Or am I living in an alternate reality where "science" is all based on SELFISH BIASES, SELFISH ASSUMPTIONS, SELFISH RATIONALIZATIONS?

No, you're living in an alternate reality where much "science" is all based on, "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

I dare to assume that a scientific education would provide one with more than ample resources with which to understand that at least too much of too many of the carcinogens flooding into the mother's blood stream would get to cells in the baby via the blood stream.

Assuming "carcinogens" do make it into the bloodstream, then there would be no reason to be specific about the baby's lungs. These "carcinogens" would be just as likely to affect the baby's pancreas or stomach.

But this "scientific" article focused upon lungs. Why?

ML/NJ