The study starting this thread is one.
There are sufficient quality ones in the long list of many provided.
There's more than sufficient evidence to have a fair comparison of well derrived researched facts.
I have no need to get into that level of tedium, thanks anyway.
So it's tedium saving the lungs of unborn, newborn, and young folk that you keep referring to yourself as caring so much about?
If you can't give the studies, you ain't even read the abstracts or synopsis and don't know what you're talking about.
I can go through the entire 708 studies the other poster talked about and on ETS it will come out about 80% against there being harm and 20% for.
You can't even look up any that support your stance because it's tedious.
Bah
This study may prove seminal in a series of future studies focusing on the many harmful agents and practices that might inhibit the proper growth of developing children; each, in turn, targeted to a particular agent or practice and each likewise calling for modifications in practice and questioning the use of heretofore "harmless" foods, additives, products etc.
The list could well be endless.
Every crusade must have a goal and enemies to conquer.