Sorry. I'm inadequate at explaining . . . well enough . . . in precise clarity . . . that for which explanation is do effectively defended against.
CHEMICALS
ARE
IRRITANTS.
Let me repeat that for any possible increase in understanding it might afford . . . CHEMICALS ARE IRRITANTS. Doesn't matter whether some chemicals are delivered via airborne molecules or via the blood stream--certain chemicals ARE irritants to certain cells, cell types--PARTICULARLY AT CRITICAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT.
This is not really rocket science, folks.
True, and most of them are ubiquitous; eliminate nicotine entirely or leave it alone are the best choices.
Can you identify anything coursing through your body right now that is not a chemical?
Well, the "scientific" method appears to be to most on this thread.
That's shouldn't be rocket science either.
I'm afraid that using the word "carcinogen", without a context, is just posturing and demagoguering.
Fine, but why focus only on the lungs and not other areas such as the nervous system or cardiovascular system? The way this was written made it sound like the unborn baby was breathing in smoke, and it didn't do much to clarify that. For instance, one of the main irritants in smoke is tar, which clogs the alveoli and gums up the cillia--mentioned in the article as the most effected areas--perfectly understandable for babies, but the unborn?
I am not defending the right to blow smoke in a pregnant woman's face, especially since I am one. I just think it's a poorly written article which gives the impression it was written by an alarmist (perhaps looking to further a broader nanny-state agenda).