[Hodar]

The investigation would be along the lines of: What did the people who did not smoke, but died from smoke-related illnesses have in common? Exposure to chlorine? Work in a bar? Spouse smoke? blah, blah, blah ... until a statistically significant number were found to have a link in common. The common link accepted by the AMA, and pretty much every medical, insurance and govermental agency in the world has been SHS.

[kevao]

The investigation would be along the lines of: What did the people who did not smoke, but died from smoke-related illnesses have in common? Exposure to chlorine? Work in a bar? Spouse smoke? blah, blah, blah ...

I'm not trying to be difficult when I ask the following question; I'm quite serious. What you're describing sounds quite time consuming and expensive. How much time and money are spent in Canada, for instance, going around interviewing the friends, families and co-workers of all the many thousands of non-smokers who die each year in order to determine what type of exposure they had to all the environmental factors that can contribute to lung cancer? After all, a person's medical records don't tell whether he had a smoking spouse or co-worker, or whether and how often he frequented establishments where he might have been exposed to SHS, or whether he played poker every Friday night in a smoked-filled room, or whether he spent a lot of time cleaning his pool with chlorine, etc. Someone has to do a lot of leg work to find out this kind of information.