[sandbar]

>>>She wasn't a smoker. But she was exposed to concentrated second-hand smoke for years. (She sang in bars.)>>>

Of course, because it HAD to be SOMETHING to do with smoking. Lung Cancer didn't exist until smoking you know.

[Moonman62]

Of course, because it HAD to be SOMETHING to do with smoking. Lung Cancer didn't exist until smoking you know.

She was young and healthy. Her genetics and stress from her husband's illness could have been factors too, as well as second hand smoke.

[Mia T]

She wasn't a smoker. But she was exposed to concentrated second-hand smoke for years. (She sang in bars.)--me

Of course, because it HAD to be SOMETHING to do with smoking. Lung Cancer didn't exist until smoking you know.--sandbar

;)

See my response to Publius6961

As I understand it, she may have had a genetic predisposition. And she was exposed to concentrated second-hand smoke for years. While this doesn't prove anything, a causal relationship is certainly a reasonable hypothesis.

I would wager that dying from lung cancer at age 44 is very rare for a non-smoker who wasn't, say, exposed to asbestos 10-30 years prior to the onset of the disease.

[The Foolkiller]

>>>She wasn't a smoker. But she was exposed to concentrated second-hand smoke for years. (She sang in bars.)>>>

Of course, because it HAD to be SOMETHING to do with smoking. Lung Cancer didn't exist until smoking you know.

---

And that's the way the media's going to spin it, too.