You're stating that someone working in a garage year long is not as bad off as someone who sits in a room with a smoker. How are you equating dosages there that render the latter more exposure than the former? Unless you're in a career that continually forces you to be exposed to cigarette smoke, we're talking fleeting exposures here and there. Hardly a risk. Even as stands, where are the stats that say people in heavier smoking parts of the country, who are non-smokers, have higher risks for lung cancer? There'd be a measurable trend, if what you're saying is true. Where are the stats that say parts of the states like NC, which until recently allowed smoking in their malls and average stores have higher rates of lung cancer in non-smokers? You can't point to a study because nothing confirms that. Its a lot of talk, but there's nothing to back it up.

As far as scientists coming down from the mountainttop or whatever you're trying to get across there, I'm fine with science. Saying, "Hey, you ever see a guy smoke a cigarette? Really? Ok, that's what gave you cancer."...is junk science. Reading charts to assess causes after the fact is junk science. And if there's a first hand study that says that fleeting exposures to cigarette smoke pose a significant risk...by all mean...post it. It just don't exist, so it'd be sorta tough.

You'll note that, in reference to saccarin which you pointed out they had wrong, it *WAS* the US government who said something. They issued a warning. They were wrong. So, no, I don't expect you to take the word of me over a group of scientists. But I do not expect you to equally turn a blind eye to reality as it exists in the world in favor of what some jackass with an agenda says.

You are far and above more likely to die the next time you drive to work in a car accident than you are from random exposures to cigarette smoke. That's a statistical fact, not some agenda driven ####. There's a solid distinction one can draw between the two.