>>>>I mean, the generation of our parents and grandparents were smoking so much and everywhere that we must be dead already.
>>>
>>>This is the same argument you hear about how we didn't use to have seatbelts and bike helmets and so forth, but we survived. The problem with the argument, of course, is that only those of us who survived are here to talk about it.
>>
>>True... but then since so many of us have survived (I don't see the population being decimated), it can't be as dangerous as they claim. It's a matter of proportion, and I think they are exaggerating.
>>
>>Two out of our three kids are staunch non-smokers. I think we've convinced them not to start. One smokes, though.
>
>Today there is a report that women's perfume compounds have been found in umbilical cord blood. Followed by the statement "no evidence that the compounds are harmful to the fetus".
>I guess smoke compounds being "known" to affect adults let them conclude differently with smoking.

We have that lovely term from the commercial; "Smoker's Tumour". I'd never heard the term before that commercial, and I began to wonder how her doctor knew that the tumour she had was caused specifically by 2nd hand smoke. I've searched the internet and can't find anything definitive that is "smoker's tumour" other than propaganda. I can't find anything that proves it isn't real either, but it's commercials like that one that make me shake my head in disgust at the lengths to which some will go in order to prop up their own point of view.

Either this is propaganda, or her doctor is onto something that the medical profession seems awfully slow to twig to.