On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:13 ginny wilken wrote:

>> By the way, the science on second hand smoke is pretty tenuous,
>> depending on very weak statistical links.

>Having been brought up in it, and breathing hard playing a wind
>instrument for hours daily in it, I can certainly say I was affected.

There was an informative article in The Ecologist magazine two months ago
about a UK campaign to help third world women and children (the usual
victims), avoid the illnesses and injury from prolonged inhalation of
smoke from fires used for cooking.  They reckon an average family was
exposed to the equivalent of two packs of 20 cigarettes a day.

However, let's not get sidetracked into one particular detail of
Crichton's piece.  This article is a challenging example of the anti-
environmental movement and illustrates the battery of polemics that we
need to be able to confront head-on - at least in our own minds - if we
believe the Paleo way is preferable than today's.

The article is directed at a 'straw man' deep ecologist which, as it is
targeted at a target of Crichton's own creation, and he is calling the
shots, he has an easy job of it.

Thanks for posting the link, Tom.  It is a salutary read.

Keith