.
>
> By the way, the science on second hand smoke is pretty tenuous,
> depending on very weak statistical links. About as many trials show no
> link to observable harm as show this weak link.

do we REALLY  need science to determine the novicity of smoke ? are we not
sensitive human beings able to judge for ourselves what is harmfull or not
.? what role are we giving to science ?
smoke will be allways harmfull to a degree or an other if not wanted and
appreciated .
personnally i don't know anybody willingly  wanting to breathe such a stinky
air.

jean-claude