Second hand smoke?

Oh please.

No, you will not get cancer from three or four puffs of second hand smoke.

------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”

“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2164936/?tool=pmcentrez

------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
“Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”

Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790
“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”

-------- Secondhand smoke is as safe as dust
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927994/pdf/1471-2407-10-285.pdf
“Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk”(p. 5)
“Our results support the concept that exposure to exhaust fumes and or soot/smoke (***from non-tobacco
sources***) is a source of carcinogenic exposure.” (p. 7)
“ETS exposure was not found to significantly increase risk among never smokers in this study”(p.7)

Showtime television, "How the EPA, CDC, Lung Association, and etc." support their claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AjXwSJtxGc

Reason TV - How far is too far?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=136FNtfOgRY

-------- PURPOSELY misleading the public with MEDIA STRATEGIES -------
The Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health was enacted by Congress in 1984 which is a collection of Health and Human Services, American Heart and Lung Association, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization, CDC and many other government funded health organizations. (eliminating any independent sources of information).

Below are direct quotes from those meeting notes:
“Social (Un)acceptability of smoking will be decisive TOOL an the road to a smoke-free society.” Using “four mechanisms: - passive smoking, - social cost, - ELIMINATE ALL INFLUENCES in society which could reflect favorably on smoking, - educational campaigns for children (App.II) “

“although passive smokers may suffer considerable subjective discomfort, a lasting adverse health effect is probably not likely to result in otherwise healthy, grown-up individuals . “

““Lindahl concluded that it is difficult to demonstrate harmful effects of passive smoking on healthy nonsmokers ; there is little proven in this area”

“He admitted that he couldn't explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt “

“We're moving out of the horse and cart era, we're not yet in the jet age of MEDIA STRATEGIES, but we're getting there “

Review of Notes and all contents: http://rampant-antismoking.com/
Actual meeting notes: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/efp57a00/pdf

Do not worry about a few puffs of smoke someone took nearby you. That will not give you cancer. It may not be the most pleasant thing, having smoke blown in your face, but it won't give you cancer.

What will give you lung cancer is consistent, direct intake of cigarette smoke, which people who are addicted to cigarettes do. But not brief, second-hand intake of smoke.

are you for real ?.....look at an oil refinery...cigarettes are harmless compared to that..check with THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSN 20 % of all none smokers will die from lung cancer.....and the rate is accelerating