[MamaB]

You do not have to be a smoker to have lung cancer. We lost a very close friend from second hand smoke lung cancer. It can happen.

[Dont Mention the War]

You do not have to be a smoker to have lung cancer. We lost a very close friend from second hand smoke lung cancer. It can happen.

Andy Kaufmann died of lung cancer, around the age of 32 or 33. Supposedly he'd never smoked a day in his life.

[combat_boots]

Having had relatives go this way, if true, I hope he is not in too much pain. Prayers.

[HIDEK6]

We lost a very close friend from second hand smoke lung cancer.

I knew this would crop up before too long.

What about the kid who died from the peanut allergy.

[Publius6961]

We lost a very close friend from second hand smoke lung cancer. It can happen.

It takes a different kind of person to exploit an impending death to spew nonsense. It would be as easy to prove that he did not get the illness from second hand smoke as from, say, eating egg-plant.

And there is another dimension here.
Would he be any less dead had he died while rock climbing? or saving his fellow-scientists by shielding them from an accidental chain reaction during the development of the A-bomb?

People make choices which we should respect, and we all should be conscious of not exploting anyone's death to satisfy our personal selfishness; the need to be the drama queen.
I'll leave it at that and wait for the right time and the right thread to comment further.

[Hildy]

It's not second hand smoke..that's a fallacy. My brother died of lung cancer. Never smoked a day in his life but why on earth would we think it was secon hand smoke. Ridiculous.

[finnigan2]

"We lost a very close friend from second hand smoke lung cancer"

- As an ex smoker (12 years ago), I've always viewed the "second hand smoke" scare to be just that - a scare.
I would love to see the difference in the rate of lung cancer between those who don't smoke but who have lived for years with spouses who did and those non smokers who have always lived in a smoke free home environment.
I suspect the reason is that insurance company tables would show the rate difference to be between insignificant and nil - a factor the anti smoking lobby is not anxious to have publicized.