This doesn't say a whole lot, however. There are *thousands* of distinct chemicals in cigarette smoke, and scientists don't know which are the ones that cause things like cancer. When they talk about "trace amounts" it doesn't mean trace amounts of all those chemicals, it means some of them.

(And believe me, the cigarette companies are the ones looking the hardest to find the truly harmful ones. There are billions of dollars in it for the company that can first produce a "cancer free" cigarette)

Rationalize if you must, but the article speaks for itself.

If you'd listened to the tobacco companies in the past, you'd know by now that cigarettes don't contribute to lung cancer.

OK, you listen to the tobacco companies from the past, and I'll listen to the doctors and the American Lung Association in the present

Gee, trutheness, whenever I respond to your comments, I'll have to remember to use the [irony][/irony] and [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags. What was I thinking?

Illustrating the problem with sarcasm on the internet, no one can hear the tone of voice or facial expression of the writer.

No skin off my nose.

Gee, trutheness, people have been READING satire and irony in literature for thousands of years before there was an internet. You know - Aristophanes, Lucilius, Swift, Chaucer, Rostand, O. Henry, Bierce, Twain...

I guess you weren't paying attention in school or you didn't go to the right ones. You actually need to hear the words or see the expression to detect irony, satire or sarcasm? You may be able to read words but you don't know how to read beyond the word.

The plaintive cry of a bored person looking for a fight on the internet but getting none.