As an asthmatic and a smoker this subject is highly interesting to me.

I've often opined that smoking is used as a scapegoat for industrial and automotive pollution, particularly as the number of smokers is continually reducing while asthma is increasing.

People seem blind to the obvious - I've had people complain about me smoking within 10 feet of them while stood right next to a busy stretch of road. They fail to understand that the tiny amounts of smoke they may inhale from my cigarette (however unlikely or impossible that is) is nothing compared to the sheer volume of pollution pouring from the exhausts of the vehicles that surround us and the factories belching smoke into the sky every day.

There could be a variety of explanations, but I would assume that if the true extent of the damage done by pollution was revealed then there would be serious financial and legal consequences for the corporations involved. This is especially true if, as I believe, that this pollution is the leading cause of lung cancer - not smoking.

I wouldn't suggest for a minute that smoking is a healthy habit, but I sincerely doubt it is as harmful as we are told - it's just too convenient.

From an "observational" standpoint, crowded roads and the pollution they create can literally make you sick.

I used to have a nifty little convertible sports car. On pleasant days in the DFW area, after work, I would put the top down for the drive home. Time and time again I would be caught in stop-and-go traffic on 35-E, for up to an hour at a time. All those car exhaust fumes would make me totally ill, by the time I got home, I would be headachey, nauseous, dizzy, and be coughing a lot. Plus I would be irritable and cranky because, if you've ever driven in DFW, you know how completely insane the drivers are there. Rude, pushy, and dangerous.

There is something about rush hour traffic which negatively affects people's health, not only physically but mentally.

If I observe something in life, but scientific papers say something different, I simply ignore the papers. After all, science has come out and stated some things as "facts", only to turn around and have to retract their statements and put out new facts that directly contradict the old facts. For instance, remember when they told us that egg yolks were dangerous for our health, and so was coffee and chocolate? Now they're coming out saying that egg yolks are full of healthful vitamins and minerals, and coffee and chocolate do wonders for our health.

Science "fact" as it is put out today usually has a corporate sponsor behind it. This makes their "facts" irrelevant and subject to change at a moment's notice. I go with what I have experienced, that is the only "fact" I can trust.