How come?
 

There is so much emphasis put on second hand smoke which by all real studies is a debatable cause of cancer, and so little placed on radon gas which scientist are the most certain about in regards to lung cancer?

"Second hand smoke" is easy to understand, "radon" sounds like chemistry class to most people.

Because they havent found a way to tax radon yet.

They should change the name to "bad, evil gas" to get people to pay attention to it.

Because with smoke you can actually point fingers at the people around you and blame them?

i wont let anyone smoke next to me, fuck that.

Cool, now honestly when was the last time you tested your home for radon?

how can second hand smoke be that bad?

oh also, what the fuck is "radon"

A form of radation found in a crap load of old and even new homes. Easy to test for and treat, also number 2 on the list of things that cause lung cancer.

that's what i bring all the time , when someone arks up at my smoking ,i ask them when was the last time you checked for radon in your home
of course they have no fucking clue what radon is , when i tell them its radiation in just about every home , they come back with ,'your talking shit"

also don't forget about arsenic in treated pine, which is known to be a carcinogen

it does not take a general practitioner to understand that all the diseases attributed to tobacco are multifactorial, often with hundreds if not thousandsof different causes which interact differently in every single human in function of hundreds of ever-changing variables.

Another complication is that all the diseases attributed to tobacco also occur in non smokers. It is therefore clear that it is impossible for multifactorial epidemiology to confidently isolate single co-factors such as primary or passive tobacco smoke exposure; thus, it is impossible to quantify the contribution (if any at all) of tobacco in a death or disease