[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting ...'t Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997[/SIZE]
Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.
In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.
Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.
The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:
CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."[/SIZE][/FONT]
Not trying to argue but since there are no definitive studies as you suggest let me ask you even if there was no coughing involved with smoking would you even smoke in the same room with a newborn? Hogwash or not its just common sense. Kids go out to eat and so do babies and to say something that has been around for what 5 or at most 10 yrs has nicotine and the like and is safe is an assumption. Until people are using these for 30 yrs you wont really ever know of the long term effects, so if there is the slightest chance that they could have a negative effect on others, then sorry you need to go outside. Like I said your comfort comes second to others safety period. If thats hogwash then oink oink 
