More on Nth-hand Smoking

It seems like the debate as to the dangers of secondhand smoke are over, and now doctors and scientists are investigating the dangers of thirdhand smoke, as reported by the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?em

Thirdhand smoke is what's left behind by secondhand smoke. Just because you can't see the smoke in the air doesn't mean there aren't toxins and carcinogens left behind. Basically, if something smells like cigarette smoke, it's probably toxically unhealthful.

As an aside, I'd like to pose a few questions to the people still saying secondhand smoke isn't dangerous: if we have proof that inhaling certain things increases the risk of cancer and heart disease, and we have proof that those things are in secondhand smoke, why is it so hard to believe that secondhand smoke is dangerous?

Also, there's a certain disconnect, at least for me: most of the studies showing that smoke and secondhand smoke aren't that bad are funded directly by tobacco companies. Proponents of the minority opinion shoot back that the other studies are funded by the ACS (American Cancer Society) and similar groups. How the heck is that a relevant comparison? Tobacco companies have a bias towards smoking because they're pro-tobacco by definition, by the very nature and mission of the organization. The American Cancer Society has a bias because...what? Because it's AGAINST CANCER? To me, that's a pretty darn good motive for doing independent research, if they're consistently biased against things that cause cancer. I'm fine with that. It's not like they're secretly a militant group trying to take down harmless tobacco companies posing as a public health organization. They're legitimately against cancer. Also, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association...they're pro-hearts and pro-lungs. And I've got three vital organs that fall into at least one of those two categories. I recognize that people get emotionally attached to opinions, and it's hard to change peoples' minds, but why are non-profits trying to save lives just as suspect on the subject of smoking as companies trying to sell cigarettes? If smoking was really harmless, you'd think at least a few of their leading members would catch on eventually and say "hey, let's get back to our mission and focus on stuff that actually kills people." If they say secondhand smoke kills you, and the basic science says it kills you, I don't need to nitpick every little study, finding flaws (which will always exist) in any one that disagrees with me before I avoid the stuff.