Skip the narrative and look at the data -- never-smokers who predominately used solid-fuel (which in North America means wood) had a cancer rate of 1.01 (where

Skip the narrative and look at the data -- never-smokers who predominately used solid-fuel (which in North America means wood) had a cancer rate of 1.01 (where 1 is the non-solid-fuel incidence of cancer). For their sample size that is a statistically irrelevant difference. And remember these are people who are exposed to burning wood for dozens if not hundreds of days a year, and compare that with the narrative of the article that does the oldest trick of proclaiming that something has an association with carcinogens, therefore it is an unhealthy dangerous.