Let's address this burden of proof for passive smoking:
[some random stock quote]
Refers to indoor exposure.
It goes to to state that:
[effects of secondhand smoke]
Not relevant.
My Mother and Father smoked when I was younger, and I developed severe asthma very early on in life. My Mother continues to smoke today, although my Father gave up soon after I was born. They always tried to avoid smoking near me, but it can be almost impossible to avoid children being exposed to some cigarette smoke.
Sad, but not relevant to the discussion.
These discuss conventional passive smoking.
This isn't a scientific article. It's a proposed law.
Also has nothing to do with smoking in public.
Again refers to indoor exposure.
The abstract says:
"The main conclusions from the study are that a person can be exposed to concentrated streams of tobacco smoke particles that are many times more polluted than normal background pollution levels. Being exposed outdoors for an hour to several cigarettes at close range could result in an exposure comparable to being present in a smoky tavern for an hour. "
You provide me one single example of a cigarette being smoked for a full hour and I might just take you seriously. This is of relevance, maybe, to people who work in outdoor dining locations which are full of smokers; not to you. (Also, the next article you linked invalidates this claim...)
Again, this basically proves my point. The first page has a wonderful graph. The really tall bar shows the level inside a restaurant -- that is, indoor passive smoking, on which the many, many well-done health studies have been performed on the health risks of passive smoking -- inside a restaurant the PM2.5 is about 160 ug/m^3. That's so high that comparing it with background particulate matter would just be silly. On the other hand, the bar marked "in front of Bella Center with smokers" is just above the 25 ug/m^3 line -- a little bit above background, and again we're talking about standing in close proximity to several people smoking cigarettes. It does reach statistical significance, though!
So, again, here's the kicker:
The average level of PM2.5 with ≥5 lit cigarettes was 2.5 times greater than the average background level.
Except... this is basically the same number I posted before. Going with 8.4 ug/m^3 as the "average background level", 2.5 * 8.4 = 21.0 ug/m^3, or an increase of 12.6 ug/m^3. If you're looking to invalidate my numbers, this study ain't it. Yeah, they hit some ridiculous levels when the detector was right in the path of smoke, but, like... duh.
CHiLD-0F-THE-BEAT, you've proven yourself to be very good at finding links, but not so good at understanding what they say. Nothing you've posted has significantly supported your claims in a serious manner; instead, it seems to invalidate them. The example you give for a typical indoor secondhand smoke particulate matter level (measured as the PM2.5) is about 160 ug/m^3, or about 20 times the background level. The highest number quoted for outdoor secondhand smoke is less than 30 ug/m^3, and even the authors of these studies say it is being in close proximity to several smokers for an extended period of time, and on a regular basis -- which is to say a few rare, anomalous situations -- that is of concern.
I feel like you're being intellectually dishonest and trying to justify an irrational phobia.