does second hand smoking really effect your health?

CyberGhost

I don't smoke! in fact cigarettes really get on my nervs! My father, he smokes, A LOT! and he complete doesn't care who is near! if cigarettes were lethal for you he would still smoke!

I was wondering if cigarette smoke is bad for health? like they advertise on tv?

Thanks!

uberwolf

If you accept smoking affects your health negatively? then it doesn't matter which end of the cigarette the smoke comes from.

leeroybrown

If the medical research is correct, then yes. To my knowledge the current scientific standpoint is that continued exposure to second hand cigarette smoke has a significant effect on people. Also, apparrently the effects of the smoke are disproportionally high by volume inhaled when compared to people who smoke it. By this I mean that they smoke the full cigarette but the level of effect on you the non smoker is higher per unit volume inhaled when compared to them.

Optikus

leeroybrown wrote:

If the medical research is correct, then yes. To my knowledge the current scientific standpoint is that continued exposure to second hand cigarette smoke has a significant effect on people. Also, apparrently the effects of the smoke are disproportionally high by volume inhaled when compared to people who smoke it. By this I mean that they smoke the full cigarette but the level of effect on you the non smoker is higher per unit volume inhaled when compared to them.

Scary.

ApeXaviour

It is. Yet many factors come into the equation. Say 6 hours a day every day for 30 years may put your lungs on the same par as a light smoker over the same period of time. This is why I fully support the smoking ban (I worked in a bar..).
But for the most part you're statistically more likely to choke to death on your dinner.


EDIT: That disproportionate argument IMO is misleading. Like gm foods, it has been hyped out of proportion as a result of misunderstanding of risk..

DOUBLE EDIT: I retract the specifics of what I said in bold, it was ill-informed. I do not retract the meaning behind it though. -see next post

KdjaCL

Without medical evidence i would say yes it is, i dont smoke in front of my kids or people who dont smoke (granted made easier by smoking ban) just out of simple manners , they dont smoke so shouldnt be forced too.

We used to smoke hash in my house few years ago one of my mates Gfs who didnt smoke would get stoned just sitting in the room kinda convinced me that passive smoking did affect people.(altho it was funny)

kdjac

Stark

If you believe evidence that people die, then yes you can die sooner from second hand smoking.

OfflerCrocGod

ApeXaviour wrote:

But for the most part you're statistically more likely to choke to death on your dinner

.....waits for ApeXaviour to offer proof for this statement.

monkeyfudge

My father has emphysema and has never smoked a cigarette in his life.

The doctor was really pissed off when he found it as he thought my father had lied to him about smoking.

and lets not forget about Roy Castle... eh? He was great in the Dr. Who movie and Record Breakers.. a huge loss to society...

The_Conductor

I suffer from Crohn's Disease.
More than a momentary amount of time in the presence of passive smoke makes me violently ill, and could hospitalise me.
While I may be an extreme case- anyone who disputes the fact that second hand smoke is dangerous is deluding no-one but themselves.

If you don't care sufficiently enough to stop causing yourself harm- thats one thing. To show blatant disregard for those in your company is an entirely different matter.

S.

ApeXaviour

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

.....waits for ApeXaviour to offer proof for this statement.

There is no absolute proof for a statement such as that, all I can do is provide evidence to back it up:

The results were that the on passive smoking study in seven European countries showed that there was an extra risk of developing lung cancer of around 16% for non-smokers who were exposed to smoke in the workplace or who had a spouse who smoked. This was comparing 650 lung cancer cases with 1542 controls in Europe*

Let's take a moment to assess this. For every 100 non-smokers (with negligible contact with passive smoke) who get lung cancer, 116 consistent passive smokers get it. While indeed providing evidence of increased risk, this is hardly significant. It really shows how the risk has been severely over-stated.

"An estimate that 1100 deaths occurred each year in the European Union as a result of passive smoking."*

"It is estimated that some 2,500 cases of lung cancer are caused by indoor radon each year in the UK."**

Take into account that the population of the EU was approx. 460mil before enlargement, while the UK is a mere fraction of that at 60mil.

So in conclusion, living in a high-radon area such as parts of Mayo, Sligo or especially Cornwall in the UK, you far more likely to get lung cancer than say having a spouse who is a heavy smoker..

*Ref: http://www.nntonline.net/ebm/main%20pages/Common2.htm

**Ref: http://www.nrpb.org/press/press_releases/2004/press_release_08_04.htm

flogen

well... I'm convinced..

You saying that 1100 deaths (as a result of a danger that they have made the decision to personally avoid) are "hardly significant" is a bit wierd. 1100 deaths for something preventable is a lot.

flogen

OfflerCrocGod

According to the BMJ it's closer to 24% increase

Conclusion: The epidemiological and biochemical evidence on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, with the supporting evidence of tobacco specific carcinogens in the blood and urine of non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, provides compelling confirmation that breathing other people’s tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer.

7,000 smoking related deaths per annum.

Tentative estimates of the hospital costs to the state from smoking related illnesses indicate a figure of approximately €100 to €150 million per annum in current terms.

For some reason I find it hard to believe that Ireland loses €150 million each year from people choking to death on their dinner. Only 25% of the population actually smoke while on the other hand 100% of the pop eats Up north it's not pretty either

Lung cancer causes almost 800 deaths in Northern Ireland each year

Near 200 of those from passive smoking. I don't think they have forgotten how to chew up north so maybe Lung Cancer is a bigger killer then dinner up there.Smoking and Lung Cancer.

Smoking is a causative factor in 95% of lung cancer deaths

I'm more worried about cigarettes then about the salad I'm about to tuck into ApeXaviour; but each to their own I suppose. Bon Appetit! Or maybe you'd rather have the safer option of a deathstick - sorry I mean cigarette

Little Goose

CyberGhost wrote:

if cigarettes were lethal for you he would still smoke!

Cigarettes ARE lethal for you! I think it is very selfish of smokers to presume that us non-smokers don't mind them lighting up..

I know I guy who, when asked, gives the same answer to this question and when you think about it, he does have a valid point...

Q: Do you mind if I smoke?

A: Not at all! Do you mind if I fart in your face??

ApeXaviour

Offler my good man, I've retracted the specificness of my argument about dinner as it seems all you're able to focus on.. You've missed the logic of my point entirely. I could provide choking-death figures but I feel this would be side-tracking and only indulging . I've said all that needs to be said. You've not countered any of it except to provide marginally different figures.
Except for this one:

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Lung cancer causes almost 800 deaths in Northern Ireland each year

Near 200 of those from passive smoking.

Which is a pure and bare faced lie.

I am not a smoker, nor do enjoy passive smoke. Mostly because of the smell but there is a health aspect to it, a marginal one though.
To summarise my above post: opinion has been blown entirely out of proportion with misleading statistics and public hype.

flogen wrote:

You saying that 1100 deaths (as a result of a danger that they have made the decision to personally avoid) are "hardly significant" is a bit wierd. 1100 deaths for something preventable is a lot.

Among ~500,000,000 people it really isn't when you compare it to death by almost anything else.. I do not mean to be-little these people's plight in any-way. But you should be far more worried about something like radon, or many many other preventible risks.

OfflerCrocGod

ApeXaviour wrote:

Offler my good man, I've retracted the specificness of my argument about dinner as it seems all you're able to focus on..

I asked you to prove it - you couldn't and you admited it so I was ribbing you over it. It's not as if there was much else to comment on in your post.

ApeXaviour wrote:

You've missed the logic of my point entirely. I could provide choking-death figures but I feel this would be side-tracking and only indulging . I've said all that needs to be said.

That passive smoking is not that dangerous? That inhaling other peoples smoke is not such a big nuisance and that it's all hype? 400 a year die on the roads, sure why bother tackling that it's not even worth having speed limits!! I see you've just edited your original comment so I'm supposing what you originally posted was not really thought out properly and that you weren't posting in a serious manner. It seems more an off-the-cuff remark. It's just at first reading I thought you were trying to belittle the reasons why the ban was brought in. As you've retracted what you originally said then I don't have any beaf with you anymore.

ApeXaviour wrote:

You've not countered any of it except to provide marginally different figures.
Except for this one:
Which is a pure and bare faced lie.

I thought it was pretty obvious. 95% caused by smoking - which for all intensive purposes is 100%. If your chance of getting Lung Cancer goes up from practically 0% to 24% when you are a passive smoker ~24% of Lung Cancer victims are PS so out of 800 that would be 192. OK so I was wrong, sorry about that, I was off by 8 because I didn't use a calculator.

ApeXaviour wrote:

I am not a smoker, nor do enjoy passive smoke. Mostly because of the smell but there is a health aspect to it, a marginal one though.
To summarise my above post: opinion has been blown entirely out of proportion with misleading statistics and public hype.

Your figures are a bit wrong 3600 a year from PS in the UK. 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital every year with illnesses resulting from passive smoking. How big of a killer?

Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related.

Admitedly not all PS but smoking is not hype, what's that old saying about smoke and fires ?

ApeXaviour wrote:

Among ~500,000,000 people it really isn't when you compare it to death by almost anything else.. I do not mean to be-little these people's plight in any-way. But you should be far more worried about something like radon, or many many other preventible risks.

A) Look above and I'm not saying that radon isn't dangerous or a killer but so is smoking and PS and lots of other things. We tackle them all at the same time and in different ways. It's not as if you can have a radon smokers ban in pubs now is it?

Doper Than U

I was wondering if cigarette smoke is bad for health?

Is a frogs a$$ watertight?



he he he.. I just wanted an excuse to use that quote.

ApeXaviour

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

That passive smoking is not that dangerous

Not exactly. That it is not as dangerous as it is percieved to be. 1st hand smoking is.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

It seems more an off-the-cuff remark.

That specific one was yes, it seems choking-death is in the same order of magnitude. The point of it remains the same, I found a better analogy with the radon.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

If your chance of getting Lung Cancer goes up from practically 0% to 24% when you are a passive smoker ~24% of Lung Cancer victims are PS so out of 800 that would be 192. OK so I was wrong, sorry about that, I was off by 8 because I didn't use a calculator.

:eek: That is some serious misunderstanding of the figures.. From the website you took the 24% from, it specifically states "A woman who has never smoked has an estimated 24% greater risk of lung cancer if she lives with a smoker". This means you take the amount of non-smoking women who don't live with smoker but still get lung cancer as 100%. 24% more than that will get it if they live with a smoker. It is certainly not stating that 24% lung cancer cases are from passive smoking!
You said your chances of the former are practically nothing.. Well 24% of practically nothing added onto practically nothing is still practically nothing. Let me put it in a way that is more clear. I'm going to make up a number: 1/200, say this is your chance of getting lung cancer as a non-smoker & non-passive smoker. That's a 0.5% chance. If you then live with a smoker your chance goes up to 0.6%. As I said.. hardly significant.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Your figures are a bit wrong 3600 a year from PS in the UK.

Why would you necessarily assume that my figures are the ones that are wrong? There is no information as to how that study was taken, what it took into account etc.. Newscientist aren't exactly the be-all and end-all.

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

It's not as if you can have a radon smokers ban in pubs now is it?

Are you inferring that I don't support the smoking ban? If so please re-read my first post.. It's a fact that people do not know enough about radon and it's effects in high risk areas. There are things that can be done to counteract it's effects. I just find it spurious that we put so much more emphasis on something that is far less significant.

LegacyUser

leeroybrown wrote:

By this I mean that they smoke the full cigarette but the level of effect on you the non smoker is higher per unit volume inhaled when compared to them.

that is total bull****

luckat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3850083.stm

Passive smoke risk 'even greater'

The risks of passive smoking could be twice as bad as previously feared, the British Medical Journal has reported.

Researchers from London's St George's Medical School and the Royal Free hospital found passive smoking increased the risk of coronary heart disease by 50-60%.

The team, which studied 4,792 men over 20 years, said earlier studies which had found a 25-30% increased risk focused on people living with smokers.

*snip*

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/

Secondhand Smoke Can Make Children Suffer Serious Health Risks


Breathing secondhand smoke can be harmful to children's health including asthma, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia and ear infections. Children's exposure to secondhand smoke is responsible for:


increases in the number of asthma attacks and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children with asthma

between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (for children under 18 months of age)

respiratory tract infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year.

The developing lungs of young children are severely affected by exposure to secondhand smoke for several reasons including that children are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. Children receiving high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those with smoking mothers, run the greatest risk of damaging health effects.

*snip*

http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=34706&ct=67116

LungUSA
November 2003

Secondhand or "passive" smoke (also known as environmental tobacco smoke or ETS)-smoke involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers from other people's cirgarettes-also can be lethal to adults. Secondhand smoke comes from two places: smoke breathed out by the person who smokes, and smoke from the end of a burning cigarette. Secondhand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.

Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy. However the amount of workers protected under a smoke-free policy varies by state.

Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other health problems. The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.

*snip*

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

(loads and loads of articles about secondhand smoking's effects)

Trouble is, it's terribly hard for smokers to quit. The most successful method seems to be the Alan Carr (Allen Carr?) courses, and some of these are run around Ireland. But smoking is deceptive - if you enjoy having a fag, and it doesn't do you any immediate harm, you just don't believe people who talk about the insidious damage it's doing.

I didn't quit for years after the time I visited someone in a hospital ward and was so shook that I lit up. A young doctor drifted over and started to chat. "See that man over there? He's getting his leg amputated. That woman there has already had one arm amputated, and we have to do the other now. Everyone in this ward is facing amputation. Hardening of the arteries, mostly caused by smoking. I've never had a non-smoker in this ward."

Duckjob

Forget the statistics for a moment. The majority of people in housefires die not from burns, but from smoke inhalation (extreme, I know). That's because lungs are designed to breath air, not smoke. The human body has no requirement to have smoke in the lungs - ever. Maybe the statistics on PS are overhyped. Maybe not. Who knows. Who cares? SMOKE IS BAD FOR YOU!! I cannot understand how anyone with a brain cannot comprehend this simple fact.

It pi$$es me off when people wilfully endanger the health of those around them. I don't care what the level of risk is. What right do you have to put sh1t into my lungs?

Nala

My great-aunt smokes like a trooper and her dog died of lung cancer. It doesn't just affect people!

OfflerCrocGod

ApeXaviour wrote:

Not exactly. That it is not as dangerous as it is percieved to be. 1st hand smoking is.

OK compare the two statements

What I said wrote:

That passive smoking is not that dangerous?

and

What You said: Spot the difference! wrote:

That it is not as dangerous as it is percieved to be.

You know you're right we are obviously talking about two different things all together! I mean it's not as if what you said is just a rephrasing of what I said NAAAA not at all - totally different, 100% different.

ApeXaviour wrote:

That specific one was yes, it seems choking-death is in the same order of magnitude. The point of it remains the same, I found a better analogy with the radon.

Right so we are arguing over nothing.....welcome to the Internet Radon = better analogy ; Radon != what I orginally took issue with though;

ApeXaviour wrote:

:eek: That is some serious misunderstanding of the figures.. From the website you took the 24% from, it specifically states "A woman who has never smoked has an estimated 24% greater risk of lung cancer if she lives with a smoker". This means you take the amount of non-smoking women who don't live with smoker but still get lung cancer as 100%. 24% more than that will get it if they live with a smoker. It is certainly not stating that 24% lung cancer cases are from passive smoking!
You said your chances of the former are practically nothing.. Well 24% of practically nothing added onto practically nothing is still practically nothing. Let me put it in a way that is more clear. I'm going to make up a number: 1/200, say this is your chance of getting lung cancer as a non-smoker & non-passive smoker. That's a 0.5% chance. If you then live with a smoker your chance goes up to 0.6%. As I said.. hardly significant.

0.1% of 4 million is 4'000. 4'000 unnecessary deaths. I think I'll let someone else put this into words for me.

Stalin wrote:

One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.

I realise you made it up but the fact is that behind those numbers are people! Behind that 24% are people suffering for no fault of their own. It was others who did the smoking not them.

ApeXaviour wrote:

Why would you necessarily assume that my figures are the ones that are wrong? There is no information as to how that study was taken, what it took into account etc.. Newscientist aren't exactly the be-all and end-all.

I trust it more then Dr Chris Cates EBM Website

ApeXaviour wrote:

Are you inferring that I don't support the smoking ban? If so please re-read my first post.. It's a fact that people do not know enough about radon and it's effects in high risk areas. There are things that can be done to counteract it's effects. I just find it spurious that we put so much more emphasis on something that is far less significant.

Nope I was saying that both radon and PS are killers and are harmful to humans but that they have to be tackled in different ways. That's why there isn't a radon smokers ban in pubs; people smoke ciggies so you ban it in public places and for radon you put detectors in public places. Different risks different ways of attacking the problem. I didn't put that argument forward in a very clear manner in my last post, sorry about that. Anyway I don't think we are going to agree about these two issues so I think it's better to agree to disagree and just let this die.

Sleepy

Good christ, look, the smoking ban is in. It's not going to go away. Just let it die.

(20 a day smoker myself, btw)

ApeXaviour

Offler, how someone can write so much yet say so little is beyond me. I'll leave you to it.