Why?

jezza

PeadarofAodh wrote:

"What should i have done> allowed her to continue doing it?"

Well if it was my best mate (Even if she was a "fookn bit(h") I'd probably ask her politely to stop breathing it into my face.

Sometimes I think about changing my signature...it's times like these that convince me to keep it the same. :eek:

She KNEW that smoking was the one thing that i cant toletate, she insisted on doing it. She doesnt anymore, she is best mates with the knackers now, who beat her up and she fits in nicely with them too.
*********************************************************

27 May 2005 2005-05-27T00:00:00.0000000+02:00

Study highlights heart dangers of passive smoking
Breathing in secondhand tobacco smoke can be nearly as damaging for the cardiovascular system as active smoking, a review of published studies has found.
Drs Joaquin Barnoya and Stanton Glantz from the University of California in San Francisco, USA say that the effects of passive smoking are "rapid and large", occurring through multiple mechanisms that interact with one another.

"Most important, this evidence shows consistently and from many dimensions that passive smoking has much larger effects on the cardiovascular system than would be expected from a comparison of the doses of toxins delivered to active and passive smokers," they report in the journal Circulation.

"Indeed, the effects of secondhand smoke are, on average, 80% to 90% as large as those from active smoking."

The researchers reviewed the results of 29 studies published over the past decade that investigated the effects of secondhand smoke on the cardiovascular system.

They found that its effects included an increasing risk of localised blood clot formation in the arteries, artery wall dysfunction, arterial stiffness, artery disease and inflammation, while decreasing the body's ability to defend against oxidative stress and reducing energy production in the heart muscle.

Effects were fast, with studies showing that blood cells were affected within 20 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke, with corresponding increases in arterial stiffness over the same period.

The researchers estimate that if all US workplaces were to be smoke-free by law, approximately 1500 heart attacks would be prevented in the first year after implementation.

"Physicians, public health advocates and policy makers can move forward in implementing these [smoke-free] policies, secure in the knowledge that implementing smoke-free environments to rapidly and substantially improve cardiovascular health rests on a strong scientific foundation," they conclude.

monkeyfudge

From here

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn6091

New Scientist Magazine June 2004 wrote:

Researchers at St George's Medical School and the Royal Free UCL Medical School in London, UK, found that elevated concentrations of blood cotinine levels among the non-smokers were associated with a 50 to 60% greater risk of coronary heart disease. Earlier partner-smoking studies estimated the increased risk of heart disease in passive smokers at just 25 to 30%.

Peter Whincup, at St George's Medical School, notes: "The relative risk of coronary heart disease associated with high levels of passive smoking is greater than that estimated by partner smoking alone, even at exposure levels of 20 cigarettes a day or more."

PeadarofAodh

"She KNEW that smoking was the one thing that i cant toletate, she insisted on doing it. She doesnt anymore, she is best mates with the knackers now, who beat her up and she fits in nicely with them too."

Right. That's it. I'm going to bed...

/Points the way to PI/

luckat

Fancied someone who smoked, and that way I could get him to light my cigarettes...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I'm smoking right now, and I'm exhaling in this threads direction.

Take it clean lungs.

Chalk

from the who.

the chance of a non-smoker not exposed to ets of getting lung cancer is 1:100000
the chance of a non-smokert exposed to ets of getting lung cancer is 1:80000

an increase if 20% --- oh noes!1!!!!!!
or a statistical increase of 1:20000
rather marginal tbh

so marginal that the who regards it as statisically insignificant.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

thats the first site i came across,
have a read.

edit//
excuse my maths tonight as im slightly drunk.....

PeadarofAodh

Mordeth wrote:

I'm smoking right now, and I'm exhaling in this threads direction.

Take it clean lungs.

Brilliant!

Maybe I'll stick around

Chinafoot

whatever about scientific studies blah blah blah, the only problem i have with this discussion is jezza's insistence on generalising the entire smoking population.

we dont all blow smoke in other peoples faces. personally i like the ban. i prefer to smoke when im outdoors and i dont intentionally blow smoke at non-smokers. you can be guaranteed that the majority of smokers are the same.

you dont smoke and thats YOUR choice. i do smoke and thats MY choice. there is absolutely nobody forcing you to be around people that smoke. and if you are around someone who is smoking, why not open your mouth and say something along the lines of "excuse me but could you not blow that in my direction."

comments like "cop on" are sure to get you nowhere.

Saturnine

Not bothered about passive smoking i can always walk away unless its in a car.Truth is i cant stand the sight of a smokers hands they look like they stuck them up their arse.

jezza

Health effects for which there is conclusive evidence:


Adults

Children


Lung cancer
Coronary heart disease
Asthma attacks in those with asthma
Onset of symptoms of heart disease
Worsening of bronchitis symptoms
 
 

Cot death (SIDS)
Middle ear infection
Respiratory infections
Development of asthma in those not previously affected
 


Health effects for which there is substantial evidence:


Adults

 


Stroke
Development of asthma in those not previously affected
Low birth-weight baby
Premature birth
 
 

 
 


Other proven health effects


Shortness of breath
Airway irritation
Coughing

Nausea
Headache
Eye irritaion
 
 
 
 
 
Effects on adults
A recent evaluation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer has concluded that there is a significant and consistent association between exposure to second-hand smoke and the risk of lung cancer.
 
The risk of an acute coronary event is significantly increased. The risk of stroke is increased and one study has found it to be doubled.
 
Exposure to second-hand smoke induces more severe symptoms in those with asthma, reduces the quality of life, reduces lung function and increases hospital admissions. It also triggers further attacks in up to 80% of asthmatics.
 
Passive smoking exacerbates the symptoms of respiratory conditions such as bronchitis and of coronary and circulatory disease.
 
Pregnant women who are exposed to second-hand smoke during pregnancy are at greater risk of having a low-birth-weight baby and of giving birth prematurely.
 
 
 
 
 
Effects on children
Passive smoking is associated with a variety of health problems in children. It increases the prevalence of lower respiratory tract illness such as pneumonia, bronchitis, bronchiolitis, coughing and wheezing.
 
Second-hand smoke can cause asthma in children. It also exacerbates the condition in those who are already affected.
 
Passive smoking is also a cause of cot death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome).
 
 
 
 
Dose-response relationship
The risk of most of the illnesses caused by second-hand smoke increases steadily with exposure – a linear dose-response relationship. This includes lung cancer, induction of asthma, cot death and low birthweight.
 
The dose-response relationship for coronary heart disease is non-linear. Exposure to second-hand smoke at levels of just 1% of those of a smoker carries a risk of ischemic heart disease of almost 50% of someone smoking 20 cigarettes a day.
 
 
 
 

Chinafoot

unfortunately none of those scientific studies are conclusive.

/me shrugs

as you said yourself jezza, its banned from pubs and other places, theres warnings on the packs and you can always walk away.

so why whinge? you dont smoke and others do. thats life.

jezza

peachypants wrote:

unfortunately none of those scientific studies are conclusive.

/me shrugs

as you said yourself jezza, its banned from pubs and other places, theres warnings on the packs and you can always walk away.

so why whinge? you dont smoke and others do. thats life.

because its the selfishness of making others breathe your smoke!
ITS NOT FAIR.
And its not scientifically proven that speed kills, yet everyone knows it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

life isn't fair. I'm sorry to have to break it to you.

Chinafoot

jezza wrote:

because its the selfishness of making others breathe your smoke!
ITS NOT FAIR.
And its not scientifically proven that speed kills, yet everyone knows it.

you're reaching now.

you are going on like someone has pinned you down and blown smoke directly down your neck and into your lungs.

the entire world is not smoke filled. if you dont like it then WALK AWAY!!!!
move to where people arent smoking.

its not that difficult.

jezza

Mordeth wrote:

life isn't fair. I'm sorry to have to break it to you.

yeah lifes a bitch, then it has puppies :rolleyes:

Saturnine

Correct.Although i hate to see people smoking around kids.

Chalk

jezza wrote:

And its not scientifically proven that speed kills, yet everyone knows it.

speed doesnt kill,
airplanes go 700mph and people dont die.

inappropriate speed kills

monkeyfudge

peachypants wrote:

unfortunately none of those scientific studies are conclusive.

Actually it is pretty conclusive that second-hand smoke is carcinogenic to humans. All the different studies can do is argue over the percentages, which will always be hard to quantify as no two people would have the same level of intake of second hand smoke.

I don't smoke myself, tried it.. but didn't really get into it. But generally smokers are pretty responsible, I mean just look at how well the smoking ban went even though it isn't actually being policed by anyone. With smoking banned in work places the only real problem you could have with second hand smoke is with a partner.. and well.. that's between you and them to work out.

Chalk

monkeyfudge wrote:

Actually it is pretty conclusive that second-hand smoke is carcinogenic to humans. All the different studies can do is argue over the percentages, which will always be hard to quantify as no two people would have the same level of intake of second hand smoke.

I don't smoke myself, tried it.. but didn't really get into it. But generally smokers are pretty responsible, I mean just look at how well the smoking ban went even though it isn't actually being policed by anyone. With smoking banned in work places the only real problem you could have with second hand smoke is with a partner.. and well.. that's between you and them to work out.

problem is, its not conclusive.

no amount of studying or work has proved it conclusive.
i know it can be hard to accept due to the constant bomabrdment from all angles that it is.
most of these arguments come from manipulating statistics,
particularly the 25% argument i quoted earlier.

irelands smoking ban that 25% figure in the litertature.
if its so easy to prove,
why are they using the figures that actually dis-prove it?

griffdaddy

me and my mates do this thing called happy passive where we pin a random kid or teenager down and blow second hand smoke in their face while a few of the lads video it on their phone, ya can actually see the cancer going into their lungs as their face reddens, it's hilarious!

Chalk

griffdaddy wrote:

me and my mates do this thing called happy passive where we pin a random kid or teenager down and blow second hand smoke in their face while a few of the lads video it on their phone, ya can actually see the cancer going into their lungs as their face reddens, it's hilarious!

filthy smokers.......

Ah...

I feel good. I [heart] this topic so much...

NOW FOR ONE LAST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Before people go on about second hand smoke. Which (definitely now anyway) is NOTHING compared to:

Exhaust Fumes

In Britain nearly 30 million vehicles are contributing to the pollution of the air. Petrol fumes contain carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide , nitrogen oxide, soot, oil vapour and lead - all potentially dangerous to human health. Fortunately, lead free petrol is now being used extensively and cars with catalytic converters - which remove the polluting gases (except carbon dioxide) - are beginning to be introduced. In some cities, such as Los Angeles, fog combines with the fumes to form "smog" which causes lung problems.

Should we not ban cars on the grounds of public health?

Non smokers: get a hobby ffs

Wibbs

Do not get me started........

Wibbs

Papa Smut makes a good point about exhaust fumes though, particularly diesel. I've seen quite a few reports about diesel being implicated in serious lung disease. Something about the Japanese getting much less lung cancer because they rely more on petrol driven engines. Yet every green hippy I know owns a bleedin diesel. :rolleyes:

To the OP, I started smoking mainly because I liked the smell. I kid you not. I actually do. I know I'm in the minority but I love the smell of good pipe tobacco or a good cigar. Funny enough so does the GF and she's one of these hyperfit non smoking chapesses. Takes all kinds I suppose(don't like the smell of stale ciggie smoke much though).

Liked the taste of stout first time too, though lager for some reason I hated.

joejoem

because I started to drink and it seemed like the thing to do. It made beer taste better, wish I didnt

Humpty D

jezza wrote:

Why did the smokers start to smoke?
Peer pressure?
Because your so fcuking loaded?
Because your cool?


Sorry guys there was supposed to be a poll

"WHY" can't you put a better description in the topic title so I don't waste my time clicking on it?