Announcement

Collapse

Health Science 101 Guidelines

Greetings! Welcome to Health Science.

Here's where we talk about the latest fad diets, the advantages of vegetarianism, the joy of exercise and good health. Like everywhere else at Tweb our decorum rules apply.

This is a place to exchange ideas and network with other health conscience folks, this isn't a forum for heated debate.
See more
See less

Second Hand Smoke - is it dangerous?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Second Hand Smoke - is it dangerous?

    Have the "second hand smoke is dangerous" claims been overdone? Have they been debunked?
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  • #2
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Have the "second hand smoke is dangerous" claims been overdone? Have they been debunked?
    Not debunked and not overdone, I'm afraid. Second-hand smoke is dangerous to non-smokers.

    Here's a PubMed article from 2004 indicating that second-hand smoke (SHS) causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

    Here's a 2010 study that found SHS increases the risk of cardiovascular or circulatory mortality.

    Some other studies available chart the decrease in cardiovascular and respiratory disease diagnoses in various places that have instituted public smoking bans. Basically, the science is straightforward: the more second-hand smoke you breathe, the more confined the space you're breathing it, and the longer you spend in those environments, the more fine particulates you're taking into your lungs. Since tobacco smoke contains carcinogens, you're increasing your risk of various diseases the more exposure you get.

    The risk is naturally less than that of smokers (unless, I imagine, one is routinely in a confined space with lots of smoke) but the risk remains significantly higher than non-smokers who are not exposed to SHS.

    —Sam
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • #3
      New studies suggest it isn't that dangerous. (note personally I despise smoking and mine beloved is hyper-allergic to cigarette smoke)

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ates-big-lies/

      http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conte...djt365.extract
      A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.

      http://www.forestonline.org/info/passive-smoking/

      Again personally I think there is a danger and as I said, I don't like smoking in the slightest.
      "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
      -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

      Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
      1 Corinthians 16:13

      "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
      -Ben Witherington III

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        Not debunked and not overdone, I'm afraid. Second-hand smoke is dangerous to non-smokers.

        Here's a PubMed article from 2004 indicating that second-hand smoke (SHS) causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

        Here's a 2010 study that found SHS increases the risk of cardiovascular or circulatory mortality.

        Some other studies available chart the decrease in cardiovascular and respiratory disease diagnoses in various places that have instituted public smoking bans. Basically, the science is straightforward: the more second-hand smoke you breathe, the more confined the space you're breathing it, and the longer you spend in those environments, the more fine particulates you're taking into your lungs. Since tobacco smoke contains carcinogens, you're increasing your risk of various diseases the more exposure you get.

        The risk is naturally less than that of smokers (unless, I imagine, one is routinely in a confined space with lots of smoke) but the risk remains significantly higher than non-smokers who are not exposed to SHS.

        —Sam
        Thanks, Sam -- this came up in shoutbox yesterday that, in essence, there's not a "second hand smoke" study that hasn't been debunked.

        Personally, I feel bad for little kids in a closed up car where adults are smoking, just driving down the road not having a clue (or not caring?) about the impact they're having on the little kids.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Raphael View Post
          New studies suggest it isn't that dangerous. (note personally I despise smoking and mine beloved is hyper-allergic to cigarette smoke)

          http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ates-big-lies/

          http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conte...djt365.extract
          A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.

          http://www.forestonline.org/info/passive-smoking/

          Again personally I think there is a danger and as I said, I don't like smoking in the slightest.
          Interesting.
          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

          Comment


          • #6
            all I know is if you let the smoke out of something electronic, it quits working.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Raphael View Post
              New studies suggest it isn't that dangerous. (note personally I despise smoking and mine beloved is hyper-allergic to cigarette smoke)

              http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ates-big-lies/
              Is it too much to ask for articles to specifically name (and/or link to) the study they're referencing.


              Originally posted by Raphael View Post
              http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conte...djt365.extract
              A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.
              I didn't pay for the full text, but this comes from the extract:

              However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more.
              That makes it sound like it's doing something, even if it's only in large doses.


              Another one that doesn't reference specific studies, and this one comes from a pro-smoking site. Two of the parts in that article are from assembly reports, which doesn't really say anything at all.



              These are criticisms of your links, not you.
              I'm not here anymore.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Raphael View Post
                New studies suggest it isn't that dangerous. (note personally I despise smoking and mine beloved is hyper-allergic to cigarette smoke)

                http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ates-big-lies/

                http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/conte...djt365.extract
                A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.

                http://www.forestonline.org/info/passive-smoking/

                Again personally I think there is a danger and as I said, I don't like smoking in the slightest.
                I caught the "No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer" article while grabbing the other two from PubMed; it's an interesting study with potential to overturn some long-standing thought on SHS and lung cancer but I'm wary of using it, both because of its recent publication and because it comes to a conclusion dramatically different than numerous other epidemiological studies.

                And, for absolute clarity, we need to note that the researchers here were not saying that SHS isn't dangerous, only that it leads to just under a borderline significance with lung cancer. Other health problems and diseases (cardiovascular and circulatory diseases, emphysema, asthma, etc.) still show a significantly higher prevalence among those exposed to SHS, even if the results of this study prove accurate.

                —Sam
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Would anybody still support the initial claims that second hand smoke is WORSE than smoking?
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    From clinicaladvisor.com:


                    =========================
                    February 13, 2008
                    Advisor Forum
                    Secondhand smoke worse than smoking?

                    Research says the effects of secondhand smoke are worse than actually smoking. What makes secondhand smoke worse for people who do not smoke?
                    —Keith E. Miller, MD, Peoria, Ariz.
                    =========================

                    But immediately following....

                    =========================
                    Despite reports to the contrary, secondhand smoke is not worse than active smoking. The toxicology of tobacco smoke is the same irrespective of the method of exposure. The factors of dose, concentration, duration, and host susceptibility all contribute to the adverse health effects observed in an individual. So-called secondhand smoke produces adverse health effects in individuals compared with those not exposed to any form of tobacco smoke. This finding forms part of the medical basis of legislation to limit unwanted potential exposures to tobacco smoke in public venues.
                    —R. Steven Tharratt, MD, MPVM (111-10)
                    =========================
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Would anybody still support the initial claims that second hand smoke is WORSE than smoking?
                      Not me; I imagine that idea comes from there being a filter on cigarettes for the smoker but no filter for the non-smoker. That doesn't seem nearly as important, however, as cumulative exposure to fine particulates and carcinogens. I'm not sure if that was ever a consensus position in the medical field but I wouldn't think that it would have been.

                      —Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Not me; I imagine that idea comes from there being a filter on cigarettes for the smoker but no filter for the non-smoker. That doesn't seem nearly as important, however, as cumulative exposure to fine particulates and carcinogens. I'm not sure if that was ever a consensus position in the medical field but I wouldn't think that it would have been.

                        —Sam
                        I concur -- I'm thinking it was just media hype -- it made a good story. It had "fright factor".
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          Not me; I imagine that idea comes from there being a filter on cigarettes for the smoker but no filter for the non-smoker. That doesn't seem nearly as important, however, as cumulative exposure to fine particulates and carcinogens. I'm not sure if that was ever a consensus position in the medical field but I wouldn't think that it would have been.

                          —Sam
                          but wouldn't the smoker also be exposed to the same levels of SHS as well as the direct smoke?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            but wouldn't the smoker also be exposed to the same levels of SHS as well as the direct smoke?
                            And in closer proximity than those around him/her? AND, 100% of the time, as opposed to others who probably are not!
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              what kinda irks me is that a lot of people are so against smokers and SHS and want to basically ban tobacco use altogether, but at the same time want to legalize marijuana.

                              derp.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by NorrinRadd, Today, 02:47 AM
                              1 response
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by NorrinRadd, 11-22-2020, 08:12 AM
                              9 responses
                              33 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-12-2020, 12:49 PM
                              3 responses
                              32 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sherman
                              by Sherman
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 08:37 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by mikewhitney, 11-05-2020, 03:48 PM
                              31 responses
                              111 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Working...
                              X