Do you know anyone who's died from second hand smoke?

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by blankall

As for the chemicals and carninogens in smoking. They are almost entirely the natural result of burning hydrocarbons and will be found in all forms of combustion. The remainder are found in extremely small quantities and are the result of the agricultural process (IE there's nothing in there that isn't in just about every piece of fruit or vegetable you eat).

Not all forms of combustion are equal - it depends on what is being burned and at what temperature. Cigarettes produce far more of the carcinogenic byproducts than most other forms of combustion due to the relatively low temperature among other factors.

The risk of getting cancer is basically a function of cumulative exposure, at least for the main carcinogens in second-hand and third-hand smoke. In theory a single molecule could be the one that causes cancer - the chance would be extremely low though. The more you're exposed, the higher your chance of getting cancer.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

Not all forms of combustion are equal - it depends on what is being burned and at what temperature. Cigarettes produce far more of the carcinogenic byproducts than most other forms of combustion due to the relatively low temperature among other factors.

The risk of getting cancer is basically a function of cumulative exposure, at least for the main carcinogens in second-hand and third-hand smoke. In theory a single molecule could be the one that causes cancer - the chance would be extremely low though. The more you're exposed, the higher your chance of getting cancer.

I disagree on the mechanism. It's more than just random chance. Prolonged exposure to smoke causes damage in the lungs and prevents the lung from healing. Lungs are designed with natural barriers and protection. Over time smoking will break down the lungs ability to protect itself. Yes vehicle combustion may be cleaner, but there's also a question of volume. You're talking about a few grams of tobacco versus many many litres of gasoline. Even if the vehicle is a thousand our a million times more efficient, you are still being exposed to more carcinogens from the vehicles.

[Trojan97]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I don't. My grandmother has smoked a pack of cigarettes a day since she was sixteen, and my grandfather hasn't had a cigarette in 40 years. Somehow, he has managed to survive well into his seventies.

I should say that I am not a smoker. I did smoke in high school, but it really does nothing for me. It doesn't smell great, obviously. But I walk anywhere on campus and I see 'no smoking within 10 meters of the doors' signs, and now it seems we can't smoke on the deck of the campus pub. Who exactly is being protected by this? If you don't want the bar smelling like smoke, I get it. No smoking within six feet or something.

Why on earth does someone have to walk halfway to the fricking pitchers mound to have a cigarette? Does anybody buy this second hand smoke myth anymore? God forbid you light up a Craven Ultra Mild within a hundred yards of a school, but nobody would say anything if a fat teacher brought a Wendy's classic triple back from lunch...

I don't have much of a point to this other than this: next time someone warns you about second hand smoke, call them a mean name and ask if they use a leafblower.

Did you steal this rant from the Adam Carolla podcast? He had a rant about this exact topic a week or two ago re: second hand smoke.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

A question I would ask is, "Is asbestos any worse than second hand smoke?"

Asbestos has been banned nearly worldwide. Smoking is legal.

Asbestos has the same type of risks as smoking. Long term damage to the lungs, etc. Walking through a room with airborne asbestos isn't going to kill you or have any lasting effect either. When you do it repeatedly, however...

Actually, cancer caused from asbestos is different. All it takes is one asbestos fibre to embed itself into the lung tissue in just the right way to make a tumor. It has nothing to do with prolonged exposure, although it's true that the more expose yourself to it, the more you are risking it.

With smoke, it is more of a cumulative thing.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by blankall

I disagree on the mechanism. It's more than just random chance. Prolonged exposure to smoke causes damage in the lungs and prevents the lung from healing. Lungs are designed with natural barriers and protection. Over time smoking will break down the lungs ability to protect itself. Yes vehicle combustion may be cleaner, but there's also a question of volume. You're talking about a few grams of tobacco versus many many litres of gasoline. Even if the vehicle is a thousand our a million times more efficient, you are still being exposed to more carcinogens from the vehicles.

A lot of it does come down to chance rather than overcoming any natural protection from the lung. Cancer happens at a chemical level. There are repair mechanisms in place, but whether they succeed or not is generally not a function of the ability of the lungs to protect themselves being overwhelmed - at least for most of the key carcinogens in cigarette smoke such as benzo(a)pyrene; the mechanism is different for some other carcinogens. Failure to repair a gene affected by a carcinogen really often does come down to chance, often exacerbated by gene mutations affecting these repair processes.

In addition to vehicle combustion being more efficient, the carcinogens emitted are often different, particularly for gasoline-fueled automobiles. Gasoline just doesn't have the high molecular weight organics that produce the nastiest carcinogens. Diesel fuel is a bit of a different story, though it's better now than it used to be.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I don't. My grandmother has smoked a pack of cigarettes a day since she was sixteen, and my grandfather hasn't had a cigarette in 40 years. Somehow, he has managed to survive well into his seventies.

I should say that I am not a smoker. I did smoke in high school, but it really does nothing for me. It doesn't smell great, obviously. But I walk anywhere on campus and I see 'no smoking within 10 meters of the doors' signs, and now it seems we can't smoke on the deck of the campus pub. Who exactly is being protected by this? If you don't want the bar smelling like smoke, I get it. No smoking within six feet or something.

Why on earth does someone have to walk halfway to the fricking pitchers mound to have a cigarette? Does anybody buy this second hand smoke myth anymore? God forbid you light up a Craven Ultra Mild within a hundred yards of a school, but nobody would say anything if a fat teacher brought a Wendy's classic triple back from lunch...

I don't have much of a point to this other than this: next time someone warns you about second hand smoke, call them a mean name and ask if they use a leafblower.

Someone listens to Adam Carolla.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Someone with an educated perspective on cancer risk factors might not be so cavalier to second hand smoke exposure. The development of cancer is the result of a chain of events, with each event having a probability of occurrence. Exposing yourself to risk factors increases your odds, very much like buying more tickets in a lottery. You are correct in that buying 5 extra tickets for the lottery doesn't guarantee a win, but it unquestionably increases your odds. You can argue the magnitude of risk (ie. hazard ratio) all you want, but if you only have one life to live, why would you unnecessarily increase the odds against you with zero benefit?

I actually have a degree in cell biology and genetics, with a focus on disease. I specifically took several courses on the subject of cancer. I've also have several years of work experience in stroke and genetics labs.

But please feel free to educate me. I'm sure that article you read on the internet from a lobby group will open my eyes to the truth.

Originally Posted by valo403

Noticed you still haven't responded to the list of ingredients added to cigarettes. Odd that you run and hide seeing as you're such an expert in this field. How about you counter that point with some evidence. Either that or continue to make it quite clear that you're talking out of your ass.

Love the internet tough guys who always crawl out of their holes in debates like this. I did respond to your list, you just don't have the proper background knowledge to recognize it.

Originally Posted by blankall

As for the chemicals and carninogens in smoking. They are almost entirely the natural result of burning hydrocarbons and will be found in all forms of combustion. The remainder are found in extremely small quantities and are the result of the agricultural process (IE there's nothing in there that isn't in just about every piece of fruit or vegetable you eat).

• Benzene (natural result of burning hydrocarbons)
• Carbon monoxide (natural result of burning hydrocarbons)
• Chromium (metal found in pesticides, trace amounts are found in most agricultural products. Specifically, dyes added to pesticides and fertlizers lead to Chromium contamination)
• Cyanide (natural result of burning hydrocarbons)
• Formaldehyde (natural result of burning hydrocarbons)
• Lead (found in pesticides)
• Nickel (found in pesticides)
• Polonium (found in certain kinds of fertilizers. However, the occurence would be extremely rare)

The metals you've listed: lead, nickel, polonium, and chromium won't occur in every tobacco product in significant amounts. They'll usually just occur in imported tobacco grown under shady conditions in central america. Your just as likely to run into these contaminants eating imported fruit, corn, or wheat. I can also guarantee you a much larger proportion of Canadian tabbaco is grown in North America than bananas.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

I actually have a degree in cell biology and genetics, with a focus on disease. I specifically took several courses on the subject of cancer. I've also have several years of work experience in stroke and genetics labs.

But please feel free to educate me. I'm sure that article you read on the internet from a lobby group will open my eyes to the truth.





Love the internet tough guys who always crawl out of their holes in debates like this. I did respond to your list, you just don't have the proper background knowledge to recognize it.

• Benzene (natural result of burning hydrocarbons)
• Carbon monoxide (natural result of burning hydrocarbons)
• Chromium (metal found in pesticides, trace amounts are found in most agricultural products. Specifically, dyes added to pesticides and fertlizers lead to Chromium contamination)
• Cyanide (natural result of burning hydrocarbons)
• Formaldehyde (natural result of burning hydrocarbons)
• Lead (found in pesticides)
• Nickel (found in pesticides)
• Polonium (found in certain kinds of fertilizers. However, the occurence would be extremely rare)

The metals you've listed: lead, nickel, polonium, and chromium won't occur in every tobacco product in significant amounts. They'll usually just occur in imported tobacco grown under shady conditions in central america. Your just as likely to run into these contaminants eating imported fruit, corn, or wheat. I can also guarantee you a much larger proportion of Canadian tabbaco is grown in North America than bananas.

Well hey, if you're so educated on the subject lets see the studies that support your position. Seems like that should be an easy task. Actually, there should be some written by you. Let's see them.

Typical internet nitwit. Pump up your credentials while never showing anything that should make anyone take you seriously.

Your position is that cigarettes are nothing more than tobacco. That is patently false.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

A lot of it does come down to chance rather than overcoming any natural protection from the lung. Cancer happens at a chemical level. There are repair mechanisms in place, but whether they succeed or not is generally not a function of the ability of the lungs to protect themselves being overwhelmed - at least for most of the key carcinogens in cigarette smoke such as benzo(a)pyrene; the mechanism is different for some other carcinogens. Failure to repair a gene affected by a carcinogen really often does come down to chance, often exacerbated by gene mutations affecting these repair processes.

In addition to vehicle combustion being more efficient, the carcinogens emitted are often different, particularly for gasoline-fueled automobiles. Gasoline just doesn't have the high molecular weight organics that produce the nastiest carcinogens. Diesel fuel is a bit of a different story, though it's better now than it used to be.

When a lung becomes blackened and damaged a greater number of cells are exposed to carcinogens. The natural layers of hair and mucus that protect the lungs disappear and the lung loses the ability to regenerate them. In addition, carcinogens will actually begin to build up within the lung as a layer of blackness. This kind of exposure is much more dangerous than merely having the carninogen come in contact with the lung and then be removed by naural processes in the body.

In addition, the damage and repair process itself is likely to increase the likelyhood of cancer. Anytime a cell divides you increase the chance of a mutation. In addition, cells are programmed to divide a limited amount of times. The body can only repair so much damage during one lifetime.

As for the mechanism of cancer, in order for a cell to become cancerous you need multiple mutations in one cell. Not only do you need a mutation in a specific spot that regulates cell division, you also need at least 2 further mutations in the backup mechanisms. The odds of you getting cancer from limited exposure are ridiculously small. To have all three mutations in a healthy lung exposed to minimal amounts of second hand smoke would be extremely difficult.

Gasoline is not nearly as benign as you are letting on. The emissions from burning gasoline will be very high in benzene. It's also high in cyanide and aldehydes, including formaldehyde. Since the burning temperature is higher, you're right the concentration is less. However, like I said before, it's a question of volume. Walking down an average street, there are literally tons of gasoline being burned all around you. What's the total weight of nicotine being burned on an average block at any time?

[DuffMan]

When I smoked, up until a couple of weeks ago, I never did it near other people unless they were also smoking. I don't do it in front of kids, especially my kid. If I am out in a public place like a busy sidewalk, I'll stop somewhere out of the way and smoke, not walk up the street and do it. I understand why non smokers don't want to be around it and I respected that. Might as well get used to it. I think Finland is completely banning smoking in a decade or so. Anyways, it's not that tough to respect non smokers air.
Someone mentioned smoking on a plane. I remember years ago on Mexicana airlines, smokers boarded in the back and non boarded in the front and wherever the line met was the smoking / non smoking sections.

[drhu22]

Yes, Fred (my ex gerbil) died from an overdose of thc.


May he rest in peace...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well hey, if you're so educated on the subject lets see the studies that support your position. Seems like that should be an easy task. Actually, there should be some written by you. Let's see them.

Typical internet nitwit. Pump up your credentials while never showing anything that should make anyone take you seriously.

Your position is that cigarettes are nothing more than tobacco. That is patently false.

You have yet to point to one chemical that is purposely added to nicotine that is carcinogenic. If anyone here's the "nitwit" it's you. Talk tough until someone who knows what they are talking about comes along and then call them names when you lose.

Please show me one study that shows the occasional wif of cigarette smoke is harmful. I agree second hand smoke is harmful, but every study I've ever seen uses prolonged exposure in contained areas as a model.

You know full well that a scientific study where someone is exposed to smoke in small amounts once in a while and doesn't get cancer is impossible. The controls for such an experiment would be impossible.

The studies that do show second hand smoke is dangerous all point to the fact you need at least moderate exposure over a prolgonged period to have a health risk.

Most studies that show the harms of second hand smoke are limited to the spouses or family members of regular smokers.

You're the one that is making the proposition. It's you who has to prove that occassional wiffs of cigarette smoke outdoors will cause cancer.

[chemgear]

The Bodyworlds exhibits are interesting to see for "with and without" effects.

The morgue is as well.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

You have yet to point to one chemical that is purposely added to nicotine that is carcinogenic. If anyone here's the "nitwit" it's you. Talk tough until someone who knows what they are talking about comes along and then call them names when you lose.

Please show me one study that shows the occasional wif of cigarette smoke is harmful. I agree second hand smoke is harmful, but every study I've ever seen uses prolonged exposure in contained areas as a model.

You know full well that a scientific study where someone is exposed to smoke in small amounts once in a while and doesn't get cancer is impossible. The controls for such an experiment would be impossible.

The studies that do show second hand smoke is dangerous all point to the fact you need at least moderate exposure over a prolgonged period to have a health risk.

Most studies that show the harms of second hand smoke are limited to the spouses or family members of regular smokers.

You're the one that is making the proposition. It's you who has to prove that occassional wiffs of cigarette smoke outdoors will cause cancer.

Please provide me with the post where I made that claim. Yu don't even have the ability to deduce simple questions, let alone argue them

You said:

"When someone is smoking they are burnign a piece of a tobacco leaf"

That is so incredibly lacking in accuracy it's stunning, and yet you're sticking with it? Really?

Where did you get your degree? DeVry?

[Dion]

The Shocking Ingredients in Cigarettes

The solution to the bitter-tasting cigarette was easy–have some chemists add taste-improving chemicals to the tobacco. But once they got rolling they figured out they could really maximize the whole addiction part, what a hook. They found that a chemical similar to rocket fuel helps keep the tip of the cigarette burning at an extremely hot temperature, which allows the nicotine in tobacco to turn into a vapor so your lungs can absorb it more easily. Or how about ammonia? Adding ammonia to cigarettes allows nicotine in its vapor form to be absorbed through the lungs more quickly. This, in turn, means your brain can get a higher dose of nicotine with each inhalation. Now that’s efficiency.

For a start, here’s the who’s who of the most toxic ingredients used to make cigarettes tastier, and more quickly, effectively addictive:

Ammonia: Household cleaner.
Arsenic: Used in rat poisons.
Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber.
Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid.
Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas.
Cadmium: Used in batteries.
Cyanide: Lethal poison.
DDT: A banned insecticide.
Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals.
Lead: Poisonous in high doses.
Formaldehyde: Used to preserve dead specimens.
Methoprene: Insecticide.
Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics.
Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs.
Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India, in 1984.
Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element.
For the whole list of 599 additives used in cigarettes, see the BBC Worldservice page What’s in a Cigarette.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/the...#ixzz1oJTA0tHy

[pylon]

I quit a little over a year ago.

But when I was a smoker, I always smoked behind a dumpster at work (since it is a trash habit anyway), far away from entrances, and if someone was walking with a child in my direction, I would veer another direction as far away as I could get so junior didn't have to inhale my noxious fumes. Anyone who doesn't think second hand smoke can be dangerous is a ######. It is the unfiltered product. But regardless, why should someone have to involuntarily inhale, and be exposed to my filthy stinking habit. This isn't even debatable. Smokers who don't have that courtesy are a-holes. I guess part of the reason is I had shame about smoking, and hated myself for it, but just couldn't stop.

Now that I am smoke free, and I tend to really notice it, the most revolting thing is "Just came in from sub zero temperature smells like smoke guy." Seriously, feces smells better than you. The thought I smelled like that for 17 years is embarrassing, and I am ashamed of myself for it. It is the most dirty, foul, smell of all time. I would rather inhale second hand smoke than smell that. And one guy at work, ALWAYS, comes in and sit down in my office after having one in the cold. I just cut to the chase now, and ask him if he just poo'd in his underwear, or had a smoke? He is starting to get the message.

[T@T]

I haven't smoked a cig in 10 years but with all this so-called scientific evidence showing how bad they are why the f#$k are they still legal?

Personally I think smoking is plain stupid, they make you stink,the costs are outrageous (in canada anyway) and plug up your lungs to make you feel like crap. But. My parents lived a long life as did their parents (one grandfather was 99 when he died) and all smoked since they were kids.

And if you think as most do that smoking take years off your life remember this thread when your in a nursing home,unable to walk on your own,you wear diapers like a baby,can't wipe your own ass and need your food pureed-ed...you might just wished that you smoked a few.

Put me in the minuscule group that thinks the risks of smoking and the ridiculous "second hand" smoke in open areas is overrated bull-sh*t.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by T@T

I haven't smoked a cig in 10 years but with all this so-called scientific evidence showing how bad they are why the f#$k are they still legal?

Personally I think smoking is plain stupid, they make you stink,the costs are outrageous (in canada anyway) and plug up your lungs to make you feel like crap. But. My parents lived a long life as did their parents (one grandfather was 99 when he died) and all smoked since they were kids.

And if you think as most do that smoking take years off your life remember this thread when your in a nursing home,unable to walk on your own,you wear diapers like a baby,can't wipe your own ass and need your food pureed-ed...you might just wished that you smoked a few.

Put me in the minuscule group that thinks the risks of smoking and the ridiculous "second hand" smoke in open areas is overrated bull-sh*t.

Here is a hint:



Won't take long through. I imagine within 20 years, you won't be able to smoke in public.

As for the comment of wishing you had smoked a few: My dad died at 57, and smoked since he was 14. He died of complications from lung cancer. You might cut off a few years, but at 57, its not like you only have bad years ahead of you.

[speede5]

I don't fear getting cancer from walking the gauntlet of smoker near doorways, That's just an annoyance. The days of smoking sections in restaurants, airplanes, etc, is where I think the danger really was. I look back at the pollution that was being caused by cigarettes back then and I am so happy to see where we are now. Our wrestliung team used to work bingos for fundraising, what a joke, the smoke was so thick it was like a fog in there. I do worry that i'll see ill effects from second hand smoke, but I'm over 40 now so hopefully I survived!

All the rules coming out now are pretty pointless, the danger areas for second hand smoke are pretty much gone, and we are better for it. The only good to come from further pushing smokers away is that it becomes so inconvenient they all quit. I think we have seen a big decline in smoking just because it's such a pain and you can't just light up wherever you are.

[MoneyGuy]

I don't actually know anyone who has died in a war, but I know that wars kill people.