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

[blankall]

Originally Posted by pylon

Well, I will say it, you have your head up your butt if you think second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. And I am neither a doctor, or lawyer.

I didn't say that. I said that getting occasional wiffs of cigarettes while outside is not worth worrying about. Especially when you are more or less at all times surrounded by cars emitting much worse.

I never denied second hand smoke can be harmful. Especially if you are exposed consistently within a closed area. It's well documented that family members of heavy smokers are at risk.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm an insurance and personal injury lawyer. It's my job to challenge medical doctors on the issue of causation. Also, unless NuclearFart is an oncologist with a specific background in research relating to lung cancer, I don't see how his expertise is valid.

LOL - OK, an ambulance chaser is giving people his medical counsel. If my expertise is invalid, how valid is yours? It's a sad state of affairs in lawyerville when purposely generating confusion regarding established hazards, pays a lot better than promoting common sense & wellness.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

LOL - OK, an ambulance chaser is giving people his medical counsel. If my expertise is invalid, how valid is yours? It's a sad state of affairs in lawyerville when purposely generating confusion regarding established hazards, pays a lot better than promoting common sense & wellness.

Poignant, yet true.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

LOL - OK, an ambulance chaser is giving people his medical counsel. If my expertise is invalid, how valid is yours? It's a sad state of affairs in lawyerville when purposely generating confusion regarding established hazards, pays a lot better than promoting common sense & wellness.

What kind of doctor are you? Specifically what is your background in genetics and cancer research? Are you willing to go on record saying that occasional outdoor wiffs of smoke will increase your risk of cancer. Keep in mind that we are all exposed to a plethora of carcinogens constantly.

Please point me to the evidence that occassionally passing by a smoker on the street will increase your risk of cancer.

Also, please try to keep away from the personal attacks. I expect more from someone with as much education as yourself. Especially someone who should be knowledgeable of their own professinal code and the consequences of putting things in writing on public forums.

[Gozer]

I'm well-read in the topic and am offended by someone pointing out that I'm flat wrong - but unless you are a specialized specialist on the topic then your input is worthless.
-insurance adjuster & lawyer

My opinion of your profession has not changed.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by blankall

What kind of doctor are you? Specifically what is your background in genetics and cancer research? Are you willing to go on record saying that occasional outdoor wiffs of smoke will increase your risk of cancer. Keep in mind that we are all exposed to a plethora of carcinogens constantly.

Please point me to the evidence that occassionally passing by a smoker on the street will increase your risk of cancer.

Also, please try to keep away from the personal attacks. I expect more from someone with as much education as yourself. Especially someone who should be knowledgeable of their own professinal code and the consequences of putting things in writing on public forums.

I think I will take the advice of someone who took an oath to work in the best interests of my health and well being, than someone who's soul purpose, is to ruin the lives and sue the pants off those people/their insurers, at any costs. Whether they are right or wrong.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm well-read in the topic and am offended by someone pointing out that I'm flat wrong - but unless you are a specialized specialist on the topic then your input is worthless.
-insurance adjuster & lawyer

My opinion of your profession has not changed.

I'm not an insurance adjuster.

However, it's pretty clear that many people in this thread have pre-conceived notions and aren't willing to listen to reason. I think I've made my point several times and flat out destroyed many of your arguments.

But go on believing what you want. Every wiff of smoke is going to cause you cancer? really? You are all exposed to carcinogens constantly. As previously pointed out the amount coming out of automobiles, barbeques, cooking devices, campfires etc... is much worse than your typical cigarette.

Smoking is nuisance and you hate it and maybe people shouldn't do it in public places for that reason. Why not leave it at that. Yes you may not like the fact that I'm exposing truths, but I'm sorry. I've never been the kind of person who is willing to avoid that in order to satisfy a political goal. Please look at the evidence again and show yourselves what is actually going on. Read all the scientific literature you want but none of it will show you that people on the street smoking are giving you cancer.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I haven't followed this thread at all but have read the last few posts of the exchange between blankall and everyone else.

Is anyone actually suggesting that you can get cancer from 10s of exposure of 2nd hand smoke? I'm not sure if there's a minimum exposure level or anything but I'd think even 10s once a week for your entire life (which would be a fairly high level of exposure nowadays) would be inconsequential.

I'm not a doctor and won't claim to be one. If anyone knows what kind of minimal exposure is typical to cause cancer, please chime in. Can anyone put forth evidence that that little exposure has negative health effects?

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I haven't followed this thread at all but have read the last few posts of the exchange between blankall and everyone else.

Is anyone actually suggesting that you can get cancer from 10s of exposure of 2nd hand smoke? I'm not sure if there's a minimum exposure level or anything but I'd think even 10s once a week for your entire life (which would be a fairly high level of exposure nowadays) would be inconsequential.

I'm not a doctor and won't claim to be one. If anyone knows what kind of minimal exposure is typical to cause cancer, please chime in. Can anyone put forth evidence that that little exposure has negative health effects?

Its a linear relationship, the more exposure you have to a caustic material, no matter if it came from a cigarette or a nuclear fart, the higher the probability.

The lawyer, without saying it, is trying to argue materiality, he doesn't deny that 2nd hand smoke is bad for you, he just thinks that a certain amount isn't material.

In part because he thinks cars emit harmful pollutants to air and people, which is correct. But at least cars serve some kind of utility. It helps people get somewhere, there's no redeeming quality to smoking so I think justifying exposure to 2nd hand smoke is silly both because 2 wrongs don't make a right, and because smoking only serves to tax the stupid and occupy people without discipline.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Its a linear relationship, the more exposure you have to a caustic material, no matter if it came from a cigarette or a nuclear fart, the higher the probability.

The lawyer, without saying it, is trying to argue materiality, he doesn't deny that 2nd hand smoke is bad for you, he just thinks that a certain amount isn't material.

In part because he thinks cars emit harmful pollutants to air and people, which is correct. But at least cars serve some kind of utility. It helps people get somewhere, there's no redeeming quality to smoking so I think justifying exposure to 2nd hand smoke is silly both because 2 wrongs don't make a right, and because smoking only serves to tax the stupid and occupy people without discipline.

Higher probability? you means zero to .00000000000001%? How about we focus on amounts that have a tangible negative effect on your health?

Can anyone show any fact to back up how much smoke causes a threat?

I'm exposed to carbon monoxide every day, which can kill me, but I don't worry about it because the amounts are insignificant. Sure I avoid it if I can but i don't make a big deal about breathing in car exhaust fumes for 5 seconds.

[Dion]

nmn

[Dion]

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Some posts from the last time people tried to use the "I don't like smelling second hand smoke because it'll give me cancer, even if only for 5 seconds every few weeks." I'm not saying anyone has claimed exactly that in this case but it feels like the arguments are being used that way. And by that I mean people equating second hand smoke, cancer and the reason they have a right to not be exposed to it, ever. I should add, if anyone has any research or facts that prove that those types of exposure can and have caused cancer feel free to prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

The problem is that some of you guys are outright lying and using what are true facts about smoking (cancer) but you're completely lying about the realistic effects.

Second hand smoke does cause cancer. Many of you are forced to occasionally breathe second hand smoke. These are both facts.

As a recent non-smoker who still indulges occasionally I get that you guys don't like second hand smoke. However, in reality it really is exactly like Brewmaster's analogy about cologne or other irritating smells.

I don't like people with BO or too much cologne. That is exactly like smoking. To say "well cologne doesn't cause cancer" has absolutely nothing to do with your dislike of a smell.

Until someone can prove that the odd 3 second exposure to second hand smoke causes cancer you guys are straight up lying and misrepresenting facts for dramatic effect.

There are literally zero instances in our society where you will ever be exposed to second hand smoke enough to negatively effect your health, so health related concerns to second hand smoke just aren't valid.

The only valid argument is that you don't like it and that is fine. But don't and say you fear for your life or you'll get cancer or bring up cancer at all because it has nothing to do with your dislike of breathing in second hand smoke for a few seconds at a time every few weeks (or months or years).

Even the arguments about lasting smell are disingenuous. Unless you're in an enclosed space for an extended period of time there will be no lasting effects to the smell of your clothes or your car or whatever.

All that being said people need to respect the 5m doorway laws and back the #### up. I don't like walking out of a pub into a plume of smoke. But I'm not so delusional as to suggest that plume of smoke that I didn't enjoy for 3 seconds is going to kill me.

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I really like that smoking is disappearing in Canada. I wish the same could be true for where I live. When I'm in Canada I like not having to go into restaurants that are filled with clouds of smoke. Still, people need to be able to live with other people and get along despite the fact that what other people do might bother you on occasion. I can't believe that occasional, mild exposure to second hand smoke in outdoor environments is actually going to have any impact upon health, and there's no way the smell is more than just a minor inconvenience. Really, in Canada it's already so easy to go out and enjoy public spaces without having to share the environment with others that it almost just makes me think some of the posters in this thread never learned how to share a public environment with others.

Sorry your lives aren't perfect. Bitching about having the foul stench of someone's cigarette on your clothes because a cloud wafted near you in an outdoor environment is the perfect example of a complaint that deserves a firstworldproblems hashtag. If people don't want to live around other people and put up with other people doing things in public environments that may have minor impacts upon your experience of the environment, the option does exist in Canada to just move out to where there aren't any other people.

I support the legislation that is pushing smoking to the verge of disappearance in Canada and I share sentiments that life is so much nicer when public environments are not filled with clouds of cigarette smoke, but if someone is getting really upset about an occasional waft of smoke or the smell of used butts then I think it is more their own attitude which is causing problems for their quality of life and they should be able to take care of that by themselves.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Sure same as I have as right not to hear barking dogs, smell disgusting bo or cologne or have to put up with those little gargoyles you call children. Those are all equally infringing on my rights. You might even say they grind my gears.

I have a right not to look at you're ugly kids or listen to your annoying dog bark same as you have the right not to experience smoke.

And before you say "well those gargoyle children or perfume doesn't cause cancer". Neither does the quantity of smoke you're breathing, so really it is exactly the same.

So can we ban all the things I don't like too?

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by blankall

What kind of doctor are you? Specifically what is your background in genetics and cancer research? Are you willing to go on record saying that occasional outdoor wiffs of smoke will increase your risk of cancer. Keep in mind that we are all exposed to a plethora of carcinogens constantly.

Please point me to the evidence that occassionally passing by a smoker on the street will increase your risk of cancer.

I certainly don't need to post my CV to establish who's more qualified, and I'll comfortably go on record saying second hand smoke exposure will increase your risk compared to no exposure. My argument is that the risk increase is not zero, while your position seems to be that it is zero with vague qualifiers attached. My conclusion is extensively documented in high quality medical literature, and you can easily find this yourself in a real library. Furthermore, you repeatedly attempt to confound the issue by talking about other carcinogens, despite them being irrelevant to the correlation of second hand smoke & increased risk.

Originally Posted by blankall

Also, please try to keep away from the personal attacks. I expect more from someone with as much education as yourself. Especially someone who should be knowledgeable of their own professinal code and the consequences of putting things in writing on public forums.

Our professional code stipulates that I have a moral obligation to be an advocate for health and wellness, particularly in the public domain. I fear no consequences for publicly calling out your bullsh*t in writing.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeBruce

I do. As a matter of fact my grandmother died from second hand smoke from my grandfather.

My grandmother lives in a rural area in Malaysia that has no traffic, and low to zero polution. The back of her house borders the edge of the rainforest. The herbs and spices are available in the woods and she usually picks them herself, occasionally buying spices from the local market. Any meat is either grown on her land and slaughtered by her (she only eats chicken and fish), or occasionally bought at the local market. My grandmother is the last few true village mountain people.

However, she developed lung cancer and died from it. The first thing the doctor asked her when she was diagnosed was, "Are there any smokers in your household." My grandfather is the only one that smokes, and he is a heavy smoker.

So yes, I do know someone who has died from cancer directly as a result of second hand smoking.

/ end thread

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I certainly don't need to post my CV to establish who's more qualified, and I'll comfortably go on record saying second hand smoke exposure will increase your risk compared to no exposure. My argument is that the risk increase is not zero, while your position seems to be that it is zero with vague qualifiers attached. My conclusion is extensively documented in high quality medical literature, and you can easily find this yourself in a real library. Furthermore, you repeatedly attempt to confound the issue by talking about other carcinogens, despite them being irrelevant to the correlation of second hand smoke & increased risk.

NuclearFart pretty much nailed it. A pretty large part of my job involves studying the relationship between chemical exposures and cancer risk, as well as evaluating the mode of action for the development of cancer, and these relationships are very well established in the scientific literature. Interestingly you brought up benzene from gasoline combustion in one of your arguments, but there is evidence (though not conclusive) that benzene, unlike some of the carcinogens in cigarette smoke, actually does work more the way you've suggested where there isn't really any risk from brief exposures to small amounts.

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Nm

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

I'm an insurance and personal injury lawyer. It's my job to challenge medical doctors on the issue of causation. Also, unless NuclearFart is an oncologist with a specific background in research relating to lung cancer, I don't see how his expertise is valid.

Did you do particularly poorly on the reading comprehension portions of the LSAT? Because nobody in this thread has made the argument that the occasional whiff of smoke will outright cause cancer, yet you seem to want to pin that statement on everyone.

Try actually reading what people write next time, it'll help, both in your day to day life and your career.

Btw, for everyone else's info when I go on my 'defend lawyers' spiels as I tend to do please know that guys like this aren't included in that group. The rest of us despise them as much as you do.

[Sr. Mints]

Ah, while all other brands will kill you, Lucky Strike's are toasted.

[Jade]

Originally Posted by blankall

What kind of doctor are you? Specifically what is your background in genetics and cancer research? Are you willing to go on record saying that occasional outdoor wiffs of smoke will increase your risk of cancer. Keep in mind that we are all exposed to a plethora of carcinogens constantly.

Please point me to the evidence that occassionally passing by a smoker on the street will increase your risk of cancer.

Also, please try to keep away from the personal attacks. I expect more from someone with as much education as yourself. Especially someone who should be knowledgeable of their own professinal code and the consequences of putting things in writing on public forums.

Do you honestly believe that there is zero chance that extra exposure to carcinogens can cause cancer? I just started looking through this thread and I'm a little concerned by the information you're giving out. For someone with the degree you have you really should know better. I also have a molecular biology degree and worked in a cancer reasearch lab for years. It's true that there are many other carinogens in the air. It's also true that in general cancer developpment results from an additive effect of many carcinogens. So why do you think that adding a completely unnecessary extra carcinogen to the air we all breath is harmless? Some people can smoke for years and have no problems, some people can develop cancer from very limited exposure. Unless you can say that you take the genetic profile of everyone you smoke around, you absolutely cannot say there's no chance of it having an effect. Given correct conditions it is entirely possible that one mutation in one gene can be the root cause of cancer. You lose one repair mechanism, and other problems can build up quickly. Especially if the person already has some form of predisposition. The only person in this thread who insists on ignoring all evidence against them is you. You keep saying show proof. If you can show an article in a respected medical journal that says that there is no risk of second hand smoke as long as it's outdoors I'll believe your point. Just because the other studies don't specifically use limited exposure doesn't mean it has no effect. The evidence is that second hand smoke causes cancer. The threshold is different in every person. So yes, second hand smoke from people on the sidewalk can be dangerous. Especially if its a big group of smokers in front of every door you go through. That can really add up.