Skip to comments.Science: On second thought, no, secondhand smoke won’t kill you
Posted on 12/20/2013 8:27:07 AM PST by rktman
Now it can be told. Now that smoking has been banned everywhere but the dryer vent at your apartment based on the notion that secondhand smoke kills everyone around you, The Journal of the National Cancer Institute can tell us this via Jacob Sullum:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
The problem is, politics and lawsuits always trump science and facts.
Embrace the suck.
Don't like 2nd hand smoke? Stay outta my house.
Aw come on, it’s proven science that simply SEEING someone with a cigarette can take 20 years off your expected life span.
As a non-smoker I must admit that I do enjoy not smelling smoke in restaurants and other places. I also hate the smell of it in people’s clothes. However I have never been in favor of not allowing smoking in bars. If it bothers you stay out of them.
Read what it says, not what you think it says:
“this analysis doesnt tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk.
Dang. Forgot all about the anxiety factor and the ravages of the fear of seeing the image of a cigarette. Couple that with a picture of an AR and your just about done. LOL!
Back in the 1980s or 1970s when so many people smoked, and legal to smoke inside, it was hard to notice in smell,
but without those its easy to smell smoke even on clothes now.
My understanding, regarding secondhand smoke, is that they definitively know that it is harmful to cats, but that is it.
I knew they were lying about it - but then it was “settled science” doncha know.
That must be the impetus behind banning the e-cigarette.
And, shouldn’t it be the business owner who decides to allow or disallow the activity? I seem to remember some posit that there was a 3rd hand smoke issue. Would that be the odor that one smells? Possibly just smelling the odor is hazardous even with no 2nd hand smoke present? I don’t know.
Claims are made that it will be deadly, primarily to children.
The kicker that there is absolutely no evidence to this effect is that the articles call for studies to prove the effect.
Anybody who knows the subject is aware that there is, contrary to popular opinion, absolutely nothing uniquely hazardous or toxic about tobacco smoke. It's really remarkably similar to smoke from burning any other plant. Inhale campfire smoke in the same quantities and you'll develop similar symptoms.
It's just that no other plant has ever succeeded in inducing large numbers of people to inhale its smoke at anything close to the dosages tobacco has. Even MJ users seldom smoke anything like the quantities a heavy cigarette smoker will.
If second had smoke was your only exposure it might be defensible but there is car exhaust, food, life in general and I have never believed you can pinpoint a specific thing.
You can roll your own cigars from what falls off these things. Seriously.
Actually, it is. They know that e-cigs are perfectly safe, but they claim that the mere appearance gives the "wrong impression".
Next they are going to discover that guns don’t kill people all by themselves. This science stuff is good stuff.
Well, if you take some lab rats (hairy screed comes to mind), and force them into inhaling the equivalent of 10 packs per day, I guess you could conclude that the rats are gonna have an issue with 2nd hand smoke. Say, who’s getting the 1st hand smoke and forcing the rats to inhale it?
If you complain about a customer smoking while you are in a biker bar, it can be fatal.
That’s what I was talking about. I think. Yet in Colorado, the recent okay for pot isn’t an issue? I guess even if there is a harmful(definition required because there could be a lot?) side effect from inhaling pot smoke, who’s gonna care? Dude!
As someone who quit in 1984, I must say that I enjoy the smell of frsh cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke but, like you, I don’t find it pleasing to smeall the residual in someone’s hair or on their clothes.
Once I hit 90-years-old, I’ll probably take up cigars.
“...they definitively know that it is harmful to cats, but that is it.”
Another good reason to light up!
I once asked a respiratory specialist what the cancer rate was among smokers. Looking very sheepish, he admitted it was around 1%. One percent can be a fairly high number of individuals if millions of people smoke, but when they use numbers like 13 times higher than non-smokers, they intentionally mislead the entire public.
The overall affect of misleading is that greater and greater numbers of people eventually begin to ignore possibly valid warnings regarding health issues.
While nonsmokers may have less than a 1% chance of acquiring lung cancer, they DO get it, and they get other types of cancer as well.
It can be very depressing watching your 28 year old neighbor whose never smoked, die of breast cancer.
It’s also depressing to see 4 year olds who have never held a driver’s license, die in a car accident.
I have to wonder, how many people die in car accidents per year compared to how many smokers die of lung cancer?
The point is, the whole smoking propaganda is exactly that. Propaganda. An experiment in controlling the public and to what degree.
“Back in the 1980s or 1970s when so many people smoked,...”
Back in the day, I remember attending department meetings at work, where 8 of the 12 attendees smoked during the meeting. The conference rooms were small with closed doors. Every one reeked of smoke when the meeting was over. Also there were cigarette vending machines in the hallways.
I’ve never smoked, but was a soldier for 10 years and breathed enough second hand smoke for at least 10 people. It’s never bothered me. What bothers me is smokers being treated like criminals. I value freedom. Oh, and if you’re making any good chili, count me in, I love chili, secondhand smoke, I don’t care about heh.
I'm sorry to say he is wrong. About 17% of smokers contract lung cancer. About 95% of them live at least another 1 1/2 to 2 years. The rest die within 6-9 months.
The 1% figure is for non-smokers who contract lung cancer.
For the record, I am a smoker and my brother, a smoker, died of lung cancer.
She is not amused by that comment.
Some folks are probably genetically inclined to develop certain condition regardless of what they do. When I was still working we had to have a yearly physical and it always involved one of those machines that checks lung function and capacity. Nearly every time the tech would run the test on me, after looking at the results would say “Well, looks like you never smoked.” Then I’d tell them yup only about a pack a day. Then they’d look at the chart and just shrug. Always showed above 100% Weird, I know.
I recall workplace was legal in some counties here, like Baltimore county, till the end of the 1980s.
Fascinating! If it is not the smoke that kills those on the other end of a cigarette;
What is it then that causes lung cancer?
The heat from drawing it smoke into your mouth?
The hand gestures when lighting or smoking?
I don’t get it....
And there are 2 types of lung cancer (having to do with the size of the cell, IRRC). One is more likely to develop in the non-smoker (thus no correlation with smoking) but “we” make no such distinction in our media.
One of those little girlie cigs is asking for a beat down.
In all honesty, the last time I was at a “biker” bar, one patron asked politely if I minded if he smoked. I laughed a bit.
If it bothered me, I wouldn't’ have been there. This was before all cigs got banned.
What kills you is some anti-smoking zealot who goes berserk at the mere sight of you firin’ up and beats you. More than likely, in nyc, if some transient (funny how they can always afford some smokes isn’t it) were to fire one up in public, mothers would shield their children’s eyes to keep them from seeing the event. Oh, the horror! Just like the campaign against firearms, vilify the object, make it socially unacceptable, ban them. Weird how that works huh?
Has there been a study done of putting people in a closed room for two hours and filling it with exhaust fumes from one car; another room with people in a room where everyone smokes and see which room has more deaths? Oh then there should be a third room filled with carbon monoxide which emits no odor.
What your post doesn’t claim (not your fault, there are no studies to my knowledge) is how many of that 17% would have died of lung or other cancer anyway. The Breast Cancer folks claimed an even higher rate of smoking-related deaths, altho I can’t remember the figure. But I have my own evidence. Of my six aunts and my mother, five were lifelong smokers. The other two had never TOUCHED a cigarette and lived with nonsmoking husbands. The two who had never smoked had radical mastectomies (and are still living). Of the remaining five, my mother died of stomach cancer and an aunt who smoked died of lymphosarcoma (neither related to smoking). All my aunts but one are still living. The youngest is 89.
Insofar as lung cancer’s concerned, smoking MIGHT be a catalyst, but it’s never a cause. The 17%-claim, by itself, seems to prove that 83% of smokers (at least as of the study-date) either didn’t contract lung cancer or that lung cancer springs from something other than or in addition to smoking or that other diseases claimed the remaining smokers and/or that some unknown number of smokers in the test still live.
And, of course, nothing you’ve cited disproves the respiratory specialist’s 1%-claim. Cancer-rate is significantly different from lung cancer-rate.
One tobacco plant can produce up to 100 cigarettes.
Indeed not one case has been proved that secondhand smoke kills it’s just an agenda for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
After watching my father in law die from complications of emphysema, I have a profound bias against tobacco.
This is a product designed to addict children before they are capable of making an informed opinion about whether they want to live a life of lessened physical capacity and eventual debilitating disease.
I can forgive people who grow their own tobacco and never expose others, but anyone who smokes in public or purchases cigarettes is a willing accomplice to the corruption of our youth.
Its interesting that this subject has come up. I remember reading an article a long time ago, that, in part, cast doubt on the idea that cigarettes caused cancer to the degree that was claimed (and made a point similar to yours — smoking is involved in lung cancer, but not the cause). This was a mainstream medical article, and seemed credible. The following point was not the main point in the article, and had an otherwise anti-smoking theme.
Apparently, there were a lot of studies back in the 60s and 70s which calculated the expected drop in lung cancer, correlated to various scenarios in terms of reduction of usage. The articles’ point is that we have seen a reduction in usage, but the drop in lung cancer (both incidence, and fatalities), hasn’t been nearly as significant as expected. The result has been in a reduction in lung cancer among smokers (due to fewer smokers, but I do remember that the rate had also changed, but can’t remember which way), but an increase in lung cancer among non-smokers (by number, but also by rate, by a non-trivial amount).
Given that this article was at least 15 years ago, and I only remember bits and pieces of it, I was curious if anyone knows whether it has any validity to it.
That's five packs - which would have lasted me 2 days in my heyday.
True. They claim mouth, esophageal and even bladder (!?) cancer is affected by smoking, but have demonstrated no causal mechanism.
The 17%-claim, by itself, seems to prove that 83% of smokers (at least as of the study-date) either didnt contract lung cancer...
Cancer-rate is significantly different from lung cancer-rate.
Correct; it would be much higher.
AGW, SECOND HAND SMOKE, FOREIGNER CARE, The left exists only until their lies are exposed.