This seems to be a point of ignorance...

[ahurtt]

Second hand smoke OBVIOUSLY has more junk in it than the smoke the smoker inhales directly because the second hand smoke does not pass through a filter. However, nobody breathes second hand smoke in nearly the concentrated amounts that they inhale "smoked" smoke. So in the end it evens out. . .unless you are smoking non-filtered cigarrettes.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Amused
More a point of hysteria inducing facts without a very simple disclaimer:

The vast majority of ETS in a room will never enter your lungs. The concentration of smoke you inhale as ETS is far, FAR lower than that of the smoker.

So while the ETS itself may be have higher parts per million of dangerous chemicals, the parts per million inhaled is far, FAR lower because the ETS is dispersed in the air and severely diluted.

In the end, it's a useless "fact." Because it does not tell you the concentration a person inhales in a given environment.

And this is even more pronounced outside, where just a whiff of smoke is far less dangerous to you than the sunlight you're standing in, and the exhaust fumes from cars, trucks and power stations you're breathing.

Is ETS dangerous to people genetically prone to cancer and heart disease? Probably, but only in highly concentrated amounts in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, heavy smokers and long term daily exposure. Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

How dare you bring logic in here! Get out now!

ZV

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 6000SUX

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Oscar1613

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Even if smoke that passes through a cigarette filter has less chemicals, not all cigarettes are filterless. In addition, smokers also inhale plenty of "second-hand" smoke; it cannot contain more chemicals than the smoke they breathe, as it is partly the smoke they breathe (and the statement does not compare the content of second-hand smoke with the average content of the smoke they breathe). Lastly, it is retarded for anyone to suppose that a cigarette filter somehow filters out a gas like carbon monoxide. LOL

yeah i guess the CO2 scrubbers that they use on the space shuttle, apollo spacecraft, and chemical plants are just a hoax by the filter companies LOL

That, and it's not about what the smoker breaths. It's about what the smoker is forcing the others around him/her to breath.

You made it about what the smoker "breaths" when you wrote, "Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that smokers inhale. It also has five times the carbon monoxide..." Oscar's point is so ludicrous as to be almost beneath comment. When someone is inhaling through a lit cigarette, they are inhaling all of the gases created by the burning cigarette, none of which can be trapped by the filter. There is no way for second-hand smoke, mixing with the surrounding air, to have a five-times higher concentration of carbon monoxide for this reason.

Even if the carbon monoxide level in the surrounding air were raised appreciably by cigarette smoke, this same carbon-monoxide-laden air would be breathed in through the lit cigarette, and the carbon monoxide added by the burning cigarette would be added to it.

I agree that Oscar's statement is pretty sad on second thought, but I also think I'll take the opinion of scientific studies performed by credible sources over your speculation.

Wrong facts and biased findings are worse than none at all. The quote came from a biased site, not exactly a credible source. All you should need is a bit of thought to discount such wild claims.

If the site is right, is it biased? While I may be over hyping the issue bit, you are apparently the only one who thinks 2nd hand smoke does NOT contain more sh!t than the smoke a smoker inhales. Also, I quoted 4 sites including a relatively prestigious University and an Article written by the American Lung Association. Not to mention these:

http://tinyurl.com/2v8mw9

The rest of the world seems to agree with me.

 

[moshquerade]

What Amused has said may be logical, but to discount second hand smoke as a carcinogen would be illogical. (I'm not saying he claimed that either). I do realize the second hand smoke has to be a concentrated and a repeated exposure, but this can happen under the right circumstances and be enough to cause concern.

For me getting any disgusting whiff of a cancer stick is too much. I'd rather stick my nose in a pile of manure.

 

[zinfamous]

Again, and I posted this in teh original roommate, baby, whatever thread (good idea to start a new one, BTW), the only thing data shows is chemical composition of second-hand smoke vs that smoked through a filter. There has been NO peer-reviewd, legitimate study linking second-hand smoke to any harmful effects in humans. Also, when you consider that a smoker will inhale at least 3x the amount of smoke, and therfore chemicals within that smoke, the difference in exposure to said chemicals becomes irrelevent....as other have already said

I'm not a smoker; I freaking hate cigarette smoke. However, until someone produces legitimate data concerning the actual effects of second-hand smoke in humans (this is understandably near-impossible), all of these studies are only good for promoting fear, and possibly unneccesary legislation. I don't think anyone here is condoning second-hand smoke or denying the very likely harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. The problem is when studies are missused to promote the interests of one particular group. Such practices do more harm in the long run than the good that they are intended to do...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: MasonLuke

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
What kills me is when some retard says "Second hand smoke is worse than actually smoking!"

Hey numbnuts, the person smoking is breathing the second hand smoke too :tard;

:thumbsup:

lots of ignorant people on ATOT.

and you are their king, mister laws-of-physics denier

 

[bobdelt]

There are filters and what not.

But with 2nd hand smoke, when was the last time you got a nicotine buzz? You barely breath in a considerable amount unless you are hot boxing the room with cigs or something.

 

[Jeeebus]

who the hell cares what proportionality of "badness" second hand smoke is to non-smokers as compared to people sucking on the actual cigarette?

Unless you can show me a study that second hand smoke increases my penis size two inches and makes me live a few years longer... I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

 

[GRIFFIN1]

Don't believe everything you read. It's not hard to twist "facts" around to prove your point.

 

[zinfamous]

I found a field guide that will help when analyzing the majority of ETS/SHS studies that are released
Junk Science Judo

Also, here's a link that summarizes the well-documented criticism against the landmark FDA "study," that is usually cited as the primary source for the anti-smoking lobby: Facts. I can't be too sure of the source here, but I have heard these arguments elsewhere.

Again, I'm no fan of breathing second-hand smoke, and common sense would have us think that it is dangerous. My problem is when anti-science is used to support a serious issue (one that could possibly be supported by real science) the issue itself becomes compromised. The last thing we need is the apparantly "science illiterate" general populace clinging to more bad science, or worse yet--further choosing to reject science based on spurious data that is reported as legitimate.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Again, and I posted this in teh original roommate, baby, whatever thread (good idea to start a new one, BTW), the only thing data shows is chemical composition of second-hand smoke vs that smoked through a filter. There has been NO peer-reviewd, legitimate study linking second-hand smoke to any harmful effects in humans. Also, when you consider that a smoker will inhale at least 3x the amount of smoke, and therfore chemicals within that smoke, the difference in exposure to said chemicals becomes irrelevent....as other have already said

I'm not a smoker; I freaking hate cigarette smoke. However, until someone produces legitimate data concerning the actual effects of second-hand smoke in humans (this is understandably near-impossible), all of these studies are only good for promoting fear, and possibly unneccesary legislation. I don't think anyone here is condoning second-hand smoke or denying the very likely harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. The problem is when studies are missused to promote the interests of one particular group. Such practices do more harm in the long run than the good that they are intended to do...

Alright, we know from that smoking is the #1 cause of Lung Cancer through "peer reviewed, legitimate studies". So let's say we have a family of 4. Both the parents smoke in the house regularly. Given that they have a much higher probability of developing lung cancer on their own, and they are filling their house with smoke, what's it doing to the kids? There's no denying that it will increase THEIR chances for lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses.

As mosh said, a whiff of 2nd hand smoke on the street probably won't do sh!t, but under the correct circumstances, it can be harmful.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Jeeebus
I don't want it blown in my face and I don't want to smell it. The end. Period.

Then don't go to bars or restaurants that allow smoking and don't let people smoke in your home.

ZV

 

[GRIFFIN1]

Let me see if I have this correct.

If I had a child and I smoked around the child, then I would need to make the child smoke a cigarette too because primary smoke is only half as bad as secondary smoke?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: zinfamous
Again, and I posted this in teh original roommate, baby, whatever thread (good idea to start a new one, BTW), the only thing data shows is chemical composition of second-hand smoke vs that smoked through a filter. There has been NO peer-reviewd, legitimate study linking second-hand smoke to any harmful effects in humans. Also, when you consider that a smoker will inhale at least 3x the amount of smoke, and therfore chemicals within that smoke, the difference in exposure to said chemicals becomes irrelevent....as other have already said

I'm not a smoker; I freaking hate cigarette smoke. However, until someone produces legitimate data concerning the actual effects of second-hand smoke in humans (this is understandably near-impossible), all of these studies are only good for promoting fear, and possibly unneccesary legislation. I don't think anyone here is condoning second-hand smoke or denying the very likely harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke. The problem is when studies are missused to promote the interests of one particular group. Such practices do more harm in the long run than the good that they are intended to do...

Alright, we know from that smoking is the #1 cause of Lung Cancer through "peer reviewed, legitimate studies". So let's say we have a family of 4. Both the parents smoke in the house regularly. Given that they have a much higher probability of developing lung cancer on their own, and they are filling their house with smoke, what's it doing to the kids? There's no denying that it will increase THEIR chances for lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses.

As mosh said, a whiff of 2nd hand smoke on the street probably won't do sh!t, but under the correct circumstances, it can be harmful.

I would never deny that possibility. My argument, however, has always been with using bad science to support a potentially legitimate "threat."

Your situation here is nothing more than speculation until it can be supported by data. Sure, it seems legitimate, but don't claim that there is data to back it up when there isn't.

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

I quite smoking 9+months ago(cold turkey) and feel all smokers should just eat their cigarettes/cigars.
That would make for crazy farts and no filter butts on the sidewalk/roadway.

 

[RedArmy]

Common sense would say that if smoking itself is bad for you, then what's left over when you exhale is also bad. I'm pretty sure when you breathe out, all the sh!t doesn't stay inside your body and just a cloud of perfectly safe chemicals is released from ones mouth.

 

[Chryso]

Second-hand air also has a lot of those properties.
Please remove the similarities of second-hand smoke from exhaled air from a nonsmoker and I will listen to the rest of your argument.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
This does NOT mean it causes cancer or other diseases. Show me a study that is STATISTICALLY CONCLUSIVE, showing that second hand smoke causes cancer or other diseases.

Are you serious?

This is one area where common sense should rule. Cigarettes have been shown to contain elements that cause cancer. The body absorbs what it can from cigarette smoke and then exhales the rest. Are you telling me that it makes sense that the human body upon initial inhale absorb all cancer causing elements and doesn't release any back out?

The reason there is no conclusive evidence is because no test subject (who couldn't be a smoker in the first place) is stupid enough to subject themselves to mass quantities of cancer causing second hand smoke just to prove what everyone but you takes for granted.

 

[waggy]

no suprise that 2nd hand is so bad. though we never went over it in school.

but to be fair as amused pointed out the 2nd hand smoke is going to get deluted. be it with fans, AC, windows etc. so i can't see it being as bad as smokeing.

saying that i don't allow smokeing in my house or car.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Baloo
did any of you think to quesdtion where these additioanl toxins are coming from? Either it already in the air we breathe, or humans are belching it into that air during normal breathing. second hand smoke has nothing to do with it.

You're an idiot if you believe this.

If you don't, then my sarcasm meter is broken.

 

[zinfamous]

BTW, your poll doesn't generally reflect the argument here. (It's not really a poll ) You can't really deny the "second-hand smoke has more sh1t in it than primary smoke" argument. This is verifiable. What you can argue, however, is whether or not that "more sh1t" from SHS is actually 100% inhaled by the second-hand smoker, or that that smoke is more harmful as SHS than it is to the primary smoker.

I would say that it is very unlikely that SHS is more damaging to a passive smoker than the primary smoke is to the smoker. You mention proper conditions for this to be possible. Well, If you had 2 individuals placed in a 3'x3'x3' unventilated room, with the smoker aiming the butt of their cigarette directly into the passive smoker's nostrils, then it is possible that that smoke would be more harmful to the passive smoker than that which the smoker inhales through their cigarette. This, of course, is extremely unrealistic, and would essentially be useless data as this is the type of study intended to influence daily life.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
There has been NO peer-reviewd, legitimate study linking second-hand smoke to any harmful effects in humans.

Of course not tard.

What non-smoker is going to subject themselves voluntarily to second hand smoke just to see if it causes cancer?

 

[Kwaipie]

1. Smoking is addictive.
2. Why don't people surrounded by second hand smoke get addicted?

 

[Electric Amish]

I love the use of waffle-words like some and suspected.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
This does NOT mean it causes cancer or other diseases. Show me a study that is STATISTICALLY CONCLUSIVE, showing that second hand smoke causes cancer or other diseases.

Are you serious?

This is one area where common sense should rule. Cigarettes have been shown to contain elements that cause cancer. The body absorbs what it can from cigarette smoke and then exhales the rest. Are you telling me that it makes sense that the human body upon initial inhale absorb all cancer causing elements and doesn't release any back out?

The reason there is no conclusive evidence is because no test subject (who couldn't be a smoker in the first place) is stupid enough to subject themselves to mass quantities of cancer causing second hand smoke just to prove what everyone but you takes for granted.

No, this is where common sense gets out of control and confuses bad data with good data. There is no proof that second hand smoke is more dangerous than primary. There is a lot of common sense that does lead us to believe either side of this argument.

As you stated, it is difficult to obtain this data being that a controlled experiment would involve individuals willing to subject themselves to SHS, most likely after they have never been exposed to it before. Again, don't confuse data with common sense