This seems to be a point of ignorance...

[irishScott]

Before reading this thread, did you know that 2nd hand smoke has twice the sh!t in it as the smoke the smoker inhales THROUGH THE CIGARETTE?

I thought this was something everyone was taught in middle school, but apparently my school was special in this regard.

http://www.tobaccofacts.org/secondhand/index.html

quote:
Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that smokers inhale. It also has five times the carbon monoxide which decreases the amount of oxygen in your blood.



http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/3/367

quote:
Twice as much tar and nicotine is found in sidestream smoke from the end of a burning cigarette as in mainstream smoke.

Parents who smoke at home can aggravate symptoms in asthmatic children and even trigger attacks in some. Even among non-asthmatic children of such parents, researchers found twice as much respiratory illness.



and from PennState:

http://www.sa.psu.edu/uhs/healthinforma...ientlibrary/health/secondhandsmoke.cfm

quote:
The surprising fact is that side-stream smoke has higher concentrations of noxious compounds than the main-stream smoke inhaled by the smoker. Some studies show there is twice as much tar and nicotine in side-stream smoke compared to main-stream smoke, as well as three times as much of a compound called 3-4 Benzopyrine, which is suspected to be a cancer causing agent. There is also 10 times as much carbon monoxide that robs the blood of oxygen and 50 times as much ammonia in second-hand smoke.

http://www.bchealthguide.org/healthfiles/hfile30a.stm

quote:

How dangerous is second-hand smoke?

Second-hand smoke is poisonous and has over 4000 chemicals, including 50 that can cause cancer. Breathing second-hand smoke can be more dangerous than inhaling smoke through a cigarette. It has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that people smoking inhale and five times more carbon monoxide, a deadly gas that starves your body of oxygen.

Other chemicals found in second-hand smoke include:

* Benzo[a]pyrene found in coal tar, one of the most potent cancer-causing chemicals.
* Formaldehyde used to preserve dead animals.
* Hydrogen cyanide used in rat poison.
* Ammonia used to clean floors and toilets.

Each year in Canada, breathing second-hand smoke causes more than 1000 deaths among people who do not smoke, mainly from lung cancer and heart disease, and keeps many more from leading healthy lives.

 

[Wnh5001]

i thought it was common sense that people knew this..., i always hear the phrase 'second hand smoke kills'

 

[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.

 

[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;

 

[irishScott]

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.

The Surgeon General and the Canadian Government have already owned you.

I think I'll take their word over a pair of comedic magicians.

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't like your poll choices.

 

[irishScott]

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;

Yeah, that is retarded. But there's no denying it can do nothing but harm to non-smokers.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

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.

You must be smoking something else if you think that second (or first, for that matter) hand smoke is at all good for you, which is what you are implying. Seriously, what's with your little crusade against those who are against smoking? Replace smoking with swearing in any of your posts and I'd agree -- but this is complete nonsense. Stop trolling already.

 

[imported_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.

 

[potato28]

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.

I knew 4 waitresses from Port Dover that died from second hand smoke. They all worked in bars.

 

[irishScott]

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.

What are you smoking?

Alright. Let's say your right for the sake of argument. Since 2nd hand smoke has twice the tar and nicotine as primary smoke, that means the AIR EVERYWHERE ON EARTH has the same amount of TAR and NICOTINE in it as a cigarette. It also has the same amount of Carbon Monoxide, Benzopyrene, Formaldehyde, Ammonia, and Hydrogen Cyanide.

Which would mean that humans are addicted to nicotine as it is. Which is not true. Go take a course in basic logic. You need it.

 

[Oscar1613]

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.

a smoker (usually) inhales the smoke thru a filter. the smoke that contains the increased chemicals and tar is the smoke that escapes into the air when the smoker is not dragging on the cigarette and pulling it thru the filter

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[SampSon]

Do we really need another second hand smoking thread?
The same exact arguments have been made at least 500 times in the past 7 years on this forum.

I knew 4 waitresses from Port Dover that died from second hand smoke. They all worked in bars.

Nice flamebait. Now do you have any actual facts to back that up? Mabey the medical reports that said cause of death was "second hand smoke"?

 

[Amused]

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

Do you know the difference between a chemical CO2 filter and a cigarette filter? If you did, you'd realize how absurd your statement is.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.

Wait, let me guess...you're a smoker aren't you?

 

[Canai]

That's why I don't let people smoke anywhere in my vicinity. If I can smell it, they are too close.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Amused
Anyone who makes health claims when faced with brief occasional exposure outside or in well ventilated areas is being absurd.

DING DING DING
Johnny, tell the man what he's won!

For outdoors, I don't care. By all means, fire it up. I won't stand downwind if I don't like the smell, but I'm not going to go ZOMGZ TEH CANC0RSTYX.

- M4H