More on Secondhand Smoke

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:31 am

Just a bit of smoke dangerous, study says

Reuters

Friday, June 29, 2007

CHICAGO -- Even brief exposure to second-hand smoke in bars and restaurants can result in measurable levels of a toxin in workers' bodies that is known to cause lung cancer, U.S. researchers said Thursday.

They found non-smoking workers in Oregon who worked a single shift in a bar or restaurant that allowed smoking were more likely to have a detectable level of NNK -- a carcinogen linked with lung cancer -- in their bodies than those who worked in non-smoking establishments.

"NNK is only found in the body as a result of either smoking or breathing other people's smoke," said Michael Stark of the Multnomah County Health Department in Portland. His study appears in the American Journal of Public Health.

Stark and colleagues studied 52 non-smoking bar and restaurant workers exposed to smoke at work, and compared them to 32 similar non-smoking workers from Oregon communities that prohibited smoking in such places.

For the study, participants, mainly young women, gave urine samples before and after working at least four hours.

"As a group, four out of five of the non-smokers who worked in a smoking environment had some detectable level of this deadly chemical in their body, and as a group, for every hour that they worked, that level increased by six per cent," Stark said in an interview.

Other studies have shown that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke have about a 20 per cent higher risk of lung cancer and are at a higher risk of asthma and perinatal complications such as sudden infant death syndrome.

According to Stark, clean indoor air acts protect about 70 per cent of workers from exposure to tobacco smoke.

Second-hand smoke causes about 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult non-smokers in the U.S. each year, according to the American Lung Association.

Sweet Tooth · Post by **Sweet Tooth** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:07 am

Did you know that sitting in rush hour traffic for one hour is equivelant to smoking a whole pack of cigarettes? And they are trying to ban smoking! :wah:

buttercup · Post by **buttercup** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:09 am

Sweet Tooth;648426 wrote: Did you know that sitting in rush hour traffic for one hour is equivelant to smoking a whole pack of cigarettes? And they are trying to ban smoking! :wah:

:wah: :yh_clap

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:16 am

I have read two reports and if I can find a link I will post it (1) Smoking two ciggies a day the body will accept it with out harm , ( 2 ) A non smoker would have to sit in a room with 500 smokers to take in the equivalent of one cigarette , they will not promote these surveys as they will then have to look for other reasons for all the illnesses put down to smokers

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:41 am

Soberano;648447 wrote: OK i admit it, here is the truth.

Smoking is good for you

New report promises longer life

by Geoff Pattison

The secret to a longer life may have been discovered in the most unlikeliest of places according to scientists this week — the cigarette.

According to a report published this week in the British Made-up Medical Journal, not only does a "drag" on a cigarette do you no harm but lengthy and regular exposure to the unique chemicals within cigarettes can actually lengthen your life.

The report, generously aided by a token amount of funds from the tobacco industry, is the first of its kind to concentrate on the many benefits of smoking and controversially ends up recommending a minimum of 60 a day for every man, woman and child.

According to the report's findings, asthmatics will be able to throw away their inhalers, heart attack victims will benefit from unfurred arteries and those with cancer will seen the disease go into remission — all simply by increasing their consumption of high-tar cigarettes.

Speaking from the Intensive Care Unit, where he was recovering from a sextuple heart bypass and having had both lungs removed, the report's author confirmed that he had smoked all his life and reached the grand old age of 34 without any ill effects.

at last the voice of reason :p :wah: :wah:

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:46 am

Sweet Tooth;648426 wrote: Did you know that sitting in rush hour traffic for one hour is equivelant to smoking a whole pack of cigarettes? And they are trying to ban smoking! :wah:

hey sweet tooth i dont spoze you have any facts to back that up do you ???not that i think you would lie but i just cant see that with all these cat converters if you have that would be helpfull

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:05 am

Soberano;648465 wrote: I decided it was time the truth came out to stop all this scrapping.

what they need buddy is to smoke a few cancer sticks to chill them out a bit ,then they would not keep getting the hump over us not wanting to be made ill by their smoke :wah:

you just know one of them is gona get all shirty now dont ya :wah:

i liked it when someone got the hump with you the other day ,it must of been my day off :wah:

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:10 am

Soberano;648473 wrote: Your turn will come old pal, just you see if it doesn't, anytime now i reckon.

:wah: i don't care what can they do??? call me an ignorant fat bald ugly moron who posts utter crap

every one knows that all ready :wah: :wah:

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:41 am

Anti and Pro smoking , all you wanted to know

http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/WHO1.mht

SlipStream · Post by **SlipStream** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:50 am

I've come to hate smokin after the weed took my mom ndad:-5

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:00 am

For your PIPE!!!

Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds

Cigarette Smoking May Lower Rates of Neurodegenerative Diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's

Medical Study News:

Published: Monday, 15-Mar-2004

or

Nicotine Improves Memory And Helps Brain Repair Itself

Science A Go-Go

13 November 2003

The Nicotine Content of Common Vegetables

The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL of MEDICINE

Volume 329:437 August 5.1993 Number 6

March 14, 2005

Up In Secondhand Smoke: What Does Science Tell Us?

By Michael D. Shaw

[Introduction by Michael J. McCurdy, founder/publisher of HealthNewsDigest.com]

Few health issues are as controversial, emotional, and as subject to political correctness as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or passive smoking. So this week I invited Michael D. Shaw, an environmental scientist, to comment on the latest news released on Wednesday the 9th from the California Air Research Board, that second-hand smoke causes breast cancer in 20 - 90% of women and children. The American Cancer Society said that the study is "controversial."

As a scientist who regularly writes about indoor air quality, I must approach this topic with an appropriate degree of objectivity: I do not have a vested interest in the politics of this matter, but I do have a responsibility - both as a biochemist and member of the scientific community - to dispel some commonly held myths about secondhand smoke and the risk of cancer.

Unfortunately, the entire subject of secondhand smoke resides in an area of discourse heavily laced with activists, who, passionate about their mission of improving public health, far too readily exaggerate the dangers. Moreover, the whole notion of ETS being listed as an indoor air pollutant started in the mid-1980's, as hapless tenants in overpriced windowless high-rise office buildings sought creative means of breaking their leases. No doubt, workers could be irritated by ETS, but then, they could also be irritated by perfume. Indeed, excessive perfume is considered an indoor air pollutant in some quarters, along with cooking odors.

As to the matter of someone being "allergic" to ETS, based on the traditional definition of an allergen being an agent that promotes an immunological response, ETS fails that test, and so far, at least, can only be classified as an irritant. Properly, people are "sensitive" to ETS. But, playing on the well known dangers of smoking, the doom-profiteers have worked many people into a frenzy, by conflating the bad habit of smoking with the much different matter of breathing in secondhand smoke.

Science, at its best, should never have an agenda, and should aid the quest for truth. In the days before big media and big research grants, bizarre claims could be subjected to the harsh light of objective science. Nowadays, though, it is sometimes the alleged "science" that promotes the bizarre claims.

Back in the 1960's, many health agencies proffered a set of two graphs. One tracked the increase in cigarette smoking from 1900-1930, and the other tracked the increased incidence in lung cancer from 1930-1960. That the two graphs could virtually be superimposed was as ringing an indictment of smoking as any gory autopsy picture of a smoker's cancer-ravaged lungs. Contrast this with the paradoxical claim by the Centers for Disease Control a few years ago that passive smoking could explain an increase in asthma over the last decade, even though as asthma was increasing, the number of smokers was decreasing.

So, how dangerous IS secondhand smoke? The most reliable data would indicate that it is nowhere near as serious a threat as elements of the media (and their supporters within academia) would have us believe. In fact, ETS is, at its most extreme, far less dangerous than numerous other indoor air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, toxic mold, and radon.

The biggest study on this topic, covering 39 years, and involving 118,094 adults, with particular focus on 35,561 who never smoked, and had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits, came to this conclusion:

"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

Not surprisingly, considering the non-PC findings, the May, 2003 article detailing the study generated a good deal of hate e-mail on the journal's website.

Several other studies support these results, including one from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, published back in 1975, when smoking was rampant in bars and other public places. The paper concluded that the concentration of ETS contaminants in these smoky confines was equal to the effects of smoking 0.004 cigarettes per hour. In other words, you would have to hang out for 250 hours to match the effects of smoking one cigarette.

But this issue is controversial, right? Just a few days ago, the trend-setting California Air Resources Board announced results of their draft report, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant." The report concludes that women exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke have a 90 percent higher risk of breast cancer. The document also pegs the annual death toll of secondhand smoke at 73,400.

It should be noted that the World Health Organization and other groups that examined the same evidence found no link to breast cancer. Furthermore, the Air Resources Board gives more weight to animal studies, but much epidemiology of suspected human carcinogens indicates that animal data overstates the actual risk.

My gut tells me that the Air Resources Board is wrong, but we'll see how this all plays out.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:55 am

Hypochondria.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:00 am

RedGlitter;649089 wrote: Hypochondria.

do you catch that from smoking or breathing other peoples smoke ... i think i may of cought it ...... cough ....sneeze :wah: :wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:14 am

I think it's safe to say that each side has their own agenda.

However what about the studies put out by Big Tobacco themselves, listing the dangers of smoking? I do not have that at hand, have only read it in passing some years back.

I remember 60 Minutes or one of those type shows interviewing two men who used to work for Big Tobacco and they talked about acetone and other killer cigarette ingredients way back then. Said that's why they got out of it, because they couldn't continue being hypocrites.

I have yet to see a study that says smoking is healthy or even remotely good for you.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:54 am

This is another strange fact

http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/b.html

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:43 am

On the contrary, their study suggests that passive smoking prevents lung cancer.

:wah: No way could I possibly take that seriously. Just no way.

Hi Uncle Fester! Nice to see you around today! :-6

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:55 am

RedGlitter;649233 wrote: On the contrary, their study suggests that passive smoking prevents lung cancer.

:wah: No way could I possibly take that seriously. Just no way.

Hi Uncle Fester! Nice to see you around today! :-6

Trouble is , these are the studies they don't want us to see , there is another link which I will find that want all pro smoking sites banned :-5

I am sat in the living room with laptop keeping eye on Pat , she is not having a good day today , bloody chemo

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:10 am

Do you mean banning websites that promote smoking? If so I am not sure I agree with that. If it were outright lies like "smoking won't hurt your fetus" or "smoking is healthy and lowers your cholesterol" I'd have a problem with it. I don't like any censorship.

I am sorry to know Pat is not having an easy day.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:31 am

Try this one

http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm