Second Hand Smoke

On 8/18/2015 3:32 PM, tony944 wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
> >> Me too but I can't hate my parents because of it because they didn't >> know any better. Fraking cigarette commercials of the time touted >> smoking as good for your health. (⊙_☉) >> >> [8~{} Uncle Sneezing Monster > > There is ZERO evidence that second hand smoke can harm you. > Government created that myth. > > You Sir are "IDIOT
I join Uncle in the ranks of idiots. I had a lot of ear infections as a child of smokers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
Evidence Exposure to secondhand smoke by age, race, and poverty level in the US.
Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. Most of the research has come from studies of nonsmokers who are married to a smoker. Those conclusions are also backed up by further studies of workplace exposure to smoke.[53]
In 1992, a review estimated that second-hand smoke exposure was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.[54] The absolute risk increase of heart disease due to ETS was 2.2%, while the attributable risk percent was 23%. A 2014 analysis of eighteen studies noted that "the association between exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer risk is well established."[55]
Evidence shows that inhaled sidestream smoke, the main component of second-hand smoke, is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke. This fact has been known to the tobacco industry since the 1980s, though it kept its findings secret.[56][57][58][59] Some scientists believe that the risk of passive smoking, in particular the risk of developing coronary heart diseases, may have been substantially underestimated.[60]
In 1997, the BMJ published an analysis of 37 epidemiological studies on the relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer which concluded that such exposure caused lung cancer. The increase in risk was estimated to be 24 percent among non-smokers who lived with a smoker.[61] A 2000 meta-analysis found a relative risk of 1.48 for lung cancer among men exposed to secondhand smoke, and a relative risk of 1.16 among those exposed to it at work.[62] Another meta-analysis confirmed the finding of an increased risk of lung cancer among women with spousal exposure to secondhand smoke the following year. It found a relative risk of lung cancer of 1.29 for women exposed to secondhand smoke from their spouses.[63]
A minority of epidemiologists have found it hard to understand how second-hand smoke, which is more diluted than actively inhaled smoke, could have an effect that is such a large fraction of the added risk of coronary heart disease among active smokers.[64][65] One proposed explanation is that second-hand smoke is not simply a diluted version of "mainstream" smoke, but has a different composition with more toxic substances per gram of total particulate matter.[64] Passive smoking appears to be capable of precipitating the acute manifestations of cardio-vascular diseases (atherothrombosis) and may also have a negative impact on the outcome of patients who suffer acute coronary syndromes.[66]
In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:
These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.[3]
Subsequent meta-analyses have confirmed these findings.[67][68]
The National Asthma Council of Australia cites studies showing that second-hand smoke is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:[69]
Smoking by either parent, particularly by the mother, increases the risk of asthma in children. The outlook for early childhood asthma is less favourable in smoking households. Children with asthma who are exposed to smoking in the home generally have more severe disease. Many adults with asthma identify ETS as a trigger for their symptoms. Doctor-diagnosed asthma is more common among non-smoking adults exposed to ETS than those not exposed. Among people with asthma, higher ETS exposure is associated with a greater risk of severe attacks.
In France, exposure to second-hand smoke has been estimated to cause between 3,000[70] and 5,000 premature deaths per year, with the larger figure cited by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin during his announcement of a nationwide smoke-free law: "That makes more than 13 deaths a day. It is an unacceptable reality in our country in terms of public health."[71]
There is good observational evidence that smoke-free legislation reduces the number of hospital admissions for heart disease.[72] Risk level
The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2004 that there was sufficient evidence that second-hand smoke caused cancer in humans.[3] Most experts conclude that moderate, occasional exposure to second-hand smoke presents a modest but measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The overall risk depends on the effective dose received over time. The risk level is higher if non-smokers spend many hours in an environment where cigarette smoke is widespread, such as a business where many employees or patrons are smoking throughout the day, or a residential care facility where residents smoke freely.[73] Those who work in environments where smoke is not regulated are also at higher risk. Workers particularly at risk of exposure include those in installation repair and maintenance, construction and extraction, and transportation.[74]
The US Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30%.[75] Biomarkers Breath CO monitor displaying carbon monoxide concentration of an exhaled breath sample (in ppm) with corresponding percent concentration of carboxyhemoglobin displayed below.
Environmental tobacco smoke can be evaluated either by directly measuring tobacco smoke pollutants found in the air or by using biomarkers, an indirect measure of exposure. Carbon monoxide monitored through breath, nicotine, cotinine, thiocyanates, and proteins are the most specific biological markers of tobacco smoke exposure.[76][77] Biochemical tests are a much more reliable biomarker of second-hand smoke exposure than surveys. Certain groups of people are reluctant to disclose their smoking status and exposure to tobacco smoke, especially pregnant women and parents of young children. This is due to their smoking being socially unacceptable. Also, it may be difficult for individuals to recall their exposure to tobacco smoke.[78]
A 2007 study in the Addictive Behaviors journal found a positive correlation between second-hand tobacco smoke exposure and concentrations of nicotine and/or biomarkers of nicotine in the body. Significant biological levels of nicotine from second-hand smoke exposure were equivalent to nicotine levels from active smoking and levels that are associated with behaviour changes due to nicotine consumption.[79] Cotinine
Cotinine, the metabolite of nicotine, is a biomarker of second-hand smoke exposure. Typically, cotinine is measured in the blood, saliva, and urine. Hair analysis has recently become a new, noninvasive measurement technique. Cotinine accumulates in hair during hair growth, which results in a measure of long-term, cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke.[80] Urinary cotinine levels have been a reliable biomarker of tobacco exposure and have been used as a reference in many epidemiological studies. However, cotinine levels found in the urine only reflect exposure over the preceding 48 hours. Cotinine levels of the skin, such as the hair and nails, reflect tobacco exposure over the previous three months and are a more reliable biomarker.[76] Carbon monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide monitored via breath is also a reliable biomarker of second-hand smoke exposure as well as tobacco use. With high sensitivity and specificity, it not only provides an accurate measure, but the test is also non-invasive, highly reproducible, and low in cost. Breath CO monitoring measures the concentration of CO in an exhalation in parts per million, and this can be directly correlated to the blood CO concentration (carboxyhemoglobin).[81] Breath CO monitors can also be used by emergency services to identify patients who are suspected of having CO poisoning. Pathophysiology
A 2004 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, including 69 known carcinogens. Of special concern are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines, and aromatic amines, such as 4-aminobiphenyl, all known to be highly carcinogenic. Mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke, and second-hand smoke contain largely the same components, however the concentration varies depending on type of smoke.[3] Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke.[82]
Second-hand smoke has been shown to produce more particulate-matter (PM) pollution than an idling low-emission diesel engine. In an experiment conducted by the Italian National Cancer Institute, three cigarettes were left smoldering, one after the other, in a 60 m³ garage with a limited air exchange. The cigarettes produced PM pollution exceeding outdoor limits, as well as PM concentrations up to 10-fold that of the idling engine.[83]
Tobacco smoke exposure has immediate and substantial effects on blood and blood vessels in a way that increases the risk of a heart attack, particularly in people already at risk.[84] Exposure to tobacco smoke for 30 minutes significantly reduces coronary flow velocity reserve in healthy nonsmokers.[85]
Pulmonary emphysema can be induced in rats through acute exposure to sidestream tobacco smoke (30 cigarettes per day) over a period of 45 days.[86] Degranulation of mast cells contributing to lung damage has also been observed.[87]
The term "third-hand smoke" was recently coined to identify the residual tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is extinguished and second-hand smoke has cleared from the air.[88][89][90] Preliminary research suggests that by-products of third-hand smoke may pose a health risk,[91] though the magnitude of risk, if any, remains unknown. In October 2011, it was reported that Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital in Alexandria, Louisiana would seek to eliminate third-hand smoke beginning in July 2012, and that employees whose clothing smelled of smoke would not be allowed to work. This prohibition was enacted because third-hand smoke poses a special danger for the developing brains of infants and small children.[92]
In 2008, there were more than 161,000 deaths attributed to lung cancer in the United States. Of these deaths, an estimated 10% to 15% were caused by factors other than first-hand smoking; equivalent to 16,000 to 24,000 deaths annually. Slightly more than half of the lung cancer deaths caused by factors other than first-hand smoking were found in nonsmokers. Lung cancer in non-smokers may well be considered one of the most common cancer mortalities in the United States. Clinical epidemiology of lung cancer has linked the primary factors closely tied to lung cancer in non-smokers as exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, carcinogens including radon, and other indoor air pollutants.[93] Opinion of public health authorities
There is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to second-hand smoke is harmful.[4] The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organisation, including:
The World Health Organization:[3] The governments of 168 nations have signed and currently 174 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."[1] The U.S. National Institutes of Health[94] The Centers for Disease Control[95] The United States Surgeon General[2] The U.S. National Cancer Institute[96] The United States Environmental Protection Agency[97] The California Environmental Protection Agency[9] The American Heart Association,[98] American Lung Association,[99] and American Cancer Society[100] The American Medical Association[101] The American Academy of Pediatrics[102] The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council[103] The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health[104]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
because tobacco smoke is so toxic some countries have a new tax on it. in addition to all current taxes. each year they add a buck tax, year one a dollar extra, year 10, ten dollars extra.
i believe that ever smoking around a child should get the smoker on charges for child abuse.....
i hate the stench when people smoking in vehicles get sucked into my vehicle..... YUK
the tobacco industry needs to die, just like its brought death to so many of its users.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 9:15 PM, bob haller wrote:

In addition, it pisses me off when an inconsiderate smoker tosses their butt out the window of their car adding to the eyesore of misc crap on the roads and grass areas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 9:30 PM, Meanie wrote:

Of course, that's pretty much all of them.
Readers Digest story (quoted from memory). "we live in a small tourist town. One of the cars drove up, with out of state license plates. The door opened, the occupant dumped ash tray and some other junk onto the ground next to the car. Then got out, and went to the tourist attraction. My husband, a locksmith, went over to the car. He picked the lock on the trunk, and put all the ashes, butts, and trash into the car trunk, and closed the lid."
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:56:45 -0700, "Bob F"

Not cigarettes, but once i was walkign through a parking lot between cars when just before I got there, through an open passenger window came a McDonalds-style bag, onto the ground, and cardboard, wrappers, napkins, everyone poured out onto the blacktop. I stopped, leaned down and looked into the window, girl in the passenger seat, guy driving, and said to both, mostly to her "You really are a pig, aren't you? " Very clearly, distinctly, I'm sure they heard every word.
Then I straighted up and walked at normal pace to the Radio Shack, where I was headed and where I hit for at least 20 minutes until I figured he was gone. When I came out, neither was around. I don't know that he followed me or anything, but I thought he might feel he had to if the girl was watching.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:48:03 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

No, it's not. Field dressing... not being a litter bug. I've seen more mcdonalds crap on our roads than I do cig butts. That and empty alcohol containers.
--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes we see lots of trash along the roads, but cigarettes butts are one that cause fires at many places, those people I would not summons, but put in jail for six months minimum.
"Diesel" wrote in message Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:48:03 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

No, it's not. Field dressing... not being a litter bug. I've seen more mcdonalds crap on our roads than I do cig butts. That and empty alcohol containers.
--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:20:20 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

jail for six months? Okay, if you pay for it and, I mean all of the costs associated with that prisoner. What do you think putting someone in jail for six months for littering is going to accomplish?
Other than costing me and other tax payers more money for a system that doesn't work, and, giving them a criminal record that will make their ability to be a productive member of society that much more difficult. Seems counter productive to me.
Send someone in as a litter bug, they'll come out with a masters degree in other aspects of crime. litter bug was annoying enough. A large fine should do the trick, WITHOUT costing me as a tax payer more money! I don't wanna house em, feed em, clothe em for six months on my dime because they're a litter bug. They can pay big fines and work for a living, instead of my supporting them in jail.
That's assuming we have room to house them in the first place. I'm not okay with letting violent criminals out to let them in. Even if it is to teach them a lesson. taking a large amount of money from them will actually teach a lesson without costing me and other tax payers. It's a win win. I'm not okay with wasting my money to put a pothead in jail either. Unless said pothead was toaking while driving or something else that places OTHERS IN HARMS WAY. If that's not what he's doing, I don't wanna pay for his three squares a day either. I don't wanna let some wife beating asshole out to make room for the pothead or the litter bug, either. They can work, Pay a nice large fine. Win win.
--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Diesel wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thu, 24 Sep 2015 00:47:47 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:
[snip my own post]
Tony... You quoted what I wrote, but I see no reply...?
--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/23/2015 1:20 PM, tony944 wrote:

From what I see, smokers, most of them. Flipping butts out the window of cars.
- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


That's rude. They have an ashtray. If you lightup in my truck and toss it out the window when you're finished, you will be walking.
--
Optimist: Someone who doesn't know all the facts yet.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/15 9:30 PM, Meanie wrote:

Easily solved by a deposit on cigarette butts. That way they can be recycled, saving tobacco plants clearcut tobacco loggers. If the megarich toss butts out windows, students can pick them up to pay their way through college.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2015 2:35 PM, J Burns wrote:

Not on the freeways.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:09:01 -0400, Stormin Mormon

Anyone who claims there is ZERO evidence of something like this is blowing smoke, so to speak.
OTOH, from a smoker's perspective, I've found that second-hand smoke is a very good buy. You can get some at yard sales, flea markets and Goodwill Indurstries,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/15 11:31 AM, micky wrote:

Yeah, the government created the myth that there was witchcraft in Salem in 1692, and they used statistics to prove it.

Like the Gabonese in 1913? They'd been exporting tobacco for 300 years. They smoked so much that Schweitzer often treated them for nicotine poisoning. Like the Inuit in 1902? Tobacco had been their favorite trade item for more than a century.
<http://blog.godreports.com/2011/09/observations-by-missionary-doctors-100-years-ago-offer-clues-to-fighting-cancer-and-other-diseases/
I believe Schweitzer treated 200,000 patients. To his surprise, he couldn't find any cancer. Doctors treating the Inuit over a period of decades reported the same thing. That direct evidence is more meaningful than the indirect evidence statisticians present.

In America, second-hand smoke is a health hazard. What was the difference between modern nations and Gabon or Greenland a century ago? The Gabonese lived in well-ventilated huts, while the Inuit burned fat in lamps to purify the air. Industrialized nations had glass windows and electric lights. If you were addicted to farting, the best you could do was to mask the odor by lighting a cigarette.
That's the correlation between smoking and health problems in industrialized nations but not primitive ones. It's not the smoke but what it masks.
Nowadays, when people complain about second- and third-hand smoke, they're trying to divert attention from the real cause of the stench. He who smelt it, dealt it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2015 2:31 PM, J Burns wrote:

Hell no, I'm proud of mine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
australia has a new tobacco tax.
a buck a pack, that increases another buck each year.
year one one dollar, year 10 10 bucks tacked onto whatever taxes already existed.
this will cut smoking dramatically.
anyone smoking around a child should be charged with child abuse, since thats what it is......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/27/2015 1:19 PM, bob haller wrote:

Make no mistake, smoking is nasty but I would rather smoke cigarettes than eat refined carbohydrates and GMO food soaked in glyphosate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/27/2015 12:38 PM, Rick wrote:
[snip]

There's a BIG difference there. With bad food you hurt yourself. With cigarettes you hurt others (including things like putting toxic particles in other people's lungs). I don't mind you smoking as long as you keep that shit to yourself.
--
89 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 12:00:00
AM for 1 day).
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.