This has to do with an ongoing, um, discussion with my wife.
Her position is that a person, could be anyone, who goes to a tobacco shop after work for an hour and then comes home smelling like smoke is, in fact, exposing her to the bazillion toxins in cigar smoke. I read a dozen or so articles following a Google search, and from what I can tell, there's no direct evidence supporting that claim. My gut tells me that while she may theoretically be correct, the 1.8 ppm of chlorine in our tap water or a large fry from McD's would be at least as dangerous to her health.
If anyone has any direct evidence one way or t'other, I'd appreciate it. Ah, hell, even if anyone has interesting anecdotes, those would be pretty okay too.
Ask her who she knows who isn't going to die - healthy or otherwise. Wouldn't it really piss you off to have never been exposed to any bad stuff, and still die? So, enjoy yourself and quit worrying about the petty things, because the final outcome ain't gonna change.
Why dont you ask that question to someone suffering from cigarette smoke related emphysema or a child who lost a parent to lung cancer? What would you say to them? "Sure little Mikey, your mother is dying a painful death from lung cancer because she smoked a pack a day. But hey, quit worrying about the petty things."
Sure we are all gonna die, but its the how and why that make the DIFFERENCE.
Quoting one comment regarding Health Canada study link between second hand smoke and breast cancer, "Epidemiology studies on second-hand smoke rely on statistics rather than scientific experiments. While statistical studies can be helpful in identifying cause-and-effect relationships, the statistical associations must be strong. Smoking was linked to lung cancer because populations of heavy smokers had about 1,000% more lung cancer than non-smoking populations. Weak statistical associations, though, are open to question. Among epidemiologists, statistical associations purporting to represent increases in risk of 100% or less are considered 'weak associations.' As the U.S. National Cancer Institute said about an earlier study on abortion and breast cancer, 'In epidemiologic research, [risks of less than 100%] are considered small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.'
The statistical associations in the Health Canada study are weak. And it has other shortcomings. "
From yet another (a 1998 article), "There are many good reasons to avoid secondhand smoke. It stinks. It lingers. It irritates. But contrary to popular wisdom and anti-tobacco propaganda, there is little solid evidence that it kills. Last week, a federal judge threw out a widely touted study by the Environmental Protection Agency that declared secondhand tobacco smoke a Class A carcinogen in 1993. The EPA report used dubious statistical methods to conclude that passive smoke causes 3,000 lung-cancer deaths per year. The ruling affirms what respected epidemiologists and biostatisticians have said for five years: EPA used political science, not sound science, to arrive at its ominous numbers."
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From "third hand smoke" aka smoke smell? Get real - from a reformed smoker. There's probably more chance of shortening one's life from spraying weed-be-gone on your lawn than a whif of third hand smoke on someone's clothes. Get over your PC syndrome and try to put a small amount of perspective in your reasoning. The PC willys will probably shorten your life from stress more than third hand smoke. And fer Christ's sake, never get close to a campfire and roast a marshmellow!
No, I'm implying that we're all exposed to some amounts of natural and unnatural carcinogens and unless you want to spend your life in a bubble pack to [possibly] delay the moment of your death by a few seconds or minutes, you shouldn't worry about it. The bad attitude is one that is unable to apply perspective to risk.
Disagree..it's a great attitude!! If I live my life correctly, all my parts should be totally worn out at the same time and I'll just go... if one single part still has life in it..I've done something wrong.
I've already started by removing body parts while practicing my favourite hobby...I consider it an investment
It's kinda like having seat covers on the car...where you're uncomfortable for the years you own it and you save the really good stuff for the next guy. Or having carpet runners on your floors. What's the point? I buy a car to sit in and use, I buy carpet to walk on and I have a body that will work right up to the moment it doesn't, regardless what I do to it...
You're worried about third hand smoke? I s'pose you'd better quit barbequing your steaks...or tofu. That charred stuff may be a carcinogen...
Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 8:07pm (EST-3) snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com cites: the bazillion toxins in cigar smoke.
Let me add to my previous post.
I quit smoking many years ago. Twice. Had been up to 5+ packs a day (so that, "I'm such a heavy smoker", at a pack a day, is just a load of crap). Now if I'm around any smoke at all, my system shuts down. Feels like my lungs start filling up with liquid, and I can't breathe. Just the smell of tobacco smoke on someone's clothing is horrible to me anymore. So, even if she is wrong on the health part, she could still have a valid point. Or, you could continue, until she blugeoons you to death.
JOAT Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking From: "stoutman" - Find messages by this author Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 04:45:14 GMT Local: Fri, Feb 18 2005 8:45 pm Subject: Re: WAAAY OT: Third-hand smoke toxicity
Why dont you ask that question to someone suffering from cigarette smoke related emphysema or a child who lost a parent to lung cancer? What would you say to them? "Sure little Mikey, your mother is dying a painful death from lung cancer because she smoked a pack a day. But hey, quit worrying about the petty things."
Sure we are all gonna die, but its the how and why that make the DIFFERENCE."
Not always, but, in fact, Phil was asking about the simple aroma of a cigar or tobacco shop. It seems like to me his wife has picked up a fearful fantasy somewhere or other. There's a lot of difference between smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, and being exposed to the aroma of a cigar in someone's hair or clothing. As a former 3-1/2 pack a day smoker, I can tell you I don't like the smell of ANY smokable substance after it has been lit, but I also don't figure someone else's hygiene problems will affect my health--short of creating a transferance of fleas or some such.
You're in trouble Phil. You can't win any discussion with a person who takes things this far. She clearly hates everything related to smoking, and that has the feel of a no-win battle ground. On the other hand, every breath we take reduces the number of breaths left remaining to us in our lives. Best not to breathe, and then that way we'll never hit that point of breathing our last breath.
You'd have to ask that question of someone who had a loved one die because their spouse stopped by a smoking lounge on the way home from work and then spread the dangerous toxins on to them when they arrived home. Doubtful you can find the case study to support it, but that was what the OP was talking about.
Not at all. It's a matter of timing ... if I knew when it was going to happen, at least one week before I would buy a carton, and a frozen margarita machine for the kitchen.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.