Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: paul.fr on 25/03/2007 23:00:31
-
with the ban on smoking in public, coming ever closer...sometime in june i think...is there any clear proof that passive smoking is for real?
-
My Daughter is a non smoker and was raised in a non smoking household, but since being exposed at her job in a cassino as a Card dealer, She stands in the pit and has to inhale all the second hand smoke, even though they have an exhaust fan, it is located to high up and gets her before its sucked out!
She has been admitted to the Hospital twice now for lung problems due specifically to second hand smoke. First time was about a year ago and it cost her her job, Doctor warned her to stay away from that smoke and find another job. She went on unemployment for the year, maybe more like 9 months, and took another job at another cassino doing the same thing and now last week landed back in the hospital with the same problem, her lungs are black from the smoke and once again the doctor is warning her that it is going to kill her! I am not sure what she is going to do at this point. We will see. So yes I belive if thats what you meant by your question that yes it does affect others.
-
There are both long and short term effects of tobacco smoking.
Like Karen's daughter, so I to am easily effected by the short term effect of smoke inhalation (I am not an asthmatic, but for them the issue would only be multiplied).
With regard to the long term risks with passive smoking - it is impossible to prove beyond doubt that there are long term risks even to the smoker of the effects of tobacco smoke, but there is strong circumstantial evidence to that effect, and there is some good circumstantial evidence that secondary smoking can carry long term risks (the problem is that a risk is not a certainty, so one cannot prove unconditional causality).
The fact that many people have short term health problems caused by secondary smoking is a good indicator that it is likely also to have a long term impact.
Roy Castle claimed that the lung cancer he contracted was because he, as a non smoker, had to play in venues that were full of smoke. It must be said that this is a claim that is neither possible to prove or disprove.
I think there is slightly stronger evidence that very young children, having less well developed lungs, might have a higher risk associated with secondary smoking; but this unfortunately is not addressed by the new law, since this is smoke in the home, rather than smoke in public places.
-
I just wonder how the cells of the lungs are meant to discriminate between molecules of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that were inhaled deliberately, and those inhaled as a result of someone elses smoking?
Unless you can give an answer to that I can't see how passive smoking can possibly be harmless. It is broadly the same bunch of chemicals getting into the lungs; why would it not cause the same damage?
-
I just wonder how the cells of the lungs are meant to discriminate between molecules of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that were inhaled deliberately, and those inhaled as a result of someone elses smoking?
Unless you can give an answer to that I can't see how passive smoking can possibly be harmless. It is broadly the same bunch of chemicals getting into the lungs; why would it not cause the same damage?
I can answer that question from a speculative perspective - but I am not claiming the answers are meaningful (i.e. I can suggest ways in which their might be differences, but this is not to suggest that I believe those differences are actually observed).
The most obvious is one of duration and concentration. Clearly, one person who smokes one cigarette a day, will probably have less exposure that a passive smoker who is in the continual presence of hundreds of smoker for 8 to 10 hours of each day; but in general, one would expect a passive smoker to have lower exposure levels to toxic chemicals than active smokers. If there is a threshold below which tobacco smoke has no perceptible risk, then it may be argued that many passive smokers might fall below such a threshold.
Secondly, the passive smoker is further from the original source of combustion in which the toxic chemicals were produced. It may be that environmental exposure might reduce the toxicity of some of the chemicals in smoke (e.g. break down due to exposure to UV). It may be that the higher temperatures of the smoke as it is inhaled by the active smoker might make it more active than the cooler smoke that is encountered by a passive smoker.
None of the above will inevitably mean that a passive smoker is safe, and that the active smoker is at high risk - since the variables strongly depend upon the extact context and environment that the active and passive smoker is exposed to, but it may be argued that in probabilistic terms, in an environment where an active smoker is at medium risk, a passive smoker might be at negligible risk (but equally, in an environment where an active smoker is at very high risk, a passive smoker may still be at medium risk).
-
I just wonder how the cells of the lungs are meant to discriminate between molecules of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that were inhaled deliberately, and those inhaled as a result of someone elses smoking?
Unless you can give an answer to that I can't see how passive smoking can possibly be harmless. It is broadly the same bunch of chemicals getting into the lungs; why would it not cause the same damage?
ah, Bored.
I never said it would not cause damage. I merely asked whether there is evidence to back up the claims for passive smoking.
-
YES!Passive smoking involves those in your surrounding to inhale certain toxic gases which in turn could harm more than "natural smoking"
Smoking the cigarette you are getting the filtered smoke, but secondhand smoke you are getting the "sidestream" and "mainstream" smoke. this means you are breathing in what the smoker is exhaling out, and what is burning off the cigarette.
40% of lung cancer patients who have died are second hand smokers.Therefore it is much better to experience a stop smoking benefits than smoking which can cancer.
_________________
Kefuie
SPAM REMOVED
-
Ask Roy Castle. A man who never smoked but spent most of his life performing in smoke filled clubs and pubs. He died of lung cancer. He was one of the nicest men you could meet and extremely talented. Smokers...shame on you.