Second Hand Smoke: Fact or Fiction?

  • Thread starter Peter Pan
  • Start date
  • Tags
    hand Smoke
In summary, the conversation was discussing the topic of second hand smoke and whether it is more harmful than first hand smoke. The question was raised about whether there is scientific evidence to support this claim and the potential factors that may contribute to this belief. The conversation ended with a note about the ongoing debate and the personal experience of one individual who has recently quit smoking.
  • #1
Peter Pan
32
0
second hand smoke?

Riddle me this...

You know all the "stop smoking" or "truth" adds? Most people are claiming that second hand smoke is more harmfull than first hand.

Do you think this is a true statement? Why do you think this is? Is it a chemical reaction that happends in your lungs?

My buddies thoughts are this...smoke passes two, count them, two filters before it reaches the general public...the filter and the smokers lungs. Maybe one of you can clue us in on a scientific level. Untill then, I will keep performing my own smoking expirements.

Ta ta
Peter Pan
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Originally posted by Peter Pan
Riddle me this...

You know all the "stop smoking" or "truth" adds? Most people are claiming that second hand smoke is more harmfull than first hand.

Do you think this is a true statement? Why do you think this is? Is it a chemical reaction that happends in your lungs?

My buddies thoughts are this...smoke passes two, count them, two filters before it reaches the general public...the filter and the smokers lungs. Maybe one of you can clue us in on a scientific level. Untill then, I will keep performing my own smoking expirements.

Ta ta
Peter Pan
You know how many documented cases of cancer from secondhand smoke exist in the medical journals?


None! LOL!
 
  • #3


Originally posted by Peter Pan My buddies thoughts are this...smoke passes two, count them, two filters before it reaches the general public...the filter and the smokers lungs.
As a former smoker I find that cigarette smoke absolutely stifles me. I cannot tolerate it for long and unless I get away quickly my clothes and skin will smell like rancid smoke and require washing (This does not mean I favor interventionist government policies to force others to conform to my wish not to be around smoke, btw). I find the stench from cigarette smoke lingers much longer on my skin, in my nostrils, and on my clothing than even after I’ve been in a room where someone had been passing gas constantly. Which brings up a point of interest; do you suppose your buddy would feel that the two filters (brief and pants) provide sufficient protection to the general public? After all, if you stink about it, the air coming out from a smoker’s lungs isn’t even filtered by so much as a single article of cloth.

Maybe one of you can clue us in on a scientific level.
The science of it I don’t know.
Untill then, I will keep performing my own smoking expirements.
Me too !
Who knows, we may even meet in a restaurant someday.

expirements?
 
  • #4
I do not want the intention of this post to turn into a pro or non smoking argument. I am sorry if I worded the initial question playfully. I am truly iterested in the science behind second hand smoke being worse for you than first hand.

It just seems silly
 
  • #5
You know how many documented cases of cancer from secondhand smoke exist in the medical journals?

I am not arguing the fact that second had smoke is not harmfull. I just want to know why it is more farmfull than actually taking in the smoke the first time.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by Peter Pan
I am not arguing the fact that second had smoke is not harmfull. I just want to know why it is more farmfull than actually taking in the smoke the first time.
No, see, that is what I am saying: we can document the fact that smoking kills...I have never seen documentation that secondhand smoke in public is harmful.
 
  • #7
Here is the strange and queer argument I once saw on TV for why the second hand smoke is worse: the guy pointed to the smoke drifting up from the end of a lit cigarette in an ashtray and said that this is what the second hand smoker inhaled: completely unfiltered. The smoker, he said, inhaled through the filter, thus getting smoke with less particulate matter.

I wondered how the smoker prevented the smoke that drifted unfiltered into the air in the room from getting into his lungs the same way it got into the second hand smoker's lungs? He didn't explain.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Zero
No, see, that is what I am saying: we can document the fact that smoking kills...I have never seen documentation that secondhand smoke in public is harmful.

--- nor, have I --- the argument can be made that smoking in enclosed unventilated spaces does elevate airborne particulates to levels exceeding EPA targets for outdoor air quality, and indoor air has been pretty much identified as being unfit to breathe regardless of what activities are occurring in it, so, PP's question stands.
 
  • #9
I don't agree that 2nd hand smoke is worse than smoking outright. If someone who doesn't smoke has to endure the smoke from a ciggarrette, then the person who smokes is exposed to the same stuff PLUS the smoke he inhales directly from the ciggarrette.


PS- 1 week of not smoking completed- the battle goes on.
 
  • #10
The heaviest amounts of pollutants would obviously be seen as going into the smoker, who not only inhales directly but likewise breathes everything else anyone around him does. If the second hand smoke was as bad as or worse than what the smoker was inhaling then hospitals should have lots and lots of non smokers dying right alongside the smokers, but something tells me this is not what happens. Therefore, I will boldly proclaim (in my ignorance) that second hand smoke isn’t near as bad as the first hand variety.
 

1. What is second-hand smoke?

Second-hand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke exhaled by a smoker. It can also come from smoke that is trapped in clothing, hair, and furniture.

2. Is second-hand smoke harmful?

Yes, second-hand smoke is harmful. It contains more than 7,000 chemicals, including at least 250 that are known to be toxic or carcinogenic. Breathing in these chemicals can cause serious health problems, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory issues.

3. How does second-hand smoke affect non-smokers?

Non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke are at an increased risk for developing health problems, particularly respiratory issues such as asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia. They may also experience irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, as well as headaches and nausea.

4. Can second-hand smoke cause cancer?

Yes, second-hand smoke can cause cancer. It contains many cancer-causing chemicals, and non-smokers who are exposed to it have a 20-30% increased risk of developing lung cancer. It can also increase the risk of other types of cancer, such as breast and cervical cancer.

5. Can second-hand smoke affect children?

Children are especially vulnerable to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. They may experience more frequent and severe respiratory infections, as well as an increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Children exposed to second-hand smoke are also at a higher risk for developing asthma, ear infections, and other respiratory issues.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
3
Replies
85
Views
8K
Replies
41
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
38K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
8
Replies
266
Views
26K
  • Computing and Technology
2
Replies
44
Views
11K
Back
Top