A question about Smokers Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr. Robin Parsons
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Blood
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the safety of blood donated by smokers, questioning why blood transfusion agencies accept it despite the known risks associated with secondhand smoke. Participants highlight the paradox of allowing smokers to donate blood while acknowledging the harmful substances present in their system. The conversation also touches on the societal implications of smoking bans in public spaces, particularly in the Netherlands, and the perceived health risks of secondhand smoke compared to environmental pollutants.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of blood donation regulations and safety standards
  • Knowledge of the health effects of smoking and secondhand smoke
  • Familiarity with public health policies regarding smoking
  • Awareness of environmental health issues related to air quality
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the criteria for blood donation eligibility in various countries
  • Examine studies on the health effects of secondhand smoke versus environmental pollutants
  • Investigate public health campaigns related to smoking cessation and blood donation
  • Explore the impact of smoking bans on public health outcomes in urban areas
USEFUL FOR

Public health officials, medical professionals, policymakers, and individuals interested in the implications of smoking on health and blood donation practices.

Mr. Robin Parsons
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
0
A question about Smokers Blood...

Saw a very interesting question raised, in the local paper, the other day. Why is it that Blood transfusion Agencies allow smokers to donate blood, and it is considered "transfusably 'safe' blood", (means it's just fine to put it into you) when it has all those little "nasties" that you hear about existing in Second Hand Smoke?

Anyone for a little Truth V Propaganda...cause you can smoke a carton of cigarettes (only and in your entire lifetime) and, assuredly, unless you are the exception to the regularity of the rules, (alergic to nicotine, as example) it will not kill you, but sending smokers outside, into the Canadian Fridgid Air will, Garanteed Hasten your demise!
 
Biology news on Phys.org


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Saw a very interesting question raised, in the local paper, the other day. Why is it that Blood transfusion Agencies allow smokers to donate blood, and it is considered "transfusably 'safe' blood", (means it's just fine to put it into you) when it has all those little "nasties" that you hear about existing in Second Hand Smoke?
Because smoker's blood is better than no blood at all?

Anyone for a little Truth V Propaganda...cause you can smoke a carton of cigarettes (only and in your entire lifetime) and, assuredly, unless you are the exception to the regularity of the rules, (alergic to nicotine, as example) it will not kill you, but sending smokers outside, into the Canadian Fridgid Air will, Garanteed Hasten your demise!
Well, it is a personal choice to smoke. I don't know all the details of second hand smoke, and how the damage compares with gasoline fumes coming out of the exhaust of cars or scooters, but I sure know I don't like to be standing in them :)

In the Netherlands they have recently banned smoking in trains (before there were separate cabins) and on stations, with the exception around specially placed pillars. It looks rather pathetic to see all these smokers running to the pillar in between trains, hustling together in a big cloud of grey/blueish opaque fumes, with the occasional smoker venturing out of the territorium claiming independence, shortely there after being ticketed for challenging the system..
 
Don't agree with smoking either, even though I am addicted to the stuff...but wondered about just how much was present, in the blood, from one cigarette, or even sustained smoking, contributes how much to the blood gases? and the other constituent 'particles' that constitute Human blood?

Compared to second hand smoke?...while living in a city, back in the late Ninties, it was on both radio, and TV, that people shouldn't be riding bicycles, in traffic, due to the smog being more damaging to the lungs, then the benefits of the exercise...so??
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
40K