A question about Smokers Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr. Robin Parsons
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Blood
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the question of why blood transfusion agencies permit smokers to donate blood, despite concerns about the harmful substances associated with secondhand smoke. Participants express curiosity about the safety of smoker's blood, suggesting that it is still considered transfusably safe, possibly because it is better than having no blood available. There is a debate about the health implications of smoking, with some arguing that occasional smoking may not be lethal, while others highlight the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke and environmental pollutants. The conversation also touches on smoking regulations in places like the Netherlands, where smoking is restricted in public areas, prompting reflections on the societal perception of smoking and its health impacts. Overall, the thread raises questions about the balance between personal choice and public health in the context of smoking and blood donation.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Messages
1,243
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 independance, 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 excersize...so??
 
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...

Similar threads

Back
Top