Cigarette Smoke Smell: Health Hazards & Time Factors

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisdimassi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Smell Smoke
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the health hazards associated with the smell of cigarette smoke residue in environments previously occupied by smokers. Participants explore the potential health risks of secondhand smoke, the persistence of harmful substances over time, and the implications of various studies related to smoking and health.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the lingering smell of cigarette smoke poses a health hazard, with one asserting that it does not qualify as secondhand smoke.
  • Others highlight concerns about formaldehyde and other pollutants in environments with cigarette residue, suggesting these may pose health risks.
  • A participant mentions the potential transfer of radioactive elements from certain tobacco soils into cigarettes, raising questions about the severity of health risks from radioactive particles in smoke residue.
  • There is a discussion about the relationship between smoking rates and lung cancer statistics, with some suggesting that smoking may have protective effects against certain cancers, while others attribute rising cancer rates to dietary factors.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the validity of studies linking secondhand smoke to health issues, citing methodological concerns such as the lack of control groups.
  • One participant notes that residual smoke can be a health problem for individuals with allergies to cigarette smoke.
  • Another participant draws a parallel between tobacco smoke allergies and allergies to other substances, questioning the logic of banning cigarettes based on allergic reactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views regarding the health implications of cigarette smoke residue and secondhand smoke. There is no consensus on whether the smell poses a significant health risk or the validity of studies cited.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the severity of health risks associated with radioactive elements in tobacco and the implications of various studies on secondhand smoke. Methodological limitations in studies are also noted, but not resolved.

  • #31
NoTime said:
That's one of the problems I see.
Originally, there was no cholesterol test you could go to the DR for.

Emphysema was their original complaint on smoking and it was another 10 years or so before someone discovered the genetic connection.
They applied the same "everybody" solution they dreamed up with cholesterol.
Once a genetic test for the original problem was found, did they once again forget to stop?

Once had a GF in The City.
I left one her chairs out on the balcony overnight.
Got the royal ream for that.
Found out why when I went to clean it.
Had to use a solvent to get that crap off.
Good thing it wasn't fabric

Keeping the arteries elastic is probably one of the best preventatives (so they don't develop cracks that need "patching" -one factor that eventually leads to clogged arteries).

Genetics might be part of it but if someone is exposed to a carcinogen long enough, they will get cancer. Genetics might factor in on, say for instance, which type of birth defect the offspring of the Chernobyl accident would get.

Been to NYC only once. Air is so thick you can cut it with a knife and driving there is a nightmare. What killed me was the "Honking: $500 fine". What was everybody doing? You guessed it!
As well as a line of people running the red lights...you literally had to "challenge" opposing cars when you have a green light!

About the movie "Thank you for Smoking":
I couldn't figure out what the real message was. First it looked like it was anti-smoking, then pro-smoking in the name of free will and democratic society. It went to a lot of extremes, jumped around (I guess) to show all sides of the debate.

This is what I think and of course I'm a non-smoker: cigarette smokers can be warned, even nagged about the dangers of smoking but because we do live in a free society, the government should not cross the line and ban smoking. It does not interfere with a person's ability to think or operate machinery as alcohol consumption does.
By the way, the reason why alcohol is not illegal is because it does not impair mental faculties after it has worn off. Certain drugs are illegal and should remain that way because they can have residual effects.

Smokers should be free to smoke outside of public buildings. Freedom to smoke does not mean freedom to pollute someone else's breathing space.
As for the argument about people with obnoxious cologne or hairspray, someone who bathes in cologne will usually cave to ostracization and the dirty looks they are given from people who are allergic or offended. Smokers, on the other hand, absolutely don't give a damn what anyone else thinks and will not give into social pressure to smoke elsewhere. That's why it had to become a law. :D
As far as insurance companies go, they are free to raise a smoker's rates.

It would be tempting to put a "sin tax" on ice cream and other junk foods but food in general is still necessary in order to survive, there is no survival argument for smoking. A cigarette would never save a starving man's life. Ice cream on the other hand, could. Unhealthy as it is in the long run.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
9K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
39K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K