Cigarette smoke smell

  • #26
NoTime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,568
0
First let me thank you for response.
You are the first person to make an attempt to help clear this up for me.
Frankly, I'm just trying to get some idea of the actual validity of all these claims.
I would have to say this is not an easy thing to do.

My overall impression.
The medical industry can not cure heart diease or most cancers.
So rather than just say this, they tag on to something like cholesteral and give the impression that they are doing something by telling you to change your diet.

I once saw in a respected journal the comment to the effect "Diet has no significant effect on blood cholesteral levels"
My blood tests show just fine despite all the things I eat that are on the "It will kill you list" :uhh:

It's all about trust.
If you might have noticed in other theads, I don't think much of what I call the "illusion of safety".

Moonbear said:
NoTime, you're arguing nonsense. There is no difference between first hand smoke and second hand smoke...it's all smoke coming from the same cigarette.
True enough, there is however a huge difference in effective dose.

Moonbear said:
And yes, there IS a difference between smoke from burning wood and smoke from a cigarette, and that's the nicotine content. Tar is also an additive to cigarettes. It is NOT healthy to inhale smoke from ANY source, so I don't know where you're trying to go with any argument that it would be safe.
They sell nicotine over the counter to anyone who cares to buy it, since I had the occasion to read the box, there are no particular warning labels on it.
The problem seems to be strictly related to the smoke as you note.
It would be my understanding that tar is a combustion product, not an additive.

In general I will agree that smoke is not good for you.
This seems clear enough.

OTOH, there are a lot of sources of smoke.
I've never been driven out of the house by a smoker, but I have been driven out of various houses by the fireplace. I can also readily smell smokers, wood stoves, and fireplaces.
They all smell about the same to me but the latter two much more intense.

Since i am exposed, on a regular basis to fireplaces and wood stoves, with what I would say is greater exposure than anything I ever got at the folks house.
Should I be concerned?
If so, why isn't this being publicized? :confused:
I'm guessing that any worry I might express might be more dangerous than than the problem.
Worry, is after all, something I've seen as a health risk too.
So is this right or wrong?

Also the data I've seen on car exhaust, makes second hand smoke look like a fresh breeze.
No warnings on this effect either.
Unlike smoking reports, I did see exposure/response curves here.
I put in 50k to 60k miles a year, about 5 times what the average person might do.

So tell me whats up with that?
In other words, why should I be even remotely concerned about this cigarette issue when I'm commonly exposed to things that seem much more likely to have a far larger effect?
And why are these things not being mentioned? :confused:
Are they trying to give me a warm fuzzy with the smoking thing while ignoring major issues? :grumpy:

Moonbear said:
I hardly would expect a site called "Smoker's Club" to provide an unbiased review of literature on the subject.
The World Health Organization, one of the links on this page, does not strike me as a tool of the American tobbaco industry or the AMA for that matter.
Most of what I know of the subject comes from what I see in actual journals and the numbers look reasonably consitant with what I've seen before or the one abstract you show that included numbers.
This link is the first item you get when you type smoking studies into Google. :smile:
 
  • #27
NoTime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,568
0
chrisdimassi said:
Insurance companies know their stuff. They are unbiased because their bottom line is profit.
That's my take on it.
Barring the obvious emphysema connection.
Would their numbers be much different?
My guess is no.
Knowing those numbers would go a long way to answering my questions on this matter.
 
  • #28
NoTime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,568
0
Ouabache said:
I'm allergic to the fungal saprophytes that colonize the tobacco as it cures in the drying barns.

Your guess about firewood is partially true, however I'm not allergic to the wood but to the fungi that colonize the wood as they season. In both cases, I'm inhaling fungal allergens that become airborne when burned. I don't have an allergic reaction to smoke from unseasoned firewood.
Interesting.
So at least in principal, fireplaces and smoking can be considered similar?

BTW, how are you getting unseasoned firewood to burn?
 
  • #29
NoTime said:
First let me thank you for response.
You are the first person to make an attempt to help clear this up for me.
Frankly, I'm just trying to get some idea of the actual validity of all these claims.
I would have to say this is not an easy thing to do.
My overall impression.
The medical industry can not cure heart disease or most cancers.
So rather than just say this, they tag on to something like cholesterol and give the impression that they are doing something by telling you to change your diet.
I once saw in a respected journal the comment to the effect "Diet has no significant effect on blood cholesterol levels"
My blood tests show just fine despite all the things I eat that are on the "It will kill you list" :uhh:
It's all about trust.
If you might have noticed in other threads, I don't think much of what I call the "illusion of safety".

I don't know any more than anyone else here. Less, actually (which is why I asked the question here).
I am a non-smoker and I don't think anyone wants to force smokers to quit smoking, it's just that it needs to be done outside or an extremely well-ventilated room away from the air intake vent(s).

I do think that they haven't really gotten to the bottom of certain health issues (cholesterol being a good example of that, supposedly cholesterol is ironically involved in patching up weak areas of arteries yet when it and calcium, etc harden, they form dangerous plaque) but like any theory of science, the best guess or the latest findings of the day are what they have to go by.


NoTime said:
They sell nicotine over the counter to anyone who cares to buy it, since I had the occasion to read the box, there are no particular warning labels on it.
The problem seems to be strictly related to the smoke as you note.
It would be my understanding that tar is a combustion product, not an additive.

I wouldn't be so sure that chewing tobacco doesn't harm the body. I think there is a higher incident of mouth and throat cancer with chawing.

NoTime said:
OTOH, there are a lot of sources of smoke.
I've never been driven out of the house by a smoker, but I have been driven out of various houses by the fireplace. I can also readily smell smokers, wood stoves, and fireplaces.
They all smell about the same to me but the latter two much more intense.

That smoke might be harmful too but at least there is not the added harm of what's in tobacco. If the smoke goes straight up the chimney, that's helpful and homes with fireplaces don't generally have that same kind of lingering aftersmell that cigarettes do.
As a nonsmoker, there is nothing worse than being in a rental car when someone smoked in it.


NoTime said:
Since i am exposed, on a regular basis to fireplaces and wood stoves, with what I would say is greater exposure than anything I ever got at the folks house.
Should I be concerned?
If so, why isn't this being publicized? :confused:

Good question. With pollution from companies, it's too bad that the EPA doesn't nail them harder than they do. Everyone "feels" okay because, unlike smoke in a house, it's usually harder to detect pollution after it is diluted with outdoor air. Money seems to make a lot of people look the other way.
However, I can tell you that there is a BIG difference from breathing NYC's air and breathing a small town in Texas' air. No doubt that stuff is killing people/shortening life spans.


NoTime said:
In other words, why should I be even remotely concerned about this cigarette issue when I'm commonly exposed to things that seem much more likely to have a far larger effect?
And why are these things not being mentioned? :confused:
Are they trying to give me a warm fuzzy with the smoking thing while ignoring major issues? :grumpy:

We should be concerned with all of it. Logic requires, however, that we do what we can and smoking outside is certainly something that we can do.

Let's cut Moonbear some slack. Smokers can sometimes be very indignant and outright arrogant. Not all but...
it's more than once that I can recall someone lighting up in the non-smoking area of a restaurant.
Even if you were there first, they expect YOU to get up and leave!! And will many times even tell you so!

So someone who appears to be swinging a pro-smoking axe can be difficult not to get frustrated with.
There's always two sides of a story.

I will talk about the movie "Thank you for smoking" when I get around to it. I thought there was no point to the movie after I watched it but after reflecting, it does make a person think.
 
  • #30
NoTime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,568
0
chrisdimassi said:
The best guess or the latest findings of the day are what they have to go by.
That's one of the problems I see.
Originally, there was no cholesterol test you could go to the DR for.
I also understand that diet can be helpful for people with a cholesterol problem, like the diabetes diet.
They got the idea that since they couldn't tell who had a problem, then get everybody to go on the diet :rolleyes:
With a bureaucracy, once a process is in place, hell will freeze over before change occurs.
They never were willing to say nevermind, once it was possible to test people.

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?

chrisdimassi said:
I wouldn't be so sure that chewing tobacco doesn't harm the body. I think there is a higher incident of mouth and throat cancer with chawing.
I was thinking of the gum.

chrisdimassi said:
That smoke might be harmful too but at least there is not the added harm of what's in tobacco. If the smoke goes straight up the chimney, that's helpful and homes with fireplaces don't generally have that same kind of lingering aftersmell that cigarettes do.
This might be just me.
I think the residual on fireplaces is worse.

chrisdimassi said:
However, I can tell you that there is a BIG difference from breathing NYC's air and breathing a small town in Texas' air.
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 :yuck:

chrisdimassi said:
Let's cut Moonbear some slack.
Moonbear is cool.
I always find her worth reading.

chrisdimassi said:
I will talk about the movie "Thank you for smoking" when I get around to it.
:rofl:
 
  • #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 :yuck:

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 in to 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.
 

Related Threads on Cigarette smoke smell

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
841
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
20K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Top