Secondhand Smoke

  • Medical
  • Thread starter SpeedOfDark
  • Start date
  • #1
SpeedOfDark
52
0
I'll give you all something to be skeptical about, because secondhand smoke is bogus.

Where did the assumption of secondhand smoke start?

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

The EPA went to court for this "study" because they downright lied and wrongfully claimed that secondhand smoke was a known human carcinogen.

This guy here who might be slightly radical about debunking, but some of the ideas he uses against it might be thought about and apparently he understands number so he deserves some credit.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

The Case of them Losing
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf

The reason they lied is because they adjusted the confidence interval to trick people and absolutely cherry picked data they wanted.

Heartland.org speaks out against this

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22150/Wheres_the_Consensus_on_Secondhand_Smoke.html

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/...ence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html


A prominent and very well done study that goes against Secondhand smoke, please read it very carefully and note the extensiveness of the study

40 years and over 100,000 people took part in this study and it's conclusion is that second hand smoke has no long term effects and is not carcinogenic
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full


Anyone who would like to combat this information with Secondhand Smoke being carcinogenic please show me a study or something that cites studies.While you may use a "conclusion" by the National Cancer Society or one of those institutions to have me explain to you how there lying it should be pretty obvious by the fact that they cite the EPA study on secondhand smoke. Why would you use a study that was proven to be lying if you yourself weren't planning on lying?

Any takers, any REAL Skeptics?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
So you've never been to a bar and had your eyes water and start coughing because people were smoking there?

Btw, there seems to be a logic problem with your post: it is my understanding that chemicals/substances are determined to be carcinogens, so either cigarette smoke is carcinogenic or not. Whether it is smoked or inhaled second-hand isn't relevant.
 
  • #3
SpeedOfDark
52
0
First off, have you even looked at the evidence I've presented? Also, I'm glad that you brought up this point a lot of these "studies" want you to overlook one of the main principles of toxicology stated by Paracelsus, The Father of Toxicology it goes as follows " It is the dose that makes the poison."

http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html [Broken]

So therefore yes something that causes cancer can cause cancer, UV rays are carcinogens that doesn't mean THEY HAVE TO GIVE YOU CANCER or even that they will if you use sun block you take small amounts of UV rays.

Aspirin helps you, if you take a lot you die.
Rat Poison will kill you, if you take a very minute dose you will still be entirely okay. As a matter of fact you can train yourself to build up immunities to higher doses.


They put Chlorine in our drinking water, in VERY small amounts it is not harmful. This is the same concept. I don't know what watering eyes and coughing have to do with anything, all my friends smoke and I don't my eyes don't water and I don't cough when they're around me and they smoke in my room and it can be as smokey as a bar and I don't cough and my eyes don't water. Besides no one said second hand smoke wasn't irritating.

That solves you're problem of my logic.

It's entirely ignorant of you to say what you said especially when people are saying it is carcinogenic and there's a study right there that says it's not and has factual evidence to support it an entire study that they conducted not hand picked from other studies.

...and to finish this off, would you please show me a study that shows Second Hand Smoke causes cancer in humans?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
First off, have you even looked at the evidence I've presented?
Yes.
Also, I'm glad that you brought up this point a lot of these "studies" want you to overlook one of the main principles of toxicology stated by Paracelsus, The Father of Toxicology it goes as follows " It is the dose that makes the poison."

http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html [Broken]

Aspirin helps you, if you take a lot you die. Rat Poison will kill you, if you take a very minute dose you will still be entirely okay.
Um, that guy lived before science was even invented, much less the word "carcinogen". A carcinogen is a chemical that causes cancer. Not a poison/toxin. You're mixing-up the definitions of the words you are using.
That solves you're problem of my logic.
Nope. Besides the above misuse of words, you also cast way too wide and narrow a net at the same time: being carcinogenic is not the only problem with second-hand smoke. It has clear-cut acute respiratory effects.
...and to finish this off, would you please show me a study that shows Second Hand Smoke causes cancer in humans?
Why should I? You already did!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Jery
13
0
If cigarette is lit and left to burn, is the smoke given off not just as carcinogenic as what would have been inhaled through the cigarette? It seems that this same smoke would fall under 'secondhand'. So a percentage of secondhand smoke is the same (or worse if you think a filter somehow helps..) as smoking yourself.
 
  • #6
SpeedOfDark
52
0
If cigarette is lit and left to burn, is the smoke given off not just as carcinogenic as what would have been inhaled through the cigarette? It seems that this same smoke would fall under 'secondhand'. So a percentage of secondhand smoke is the same (or worse if you think a filter somehow helps..) as smoking yourself.

Says you? Prove it, you're only saying that because what you have been told. There is no scientific proof for this, but there is scientific prove against this. If you directly inhale smoke into your lungs you are breathing in the smoke and the carcinogens in it at AN EXCEPTIONALLY HIGHER RATE.

If you want to be a skeptic look at this evidence and show me proof against it, a see what you're saying and understand but what I'm saying is that it's not. All cigarete smoke is exactly the same as far as I know, but you don't breath as much in unless you're directly inhaling on the butt and this goes hand in hand with "The Dose makes the poison." Chlorine is deadly, however when it's put in tap water isn't it still just as deadly? Yes it's equally as deadly, you're just not taking even close enough to make it deadly. We take in poisons everyday at very low rates and that's why they're not poisons(they're entirely harmless).
 
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
If cigarette is lit and left to burn, is the smoke given off not just as carcinogenic as what would have been inhaled through the cigarette? It seems that this same smoke would fall under 'secondhand'. So a percentage of secondhand smoke is the same (or worse if you think a filter somehow helps..) as smoking yourself.
Correct: as far as the components of the smoke go, second-hand smoke from the cigarette (as opposed to what is exhaled by smokers) is worse than what the smokers inhale. That's in the first link from the OP.
 
  • #8
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
Says you? Prove it, you're only saying that because what you have been told. There is no scientific proof for this, but there is scientific prove against this.
SpeedoOfDark, you linked us to a study that discusses this and then used blogs to refute it. Don't you see the contradiction in your demands vs your claims? Do you have studies that prove your point?

Heck, the wiki for second-hand smoke details all of this and links a laundry-list of studies. This is easy and the reality is obvious. What's more interesting to me is the secondary stories, such as the research done by the tobacco companies that they subsequently covered-up. For example:
The tobacco industry maintained, for many years, that it was unaware of research about the toxic effects of smoking. By the 1970s, however, the industry decided that it needed this information but they were unwilling to seek it in a way that was open to public scrutiny. By means of material from internal industry documents it can be revealed that one company, Philip Morris, acquired a research facility, INBIFO, in Germany and created a complex mechanism seeking to ensure that the work done in the facility could not be linked to Philip Morris. In particular it involved the appointment of a Swedish professor as a ‘co-ordinator’, who would synthesise reports for onward transmission to the USA. Various arrangements were made to conceal this process, not only from the wider public, but also from many within Philip Morris, although it was known to some senior executives. INBIFO appears to have published only a small amount of its research and what was published appears to differ considerably from what was not. In particular, the unpublished reports provided evidence of the greater toxicity of sidestream than mainstream smoke*, a finding of particular relevance given the industry's continuing denial of the harmful effects of passive smoking. By contrast, much of its published work comprises papers that convey a message that could be considered useful to the industry, in particular casting doubt on methods used to assess the effects of passive smoking.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)66474-4/fulltext

*"sidestream" smoke is second-hand smoke that hasn't gone through the filter.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
SpeedOfDark
52
0
Yes. Um, that guy lived before science was even invented, much less the word "carcinogen". A carcinogen is a chemical that causes cancer. Not a poison/toxin. You're mixing-up the definitions of the words you are using. Nope. Besides the above misuse of words, you also cast way too wide and narrow a net at the same time: being carcinogenic is not the only problem with second-hand smoke. It has clear-cut acute respiratory effects.
Why should I? You already did!

First off, Well actually he started "Toxicology" and that principle is still followed today, apparently by Yale.

If you would like to disagree please show me someone or an organization who has medical proffesionals who disagree, cause last time I checked you're not a doctor.

Secondly, something that causes cancer, a carcinogen is a poison/toxin not even sure why you would say that.

Apparently it's a toxic chemical there a toxin, and the key principle applies to not just poison but also all things because what he's saying is that ALL THINGS ARE TOXIC AT THE RIGHT DOSE and things that are generally toxic can be safe at very very low doses.

http://www.cardiologytoday.com/view.aspx?rid=42047


Lastly, please show me a study of the "clear-cut" respiratory effects if they're so clear cut then you could show me a study please show me a study.

I just don't get what's so hard about proving things? Why can't you show me real evidence? Is it that hard to find studies of your clear cut evidence?

Keep in mind, you still have yet to explain why my study has the conclusions it does unless there samplin size was to small or not over enough time?
 
  • #10
SpeedOfDark
52
0
SpeedoOfDark, you linked us to a study that discusses this and then used blogs to refute it. Don't you see the contradiction in your demands vs your claims? Do you have studies that prove your point?

Heck, the wiki for second-hand smoke details all of this and links a laundry-list of studies. This is easy and the reality is obvious. What's more interesting to me is the secondary stories, such as the research done by the tobacco companies that they subsequently covered-up. For example:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)66474-4/fulltext

*"sidestream" smoke is second-hand smoke that hasn't gone through the filter.


The first study is where it all started, and an entirely bogus study.

You need to read this

http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full

a real study.

Also that website, with that one paragraph conclusion by some guy? I want factual evidence that it's dangerous, a study not what some random guy thinks...
 
  • #11
collinsmark
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,131
1,885
So you've never been to a bar and had your eyes water and start coughing because people were smoking there?
I certainly have.

Presently I live in an area where no smoking is allowed indoors, even in bars. But sometimes when traveling I might hang out in a smoky bar for an evening, and later when blowing my nose that night or the next day, the evidence of being in such a bar is literally in front of my face. :smile:

But...
it is my understanding that chemicals/substances are determined to be carcinogens, so either cigarette smoke is carcinogenic or not. Whether it is smoked or inhaled second-hand isn't relevant.
I think the distinction is relevant; particularly when it concerns health effects (as opposed to just an annoyance).

At the risk of using a possibly flaky analogy, allow me to present this: ingesting too much sodium-chloride (salt) will cause a health risk such as imminent death, if the dosage is large enough. Eat too much salt (say, buckets of salt in one sitting), and you will die. Cutting back on the salt a bit, at least enough such that it doesn't immediately kill you (but still a consistent, relatively high dose per day), and over time you can still suffer from heart problems, kidney problems, and other long term health effects. One might conclude from this that salt is bad for the human body, and that consuming zero grams of salt forever after is best. But that logic is flawed. Humans need some sodium to survive. Cutting out all salt from one's diet (even the salt that would naturally be present in other foods), will kill you too.

Radioactivity is probably a better analogy. Too much radiation has been shown to cause both short term and long term health risks. But the relationship is significantly nonlinear. If the radiation dosage is small enough (but still higher than zero), no negative health effects are observed either short-term or long-term.

So when looking at the heath risks of some substance (the particular topic here is Environmental Tobacco Smoke [ETS]), it is necessary to perform epidemiological studies and examine said studies to determine the health risks. Just because a particular substance may be harmful at high doses, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a little harmful in little doses. Sometimes, for some things, if the dose is small enough, it is no harm at all.

This thread has piqued my interest. I would like to see people obliging SpeedOfDark by presenting references to competing studies (that don't simply reference the EPA report), or debunking previously referenced studies.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
SpeedOfDark
52
0
I certainly have.

Presently I live in an area where no smoking is allowed indoors, even in bars. But sometimes when traveling I might hang out in a smoky bar for an evening, and later when blowing my nose that night or the next day, the evidence of being in such a bar is literally in front of my face. :smile:

But...

I think the distinction is relevant; particularly when it concerns health effects (as opposed to just an annoyance).

At the risk of using a possibly flaky analogy, allow me to present this: ingesting too much sodium-chloride (salt) will cause a health risk such as imminent death, if the dosage is large enough. Eat too much salt (say, buckets of salt in one sitting), and you will die. Cutting back on the salt a bit, at least enough such that it doesn't immediately kill you (but still a consistent, relatively high dose per day), and over time you can still suffer from heart problems, kidney problems, and other long term health effects. One might conclude from this that salt is bad for the human body, and that consuming zero grams of salt forever after is best. But that logic is flawed. Humans need some sodium to survive. Cutting out all salt from one's diet (even the salt that would naturally be present in other foods), will kill you too.

Radioactivity is probably a better analogy. Too much radiation has been shown to cause both short term and long term health risks. But the relationship is significantly nonlinear. If the radiation dosage is small enough (but still higher than zero), no negative health effects are observed either short-term or long-term.

So when looking at the heath risks of smoking (the particular topic here is [Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)]), it is necessary to perform epidemiological studies and examine said studies to determine the health risks. Just because a particular substance may be harmful at high doses, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a little harmful in little doses. Sometimes, for some things, if the dose is small enough, it is no harm at all.

This thread has peaked my interest. I would like to see people obliging SpeedOfDark by presenting references to competing studies (that don't simply reference the EPA study), or debunking previously referenced studies.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, I've tried to debate this with people ranging from Anatomy Teachers, friends, and family. Even if you don't believe, I don't care you truly are a good skeptic and you probably just made me the happiest person of the week possibly the month. I kid you not the stress of having no one believe me, or even consider it by challenging the questions in which I pose for them to answer has driven me nearly mad.

To the rest of you I hope his words will drive you all to seek out a real study, and not just tell me what you believe.

Here's my main problem with the whole "Second-Hand Smoke" thing, when they ban smoking in public places it annoys me but the government can do what it wants even though I'm annoyed that they pass legistlation on entirely bogus claims. What annoys me even more is when the government passes legistlation and tells PRIVATE Corporations and businesses what they can and can't do in there store.

Also, what annoys me more than anything and I MEAN almost anything is all the "600,000" thousand deaths they attribute to Second hand Smoke. If there's no scientific evidence for it, those people deserve to have the true reason they died be researched and funded so that no more people will die from what they died from, because it's not SecondHand smoke.
 
  • #13
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
I think the distinction is relevant; particularly when it concerns health effects (as opposed to just an annoyance).
Note, I'm well aware that dosage is critical for determining how harmful a substance is. My point was strictly relating to the OP's claim that dosage has an impact on whether something is classified a carcinogen or not. And also note, the study linked by the OP does not claim that second-hand smoke causes as many illnesses/deaths as firsthand.

So for clarity:

1. Second-hand smoke is a carcinogen.
2. Second-hand smoke causes acute respiratory effects.
3. Second-hand smoke is not as harmful as first-hand smoke.
 
  • #14
SpeedOfDark
52
0
Note, I'm well aware that dosage is critical for determining how harmful a substance is. My point was strictly relating to the OP's claim that dosage has an impact on whether something is classified a carcinogen or not. And also note, the study linked by the OP does not claim that second-hand smoke causes as many illnesses/deaths as firsthand.

So for clarity:

1. Second-hand smoke is a carcinogen.
2. Second-hand smoke causes acute respiratory effects.
3. Second-hand smoke is not as harmful as first-hand smoke.

Right but you must understand that the first study I'm against it's the last one I'm for you need to re examine what I'm saying. Secondly Second-Hand smoke isn't harmful at all, and that's the point I'm trying to convey.

Secondly, now a days they're trying to say that secondhand smoke kills 600,000 people compared to the 400,000 who die from direct smoking. That study was in 1993 and it was IS MOST DEFINETLY BOGUS. However, it's lead to further more seriously disturbing assumptions.

and lastly you most definetly and clearly were trying to discredit the whole "Dose makes the poison," it was very obvious and blatant if i were you I would just say I said that but I resent saying it and take it all back. I never disagreed that it was a carcinogen, simply that carcinogens don't get to break the golden rule of toxicology.

Smoking is dangerous for you very dangerous for you and gives you a very high-risk of getting cancer. Don't take me for some conspiracy theorist I may be young, I may type awfully but I'm very good at examining evidence and making rational conclusions.
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
Secondly, something that causes cancer, a carcinogen is a poison/toxin not even sure why you would say that.

http://www.cardiologytoday.com/view.aspx?rid=42047
When that link says "carcinogens and toxic chemicals", it is saying it contains both, not that they are one and the same.

carcinogen: any substance or agent that tends to produce a cancer.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carcinogen

toxin: "any poison produced by an organism, characterized by antigenicity in certain animals and high molecular weight, and including the bacterial toxins that are the causative agents of tetanus, diphtheria, etc., and such plant and animal toxins as ricin and snake venom."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/toxin

Lastly, please show me a study of the "clear-cut" respiratory effects if they're so clear cut then you could show me a study please show me a study.
Again, you already provided such a study. But I'm actually more interested in whether you have personally noticed these effects. Have you? I'm trying to ascertain your connection to reality. Or perhaps you're just a smoker so you can't separate the acute effects of walking into a smoke-filled bar from those of your own smoking?
Keep in mind, you still have yet to explain why my study has the conclusions it does unless there samplin size was to small or not over enough time?
I don't know why that study doesn't fit what other studies have shown, but it references those other sudies in it and it is not the mainstream view.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
Secondly Second-Hand smoke isn't harmful at all, and that's the point I'm trying to convey.
Yes, I'm well aware that you're making multiple separate claims and I'm glad you highlighted that one because that's the easiest one to debunk. It's so absurd it almost doesn't require a response, however you directly contradicted it here:
ALL THINGS ARE TOXIC AT THE RIGHT DOSE
So all things are toxic at the right dose....except for second-hand smoke?

C'mon. this is just silly.
 
  • #17
collinsmark
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,131
1,885
as far as the components of the smoke go, second-hand smoke from the cigarette (as opposed to what is exhaled by smokers) is worse than what the smokers inhale.
(bold emphasis mine.)

Actually, the smoker inhales the second-hand smoke too. Everybody in the room inhales the second-hand smoke, smokers included.
  • Smoker: "First hand" smoke plus environmental tobacco smoke [ETS].
  • Nonsmoker: ETS only.

[Edit: By the way, let me state this up front: I'm not claiming that ETS is not harmful. Nor am I claiming that it is. (At least not in this thread anyway.) I'm just interested in the studies that make claims on either side of the issue, and hearing criticisms/debunking of any of them.]
 
  • #18
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
btw, the wiki has a section on your preferred study:
Industry-funded studies and critiques[edit] Enstrom and KabatA 2003 study by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the British Medical Journal, argued that the harms of passive smoking had been overstated.[106] Their analysis reported no statistically significant relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer, though the accompanying editorial noted that "they may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings."[107] This paper was widely promoted by the tobacco industry as evidence that the harms of passive smoking were unproven.[108][109] The American Cancer Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data, criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom and Kabat's methodology prior to publication.[110] Notably, the study had failed to identify a comparison group of "unexposed" persons.[111]

Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment... in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."[112] In a US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke."[113] The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center for Indoor Air Research,[114] a tobacco industry front group tasked with "offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip Morris[115] who stated that Ernstrom's work was "clearly litigation-oriented."[116] Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms "illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it."[117]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Industry-funded_studies_and_critiques
 
  • #19
russ_watters
Mentor
21,608
8,728
(bold emphasis mine.)

Actually, the smoker inhales the second-hand smoke too. Everybody in the room inhales the second-hand smoke, smokers included.
  • Smoker: "First hand" smoke plus environmental tobacco smoke [ETS].
  • Nonsmoker: ETS only.
Yes, but since the vast majority of the smoke the smoker inhlaes is direct, the vast majority of the health effects are from that smoke.
 
  • #20
SpeedOfDark
52
0
btw, the wiki has a section on your preferred study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Industry-funded_studies_and_critiques

Okay, I read that and if you were the Tobacco Industry wouldn't you pick this up? I would what you said doesn't discredit the study, just because the Tobacco Industry is an "evil" corporation doesn't mean that the facts these guys present are wrong.

If I had a study that showed that WalMart was paying a fairly better wage then most other sweat shops in third world countries should I not tell the truth just because I don't like the beneficiary?

To tell you the truth isn't smoking cigarretes a choice you make, and I'm for the Tobacco Industry and Wal-Mart what they do is really just the end product of capitalism and I think it's wonderful that they have products that they can regulate and that people WILLINGLY buy. Man, that's why I love America

Adolf Hitlers main physician and all of the Scientist who worked under the Nazi Regime weren't bad doctors or bad scientists and their work isn't bogus simply because of who it supported.
 
  • #21
18,754
8,803
that people WILLINGLY buy. Man, that's why I love America

One can argue that once a person is a addicted, they are no longer a willing participant. Tobacco companies give people the ability to start smoking, but take away the ability to stop. I would bet most smokers would like to quit if they had the will power to fight the addiction, what is the upside to smoking? Of course that is opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
SpeedOfDark
52
0
One can argue that once a person is a addicted they are no longer a willing participant. I would bet most smokers would like to quit if they had the will power to fight the addiction, what is the upside to smoking? Of course that is opinion.

One can argue that they are no longer a willing participant once they are addicted but if somebody quit smoking then ANYBODY can quit smoking.

Yeah you're right quitting smoking isn't easy, but nothing is stopping anyone from quitting and nothing is forcing them and nothing did force them to buy their first pack or their ten thousandth.

Also, there isn't an upside of smoking which is a reason not to start but if you do THATS YOUR FAULT. You weren't addicted to cigarretes before you started smoking so unless the tobacco company is drugging us before we even start smoking then guess what they're doing nothing wrong except for showing us how great capitalism really is.
 
  • #23
18,754
8,803
One can argue that they are no longer a willing participant once they are addicted but if somebody quit smoking then ANYBODY can quit smoking.

Michael Jordan dunked from the free throw line. If he did it, ANYBODY can do it.

Also, there isn't an upside of smoking which is a reason not to start but if you do THATS YOUR FAULT. You weren't addicted to cigarretes before you started smoking so unless the tobacco company is drugging us before we even start smoking then guess what they're doing nothing wrong except for showing us how great capitalism really is.
Given cig packs have proper labeling now, you are right. People have been sufficiently warned.

Let's get back on topic now :)
 
  • #24
SpeedOfDark
52
0
Michael Jordan dunked from the free throw line. If he did it, ANYBODY can do it.


Given cig packs have proper labeling now, you are right. People have been sufficiently warned.

Let's get back on topic now :)

No problem sorry, but may I state that no not anybody can do it our physiology makes us very different from michael jordon. The claim that an addiction takes away your willpower can easily be disproven though by the fact that I stated.

Though if you had people exact replicas of Michael Jordans anatomy and physiology then yes your theory should hold.

[Edit: Thanks for moving this, I think it will pick up a bit more interest in this forums]
 
Last edited:
  • #25
turbo
Gold Member
3,147
55
Right but you must understand that the first study I'm against it's the last one I'm for you need to re examine what I'm saying. Secondly Second-Hand smoke isn't harmful at all, and that's the point I'm trying to convey.
There is absolutely no way that you can support this assertion. Frankly, I'm surprised that Russ hasn't locked this thread.
 
  • #27
SpeedOfDark
52
0
There is absolutely no way that you can support this assertion. Frankly, I'm surprised that Russ hasn't locked this thread.

You're being ridiculous, I put up a study that clearly SUPPORTS THIS ASSERTION.

Also second-hand smoke is harmful, please support this assertion. Don't worry there's a reason I'm so confident and that's because there isn't one study NOT ONE that shows that secondhand smoke is harmful.

Please, someone show me a study or just admit that you can't find one.

Besides, assuming something doesn't exist is the natural order of things not assuming it does. This argument would be like everyone believing in Big Foot then me saying he's not real and everyone saying there's no proof to back this up when the proof is in the fact that there is no proof to show he is real.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Evo
Mentor
23,555
3,250
You're being ridiculous, I put up a study that clearly SUPPORTS THIS ASSERTION.

Also second-hand smoke is harmful, please support this assertion. Don't worry there's a reason I'm so confident and that's because there isn't one study NOT ONE that shows that secondhand smoke is harmful.

Please, someone show me a study or just admit that you can't find one.

Besides, assuming something doesn't exist is the natural order of things not assuming it does. This argument would be like everyone believing in Big Foot then me saying he's not real and everyone saying there's no proof to back this up when the proof is in the fact that there is no proof to show he is real.
Here you go. This contains links to all of the studies cited

Key Points

Secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke, involuntary smoke, and passive smoke) is the smoke given off by a burning tobacco product and the smoke exhaled by a smoker (see Question 1).

At least 69 chemicals in secondhand smoke are known to cause cancer (see Question 3).

Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers (see Question 4).

Secondhand smoke has also been associated with heart disease in adults and sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections, and asthma attacks in children (see Question 5).

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke (see Question 6).

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS#r4

And here is a brand new (Nov 2010) peer reviewed paper in The Lancet.

Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries

Original TextMattias Öberg PhD a, Prof Maritta S Jaakkola PhD b, Prof Alistair Woodward PhD c, Armando Peruga DrPH d, Dr Annette Prüss-Ustün PhD d

Summary

Background

Exposure to second-hand smoke is common in many countries but the magnitude of the problem worldwide is poorly described. We aimed to estimate the worldwide exposure to second-hand smoke and its burden of disease in children and adult non-smokers in 2004.

Methods

The burden of disease from second-hand smoke was estimated as deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for children and adult non-smokers. The calculations were based on disease-specific relative risk estimates and area-specific estimates of the proportion of people exposed to second-hand smoke, by comparative risk assessment methods, with data from 192 countries during 2004.

Findings

Worldwide, 40% of children, 33% of male non-smokers, and 35% of female non-smokers were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004. This exposure was estimated to have caused 379 000 deaths from ischaemic heart disease, 165 000 from lower respiratory infections, 36 900 from asthma, and 21 400 from lung cancer. 603 000 deaths were attributable to second-hand smoke in 2004, which was about 1·0% of worldwide mortality. 47% of deaths from second-hand smoke occurred in women, 28% in children, and 26% in men. DALYs lost because of exposure to second-hand smoke amounted to 10·9 million, which was about 0·7% of total worldwide burden of diseases in DALYs in 2004. 61% of DALYs were in children. The largest disease burdens were from lower respiratory infections in children younger than 5 years (5 939 000), ischaemic heart disease in adults (2 836 000), and asthma in adults (1 246 000) and children (651 000).

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61388-8/fulltext?_eventId=login#

Not to mention that the obsolete paper you referenced in your OP never said that second hand smoke didn't cause cancer or that it was not carcinogenic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Suggested for: Secondhand Smoke

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
30
Views
20K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top