Passive smoking kills

[Gob]

The first global study into the effects of passive smoking has found it causes 600,000 deaths every year.

One-third of those killed are children, often exposed to smoke at home, the World Health Organization (WHO) found.

The study, in 192 countries, found that passive smoking is particularly dangerous for children, said to be at higher risk of sudden infant death syndrome, pneumonia and asthma.

Passive smoking causes heart disease, respiratory illness and lung cancer.

"This helps us understand the real toll of tobacco," said Armando Peruga, of the WHO's Tobacco-Free Initiative, who led the study.

The global health body said it was particularly concerned about the 165,000 children who die of smoke-related respiratory infections, mostly in South East Asia and in Africa.

It said that this group was more exposed to passive smoking than any other group, principally in their own homes.

"The mix of infectious diseases and second-hand smoke is a deadly combination," Mr Peruga said.

As well as being at increased risk of a series of respiratory conditions, the lungs of children who breathe in passive smoke may also develop more slowly than children who grow up in smoke-free homes.

Worldwide, 40% of children, 33% of non-smoking men and 35% non-smoking women were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004, researchers found.

This exposure was estimated to have caused 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 from lower respiratory infections, 36,900 from asthma and 21,400 from lung cancer.

According to the study, the highest numbers of people exposed to second-hand smoke are in Europe and Asia and the lowest rates of exposure were in the Americas, the Eastern Mediterranean and Africa.

The research also revealed that passive smoking had a large impact on women, killing about 281,000 worldwide. This is due to the fact that in many parts of the world, the study suggests, women are at least 50% more likely to be exposed to second-hand smoke than men.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11844169

[@meric@nwom@n]

Smokers: May they all rot in hell.

[Lord Jim]

Gee I wonder if these figures are compiled in the same bogus way they are in the US....

My guess is it's probably even worse....

[oldr_n_wsr]

Been through this already.
Yes, second hand smoke is bad for anyone.
However, what level of second hand smoke have all these people who died from it been exposed to?
I don't know of anyone who has not been exposed to second hand smoke, so anytime anyone of those people die from some type of reperatory/cardio illness it could be blamed on second hand smoke.

yes I am a smoker

[Gob]

In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:

These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.

Subsequent meta-analyses have confirmed these findings, and additional studies have found that high overall exposure to passive smoke even among people with non-smoking partners is associated with greater risks than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_sm ... al_studies

[Andrew D]

The National Asthma Council of Australia cites studies showing that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children ....

... spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes.

... high overall exposure to passive smoke ....

Well, yeah. If you live in a house that is constantly filled with cigarette smoke, you are likely to be affected by it.

It's a long way from there to such idiocies as banning smoking outside in the open air.

Yes, smoking outside in the open air is not necessarily absolutely perfectly harmless to absolutely every single person who might inhale it. Neither are automobile exhaust fumes, the smoke from burning leaves, etc.

If we are going to ban something, we should go after perfume/cologne. Of all the many, many smokers I have known over the years, not one smoked for the purpose of causing others to inhale smoke. Perfume/cologne, on the other hand, exists for only one purpose: A premeditated assault on the olfactory systems of others.

[oldr_n_wsr]

If we are going to ban something, we should go after perfume/cologne. Of all the many, many smokers I have known over the years, not one smoked for the purpose of causing others to inhale smoke. Perfume/cologne, on the other hand, exists for only one purpose: A premeditated assault on the olfactory systems of others.

I totally agree. As someone who is allergic to many types of perfume and who has lost his sense of smell, I am at a distinct disadvantage as I cannot get that slight wiff which would allow me to avoid that person wearing those particular perfumes.

[loCAtek]

So, you only know if someone is wearing perfume, by breaking out in hives?

[oldr_n_wsr]

So, you only know if someone is wearing perfume, by breaking out in hives?

Pretty much. Most perfumes I can tolerate however there are a few that cause my eyes and cheeks to swell up pretty quickly. I keep Benedril with me at all times.

[Gob]

THOSE first few puffs on a cigarette can, within minutes, cause genetic damage linked to cancer, US scientists say.

Researchers said the ''effect is so fast that it's equivalent to injecting the substance directly into the bloodstream'' in findings described as a ''stark warning'' to those who smoke.

The study is the first to track how substances in tobacco cause human DNA damage, and appears in the peer-reviewed journal Chemical Research in Toxicology, issued by the American Chemical Society.

Using 12 volunteer smokers, scientists tracked pollutants called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are carried in tobacco smoke and can also be found in coal-burning plants and in charred barbecue food.

They followed one particular type - phenanthrene, which is found in cigarette smoke - through the blood and saw it form a toxic substance that is known to ''trash DNA, causing mutations that can cause cancer'', the study said.

''The smokers developed maximum levels of the substance in a time frame that surprised even the researchers: just 15-30 minutes after the volunteers finished smoking,'' the study said.

The lead scientist, Stephen Hecht, said the study was unique because it examined the effects of inhaling cigarette smoke, without interference from pollution or a poor diet.

The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute.

[dgs49]

I would very very very much like to see more information on the methodology of this study. The U.S. EPA has published totally bogus "studies" on this issue many times in the past. The most notorious was one that contained no independent study at all, but merely compiled hundreds of other bogus studies, and noted that they all came to the same conclusion. Gee, I wonder what conclusion researchers would like to see when they study the effects of "second-hand smoke"?

The only good study I ever read (and I can't find it searching the internet) was one done of non-smoking spouses of heavy smokers, somewhere in Scandanavia. It was done with tens of thousands of couples over approximately 30 years, and they found no correlation between being in the house of a smoker and succumbing to the expected diseases. They were careful to CONTROL FOR all other environmental factors, such as local air pollution and other exposures that the spouse may have been subject to.

Their conclusion was, there is a hell of a big difference between puffing on a cigarette yourself and being in a room where someone else is smoking for a couple hours a day.

If this study was done correctly, then there is significant value to it, but mark me down as skeptical. It seems that any time a study like this is done, it is paid for by an advocy group of an "interest" (like the tort bar) that has a vested interest in finding that second-had smoke is a killer.

BTW, I was raised in a household of 9 people, seven of whom smoked heavily. I've never smoked, or had any inclination to do so when sober. If you don't count the occasional MJ toke while in college.

[oldr_n_wsr]

It only takes (un?)common sense to deduce that those exposed to heavy doses of "closed area" second hand smoke would be more likely to develop smoking related diseases than those that are not (never?) exposed to that. However, the ocassional exposure to second hand smoke (once/twice/thrice a day walking by a smoker for instance) would probably not do any harm. Unless of course one is alergic or "prone" to developing these "smokers diseases" in which case car exhaust may provide the trigger.

One thing I have noticed, the most militant anti-smokers seem to be ex-smokers.

[Crackpot]

Talk to Gob I could really care less.

[dgs49]

O&W. Nobody denies that it SEEMS LIKE people exposed to second-hand smoke would be more inclined to suffer from lung diseases.

Nobody denies that second-hand smoke is unpleasant (I can't stand it, myself).

Over the past 30 years, our culture has evolved to the point where it is considered very rude for a smoker to expose others to their exhaust - which is a good thing - and in my experience most smokers are conscious of the sensitivities of others (within reason).

But to establish a causal relationship is a significant step, which leads to (1) taking away people's freedoms, and (2) making certain people and entities financially accountable for the alleged effects of smoke to non-smokers.

It should not be done promiscuously, which has heretofore been the case.

[oldr_n_wsr]

O&W. Nobody denies that it SEEMS LIKE people exposed to second-hand smoke would be more inclined to suffer from lung diseases.

Nobody denies that second-hand smoke is unpleasant (I can't stand it, myself).

Over the past 30 years, our culture has evolved to the point where it is considered very rude for a smoker to expose others to their exhaust - which is a good thing - and in my experience most smokers are conscious of the sensitivities of others (within reason).

But to establish a causal relationship is a significant step, which leads to (1) taking away people's freedoms, and (2) making certain people and entities financially accountable for the alleged effects of smoke to non-smokers.

It should not be done promiscuously, which has heretofore been the case.

I see nothing to disagree with in your post. I have discussed this before (I believe with Mediator634 over a CSB1. There are numerous (dubius?) studies linking second hand smoke to deaths. While I am sure there are some, the numbers they come up with seem astronomical. I think one study he quoted said the death rate for people dieing of second hand smoke illnesses was 1/2 that of smokers dieing of smoking illnesses (basically saying for every 2 people dieing from smoking, one other person dies from second hand smoke) which I find downright ludicrious let only very hard to quantify.

I am a smoker and I have no problem giving people their space when I smoke and will not do it around those I know to have health problems from smoke. Ask me nicely to not smoke around you and I will not. Start giving me an attitude and I just might light one up and stick it in your mouth and jump on your chest so you get a good lung full.

I know it's and awful and discusting habit and when I go for my physical next week I am getting the doc to write me a script for Chantix again. Three years ago I went on it and was doing great, 10 months without smoking then I got layed off and went back to smoking. Both my brother and sister have quit using Chantix so I'll give it another try.

[rubato]

"...
I know it's and awful and discusting habit and when I go for my physical next week I am getting the doc to write me a script for Chantix again. Three years ago I went on it and was doing great, 10 months without smoking then I got layed off and went back to smoking. Both my brother and sister have quit using Chantix so I'll give it another try.

Social support can make a big difference too.

Try one of the smoking cessation bulletin boards.

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.asp ... uitsmoking


yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

thanks for that rubato

[BoSoxGal]

I've been an on and off social smoker over the years. Don't really make it a 'habit', except at times in my life when I've been under a lot of stress. This is one of those times (workload, primarily) so I am also trying to quit.

If you want some peer support at Plan B, let me know.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Does it help motivate you if I point out how much you stink?

I have come to detest smokers for a number of reasons but a big one is how much you stink. And it permeates the environment. It does not matter that you wash your hands if you have smoked on the way to work in your car it is all over your clothes and in your hair. After sitting next to you for more than 5 seconds I get to smell your stink. You hang your frickin' winter coat next to mine so mine can stink.

GAG.

[Andrew D]

I have come to detest smokers for a number of reasons . . . .

And that should matter to other people because . . . ?