What's the truth about passive smoking?
October 6, 2005 6:27 AM Subscribe
What's the truth about passive smoking?
Response by poster: Okay, what I meant was, is it dangerous? If so, how dangerous? Is there really any risk at all? It's so hard to find any data that doesn't conflict with something else, that I really don't know if the adverts I see on TV are truthful or if the people I hear saying that the risk is tiny are actually correct. So what's the truth?
posted by Acey at 7:11 AM on October 6, 2005
posted by Acey at 7:11 AM on October 6, 2005
It makes your clothes smell, your skin feel grimy and your eyes sting, it makes you cough, can trigger asthma attacks and aggravate other respiratory problems, puts you off food, and according to just about every reputable source is as lethal as the real thing. Smoke is estimated to include about 60 carcinogenic compounds and the US Environmental Protection Agency has classified it as dangerous as asbestos and arsenic.
posted by londonmark at 7:14 AM on October 6, 2005
posted by londonmark at 7:14 AM on October 6, 2005
Oh sorry, I see now. If you don't believe what health organisations tell you, I'm not sure you'll get a more convincing argument here.
posted by londonmark at 7:16 AM on October 6, 2005
posted by londonmark at 7:16 AM on October 6, 2005
That's not really fair, londonmark. In the U.S. there has been a long-running series of antismoking advertisements that make rather sensationalistic claims (that cigarettes contain dog urine, for example). I can see why someone might doubt antismoking claims in that light. It's one of the reasons I hate those commercials.
As to the question: It really doesn't matter if the thing is touching your lips or not. Smoke is smoke, and if it gets into your lungs it gets into your lungs. If you breathe in a lot of it, like in a smoky bar, then you are at the same risk as anyone who breathes in a lot of smoke. If you walk by a guy smoking on the street corner, you don't have to worry.
posted by Nothing at 7:27 AM on October 6, 2005
As to the question: It really doesn't matter if the thing is touching your lips or not. Smoke is smoke, and if it gets into your lungs it gets into your lungs. If you breathe in a lot of it, like in a smoky bar, then you are at the same risk as anyone who breathes in a lot of smoke. If you walk by a guy smoking on the street corner, you don't have to worry.
posted by Nothing at 7:27 AM on October 6, 2005
It's much less enjoyable than active smoking. Therefore, it must also be much less dangerous.
Well, maybe that's not a convincing argument. But any source that says it's "as lethal as the real thing" is, no matter how otherwise reputable they may be, lying.
Anyway, it's no doubt bad for you. Here's what ASH says on the subject.
posted by sfenders at 7:33 AM on October 6, 2005
Well, maybe that's not a convincing argument. But any source that says it's "as lethal as the real thing" is, no matter how otherwise reputable they may be, lying.
Anyway, it's no doubt bad for you. Here's what ASH says on the subject.
posted by sfenders at 7:33 AM on October 6, 2005
Is it dangerous?
Yes.
If so, how dangerous?
Exposure to passive smoking makes you more likely to suffer the health consequences that smokers suffer: lung cancer, upper respiratory tract problems, and cardiovascular disease.
Is there really any risk at all?
Yes, but its very, very small. However - and this is where the controversy arises - the risk is tiny compared to the risks associated with actual smoking, and so small that only long-term exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) will likely have a significant effect. Will spending one night in a smoky bar kill you? Probably not. But working for years on end in a smoky bar will significantly raise your chances of getting cancer of CVD.
The important thing here is the link between danger and risk. Tobacco smoke is dangerous, but the risk associated with it varies according to how much you are exposed to it. Heavy smokers are at greater risk than light smokers. People who live with heavy smokers are at greater risk than those who live in a completely smoke-free environment. Its like flying, another dangerous but low-risk activity: one flight is very unlikely to kill you; but if you fly every day for the next 50 years your likelihood of dying in a plane crash is significant.
posted by googly at 7:34 AM on October 6, 2005
Yes.
If so, how dangerous?
Exposure to passive smoking makes you more likely to suffer the health consequences that smokers suffer: lung cancer, upper respiratory tract problems, and cardiovascular disease.
Is there really any risk at all?
Yes, but its very, very small. However - and this is where the controversy arises - the risk is tiny compared to the risks associated with actual smoking, and so small that only long-term exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) will likely have a significant effect. Will spending one night in a smoky bar kill you? Probably not. But working for years on end in a smoky bar will significantly raise your chances of getting cancer of CVD.
The important thing here is the link between danger and risk. Tobacco smoke is dangerous, but the risk associated with it varies according to how much you are exposed to it. Heavy smokers are at greater risk than light smokers. People who live with heavy smokers are at greater risk than those who live in a completely smoke-free environment. Its like flying, another dangerous but low-risk activity: one flight is very unlikely to kill you; but if you fly every day for the next 50 years your likelihood of dying in a plane crash is significant.
posted by googly at 7:34 AM on October 6, 2005
It's much less enjoyable than active smoking. Therefore, it must also be much less dangerous.
Well, maybe that's not a convincing argument. But any source that says it's "as lethal as the real thing" is, no matter how otherwise reputable they may be, lying. The long-term health effects of passive smoking are small compared to those of inhaling the smoke directly.
Anyway, it's no doubt bad for you. Here's what ASH says on the subject.
posted by sfenders at 7:35 AM on October 6, 2005
Well, maybe that's not a convincing argument. But any source that says it's "as lethal as the real thing" is, no matter how otherwise reputable they may be, lying. The long-term health effects of passive smoking are small compared to those of inhaling the smoke directly.
Anyway, it's no doubt bad for you. Here's what ASH says on the subject.
posted by sfenders at 7:35 AM on October 6, 2005
Isn't it even more dangerous than smoking yourself, since it's unfiltered ? That's what I've been led to believe anyway...
The uncertainty seems to center around some recent research that claimed passive smoking was not as dangerous as was previously thought. This article on the Bupa.co.uk website (UK Health insurance company) goes through the reasons why that research was said to be flawed.
Personally, whatever the reports say, I can't imagine passive smoking being any better for you than the real deal.
posted by superfurry at 7:36 AM on October 6, 2005
The uncertainty seems to center around some recent research that claimed passive smoking was not as dangerous as was previously thought. This article on the Bupa.co.uk website (UK Health insurance company) goes through the reasons why that research was said to be flawed.
Personally, whatever the reports say, I can't imagine passive smoking being any better for you than the real deal.
posted by superfurry at 7:36 AM on October 6, 2005
Its mostly just dangerous for people working in smoky bars.
posted by delmoi at 7:38 AM on October 6, 2005
posted by delmoi at 7:38 AM on October 6, 2005
Isn't it even more dangerous than smoking yourself, since it's unfiltered ?
It is filtered, though..twice..once by the filter on the actual cigarette, and once by the lungs of the person exhaling it.
posted by spicynuts at 7:41 AM on October 6, 2005
It is filtered, though..twice..once by the filter on the actual cigarette, and once by the lungs of the person exhaling it.
posted by spicynuts at 7:41 AM on October 6, 2005
Isn't it even more dangerous than smoking yourself, since it's unfiltered ?
No. The guy who's smoking them himself is also getting pretty much the same passive smoke effects, in addition to the highly-concentrated direct-to-the-lungs stuff.
"114,000 people in the UK are killed by smoking every year"
"domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. " [exposure at work accounts for another estimated 617 deaths]
Those numbers are not really comparable. For one thing, the number of people who smoke is probably far smaller than the number who are exposed to second-hand smoke. But they do suggest that passive smoking is somewhat less lethal than the real thing.
posted by sfenders at 7:49 AM on October 6, 2005
No. The guy who's smoking them himself is also getting pretty much the same passive smoke effects, in addition to the highly-concentrated direct-to-the-lungs stuff.
"114,000 people in the UK are killed by smoking every year"
"domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. " [exposure at work accounts for another estimated 617 deaths]
Those numbers are not really comparable. For one thing, the number of people who smoke is probably far smaller than the number who are exposed to second-hand smoke. But they do suggest that passive smoking is somewhat less lethal than the real thing.
posted by sfenders at 7:49 AM on October 6, 2005
I also thought it was more dangerous (per breath of smoke consumed) because unfiltered. Note that some of the smoke comes directly from the cigarette, it's not all what's exhaled by the smoker. If all the smoke were just exhaled by the smoker, a burning cigarette just sitting in an ashtray wouldn't stink.
Anyway, why would passive smoking be any less dangerous than active smoking. Both breathe in the same toxins, why would it matter whether or not you're holding the cigarette when you breathe them? Do lungs discount toxins if the source of the toxins is not in your hand?
I haven't seen the dog urine ad, but according to the description here, it doesn't say cigarettes are made with dog urine, it says that one of the main components of urine is used as an additive in cigarrettes. So you can fault that statement for being irrelevant, since the fact that something is in dog urine doesn't make it toxic or bad. But it's hardly the same thing as saying "cigarettes are made with dog urine".
posted by duck at 7:52 AM on October 6, 2005
Anyway, why would passive smoking be any less dangerous than active smoking. Both breathe in the same toxins, why would it matter whether or not you're holding the cigarette when you breathe them? Do lungs discount toxins if the source of the toxins is not in your hand?
I haven't seen the dog urine ad, but according to the description here, it doesn't say cigarettes are made with dog urine, it says that one of the main components of urine is used as an additive in cigarrettes. So you can fault that statement for being irrelevant, since the fact that something is in dog urine doesn't make it toxic or bad. But it's hardly the same thing as saying "cigarettes are made with dog urine".
posted by duck at 7:52 AM on October 6, 2005
Mea culpa, Nothing. Sorry, I wasn't aware of any controversey on the subject and didn't mean any offence. As far as I can see, tobacco lobbies say it's good, everyone else says it's bad.
posted by londonmark at 8:01 AM on October 6, 2005
posted by londonmark at 8:01 AM on October 6, 2005
Both breathe in the same toxins, why would it matter whether or not you're holding the cigarette when you breathe them?
uh... because inhaling directly from the cigarette, you get a lot more of (most of) those same toxins. Quite a lot more, like. Nicotine, for instance. Standing in a room where other people are smoking, no matter how smoke-filled the air, will not have anything like the effect of even just one drag on your own cigarette, and I speak from recent personal experience there.
posted by sfenders at 8:03 AM on October 6, 2005
uh... because inhaling directly from the cigarette, you get a lot more of (most of) those same toxins. Quite a lot more, like. Nicotine, for instance. Standing in a room where other people are smoking, no matter how smoke-filled the air, will not have anything like the effect of even just one drag on your own cigarette, and I speak from recent personal experience there.
posted by sfenders at 8:03 AM on October 6, 2005
You are correct. Though that is not the commercial I remember seeing, they did note, at the end of the spot (which featured the words "dog urine" several times in relation to cigarettes) that it was just "one of the main ingredients in dog urine." But the point is that it is sensationalistic and dilutes the credibility of the antismoking effort, and I can understand why someone, after seeing that and other similar commercials, might doubt those same commercials' claims about second hand smoke. I was speaking only to londonmark's comment, which, coming as it did in reply to the poster's comment about the "adverts I see on TV," seemed to imply that one would have to be foolish not to believe the commercials.
The issue of how dangerous it is relates to the amount of smoke inhaled, not where it comes from.
posted by Nothing at 8:08 AM on October 6, 2005
The issue of how dangerous it is relates to the amount of smoke inhaled, not where it comes from.
posted by Nothing at 8:08 AM on October 6, 2005
Posted before I saw your comment, londonmark. I don't think there's any real controversy either. We agree. I was just pointing out that there could be reasons besides generally not believing what health organizations say for having doubts.
posted by Nothing at 8:11 AM on October 6, 2005
posted by Nothing at 8:11 AM on October 6, 2005
My next door neighbor is dying of lung cancer. She doesn't smoke, but her husband of 35 years does. Anecodotal, I know, but really, think about it.
posted by peep at 8:43 AM on October 6, 2005
posted by peep at 8:43 AM on October 6, 2005
I grew up with parents who both smoked heavily (40-a-day each, Park Drive plain, don't think you can buy them now, but they were very high tar).
I've never touched a cigarette in my life. But thanks to them, I've probably smoked enough to have done some lung damage as I was growing up.
I left home at 16, 30 years ago, but even now every cold I get goes onto my lungs and becomes bronchitis, every illness I've ever succumbed to has been lung-related (pleurisy, pneumonia, bronchitis) and I believe it is due to the effects of passive smoking throughout my childhood.
Mother died aged 56 of bronchial pneumonia. Father died a year later of throat cancer. That says it all.
posted by essexjan at 10:10 AM on October 6, 2005
I've never touched a cigarette in my life. But thanks to them, I've probably smoked enough to have done some lung damage as I was growing up.
I left home at 16, 30 years ago, but even now every cold I get goes onto my lungs and becomes bronchitis, every illness I've ever succumbed to has been lung-related (pleurisy, pneumonia, bronchitis) and I believe it is due to the effects of passive smoking throughout my childhood.
Mother died aged 56 of bronchial pneumonia. Father died a year later of throat cancer. That says it all.
posted by essexjan at 10:10 AM on October 6, 2005
The EPA study that anti-smoking activists refer to has been thoroughly discredited. The courts ruled that the EPA broke standard procedures, cherry picked data, and deviated from acceptable scientific procedure to ensure a predetermined conclusion.
Unfortunately, I've never seen a study on second hand smoke that wasn't so biased as to be useless to the genuinely curious. If somebody knows of one, I'd love to read it.
If I had to make an educated guess based on studies of smokers, I'd say that it only presents a significant risk if there are extremely long periods of extended exposure.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:07 PM on October 6, 2005
Unfortunately, I've never seen a study on second hand smoke that wasn't so biased as to be useless to the genuinely curious. If somebody knows of one, I'd love to read it.
If I had to make an educated guess based on studies of smokers, I'd say that it only presents a significant risk if there are extremely long periods of extended exposure.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:07 PM on October 6, 2005
Kwantsar: thanks for that link. I tried to google to find a refutation of that EPA study, and didn't notice that it was already posted in the thread!
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:09 PM on October 6, 2005
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:09 PM on October 6, 2005
Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullshit on secondhand smoking. They came to the conclusion that all of the warnings about the dangers of secondhand smoke were, in fact, bullshit.
posted by amarynth at 12:17 PM on October 6, 2005
posted by amarynth at 12:17 PM on October 6, 2005
I've never seen a study on second hand smoke that wasn't so biased as to be useless to the genuinely curious.
Just to clarify: you already looked at all the ones the EPA study referenced, right?
You might want to look for some leads in this report:
"Since earlier assessments by the National Research Council, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the fourth report of the ISCSH, the Australian report of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Working Party, and the US Environmental Protection Agency report (EPA) the number of epidemiological studies of ETS and lung cancer has more than doubled and there are additional data on the effect of biases, dietary confounding and the use of biomarkers to measure exposure to ETS.
...
"Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20-30%."
posted by sfenders at 12:48 PM on October 6, 2005
Just to clarify: you already looked at all the ones the EPA study referenced, right?
You might want to look for some leads in this report:
"Since earlier assessments by the National Research Council, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the fourth report of the ISCSH, the Australian report of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Working Party, and the US Environmental Protection Agency report (EPA) the number of epidemiological studies of ETS and lung cancer has more than doubled and there are additional data on the effect of biases, dietary confounding and the use of biomarkers to measure exposure to ETS.
...
"Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20-30%."
posted by sfenders at 12:48 PM on October 6, 2005
From the EPA: "Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk".
posted by neuron at 1:07 AM on October 7, 2005
posted by neuron at 1:07 AM on October 7, 2005
I think that there is controversy.
thank you, kwantsar. people are siting all of the special interest groups who want to ban smoking, and therefore, have a vested interest in the outcome. all second-hand smoke studies are funded by BigPharma and the anti-smoking lobby. why not consider alternate sources of information and make your own decision rather than be force fed bias information. check out forces.org for another viewpoint. i know people hate the smell and all but please read and understand both sides of the issue. it's far from settled.
posted by brandz at 8:55 PM on October 11, 2005
thank you, kwantsar. people are siting all of the special interest groups who want to ban smoking, and therefore, have a vested interest in the outcome. all second-hand smoke studies are funded by BigPharma and the anti-smoking lobby. why not consider alternate sources of information and make your own decision rather than be force fed bias information. check out forces.org for another viewpoint. i know people hate the smell and all but please read and understand both sides of the issue. it's far from settled.
posted by brandz at 8:55 PM on October 11, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:02 AM on October 6, 2005