Announcement

Collapse

Health Science 101 Guidelines

Greetings! Welcome to Health Science.

Here's where we talk about the latest fad diets, the advantages of vegetarianism, the joy of exercise and good health. Like everywhere else at Tweb our decorum rules apply.

This is a place to exchange ideas and network with other health conscience folks, this isn't a forum for heated debate.
See more
See less

Second Hand Smoke - is it dangerous?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #31
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Hrm. According to NYT, the federal government takes in about $7 billion per year in cigarette excise taxes. The Tax Policy Center reported that all 50 states combined pulled in $17.1 billion in 2009. So we can say that's about $25 billion in total revenue for 2009. A CDC study
    Sorry, Sam... my mind was elsewhere. I didn't mean research - I meant remediation.

    Sorry
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment

    • #32
      Why would it be at a lower dose? They breathe in the original smoke, exhale the SHS and breathe it back in. Not only that but they breathe in the smoke coming out of the burning end of the cigarette too. The highest concentration of SHS would be around the smoker.

      Comment

      • #33
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Why would it be at a lower dose? They breathe in the original smoke, exhale the SHS and breathe it back in. Not only that but they breathe in the smoke coming out of the burning end of the cigarette too. The highest concentration of SHS would be around the smoker.
        Unless there's significant ventilation, the "cloud of smoke" just hangs around the smoker, while others in the room - particularly if they're not smokers and don't like the smoke - can "hang back" a bit. So, yeah, I can't see how the smoker is not affected by the SHS even more than those around him/her.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment

        • #34
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Unless there's significant ventilation, the "cloud of smoke" just hangs around the smoker, while others in the room - particularly if they're not smokers and don't like the smoke - can "hang back" a bit. So, yeah, I can't see how the smoker is not affected by the SHS even more than those around him/her.
          and then they breathe in the second hand smoke and exhale third hand smoke, and inhale that and exhale 4th hand smoke. Pretty soon they suffocate because all they are breathing is 100% smoke!

          Comment

          • #35
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Why would it be at a lower dose? They breathe in the original smoke, exhale the SHS and breathe it back in. Not only that but they breathe in the smoke coming out of the burning end of the cigarette too. The highest concentration of SHS would be around the smoker.
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment

            • #36
              Sam - you're over-thinking this... the original smoker is breathing in the ambient air IN ADDITION to the smoke he's intentionally sucking in.

              OK, so where have any of us said otherwise?
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment

              • #37
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Sam - you're over-thinking this... the original smoker is breathing in the ambient air IN ADDITION to the smoke he's intentionally sucking in.


                OK, so where have any of us said otherwise?

                The origin of this tangent was your post asking "Would anybody still support the initial claims that second hand smoke is WORSE than smoking?" My response to that question was that concentrations of chemicals and particulates in SHS are less than those in active smoking. Sparko then asked about smokers breathing SHS in addition to smoking.

                So, to address the first question: second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as actively smoking a cigarette. To address the issue of smokers inhaling SHS in addition to smoking: yes, it adds to the cumulative damage. I guess I'm not getting where the issue or misunderstanding is.
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment

                • #38
                  Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  The origin of this tangent was your post asking "Would anybody still support the initial claims that second hand smoke is WORSE than smoking?" My response to that question was that concentrations of chemicals and particulates in SHS are less than those in active smoking.
                  so good so far

                  Sparko then asked about smokers breathing SHS in addition to smoking.
                  yup

                  So, to address the first question: second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as actively smoking a cigarette.
                  yeppers

                  To address the issue of smokers inhaling SHS in addition to smoking: yes, it adds to the cumulative damage.
                  yup

                  I guess I'm not getting where the issue or misunderstanding is.
                  I guess I'm not either.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment

                  • #39
                    OK, maybe this is the confusion... Sparko had asked

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    but wouldn't the smoker also be exposed to the same levels of SHS as well as the direct smoke?
                    And you replied....

                    I think we were both wondering why the smoker would inhale "lower doses" of SHS than those around him. Maybe that's not what you were saying?
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment

                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      OK, maybe this is the confusion... Sparko had asked



                      And you replied....



                      I think we were both wondering why the smoker would inhale "lower doses" of SHS than those around him. Maybe that's not what you were saying?
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment

                      • #41
                        No prob -- I kinda figured we were arguing the same thing.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment

                        Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                        widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                        Working...
                        X