It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by wantsome
So I'm killing people who happen to catch a whiff of my cigarette smoke faster then myself even though I'm inhailing smoke directely all day long? I don't get it the logic seems flawed to me?
I think main debate that 2nd hand person gets more sick is because there is 2 different smoke coming from a smoker.
1) the inhaled smoke(filtered) then exhausted.
2) the smoke from the burning cigarette, which ha potentially worse chemical than the inhaled.
The smoker is less susceptible to 2nd hand smoke because it moves away from the smoker(due to breathing and environment), while the 2nd hand smoker gets affected by both.
So pretty much someone near the smoker is getting double dose as well as other potentially worse chemicals.
Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by Carreau
None of those sources are credible.
Edit: Sorry, let me clarify why I said your point is invalid. Basically, it doesn't work like that. We can show that second hand smoke negatively affects general health, causes or exacerbates specific diseases etc, but second hand smoke does not cause death. Smoking does not cause death. Smoke can lead to diseases which cause death, but asking for a death certificate which says "second hand smoke" is silly because that would be like asking for a death certificate that says "driving" in place of the actual injury that caused the death.
A meta analysis of second hand smoke on children and foetuses: bmjopen.bmj.com...
Second hand smoke adversely affects people throughout life.
A study on the size of the airways in developing children due to pollution and second hand smoke: europepmc.org...
Second hand smoke makes your breathing passageways smaller.
A meta analysis on the relationship between second hand smoke and meningitis: www.biomedcentral.com...
Second hand smoke in the home doubles the incidence of meningococcal disease.edit on 21-2-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason given)
EPA Study Soundly Rejected
In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.
Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."
The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."
In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.
Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
The source isn't credible. I resent the implication that I haven't read the articles cited.
The flaws they point out are flawed.
I'll look in to the bmj article you cited later.
This cross-sectional study was conducted from January to March 2011 in Isfahan, which is the second large and air-polluted city in Iran. The areas of the city with lowest and highest air pollution were determined, and in each area, 25 prepubescent boys with or without exposure to daily tobacco smoke in home were selected, i.e. 100 children were studied in total.
We included all sources of SHS exposure (parental, household, carer, other family members) measured by either self-report (typically by questionnaire) or biochemical markers of exposure such as cotinine in saliva. Exposures were classified as either in-utero, postnatal, infant, or childhood exposure. Studies of the effects of active smoking were excluded.
Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Jefferton
Strange how not a single person has ever hand "second hand smoke" on their death certificate as cause of death isn't it?
Originally posted by penninja
but lets be real smokers are more likely to live like pigs period...