|
|
| General
: Is second hand smoke as dangerous as people say. |
|
 |
Reply
| | | From: Joel (Original Message) | Sent: 5/22/2006 11:55 PM |
Is there any studies about the harmful effects of second hand smoke. Is second hand smoke as dangerous as people say.
Ron |
|
 First
Previous
2-5 of 5
Next
Last
|
Reply
| | | From: Joel | Sent: 5/22/2006 11:56 PM |
There have been plenty of studies that have explored the dangers of second hand smoke. As far as whether or not it is as dangerous as "people say it is," that really depends on which people you listen to. I will attach a few articles and comments below.
Joel |
|
Reply
| | | From: Joel | Sent: 5/22/2006 11:57 PM |
Contrary to popular opinion or misconceptions, the risks of second hand smoke exposure are nothing compared to actually smoking yourself. As far as causing a relapse to needing nicotine, it can't do that. The trace amount of nicotine that can be absorbed from second hand smoke exposure is usually under 1% of what a smoker gets from smoking. Inhaling a puff or even puffing on a lit cigarette without actually inhaling and absorbing nicotine through the oral mucosa does not deliver trace amounts though, it delivers a significantly large dose of nicotine that is fully capable of causing a full-blown relapse.
As far as second hand smoke and nicotine goes, you would have to be in a smoke filled room, non-stop for 100 hours, yes I am saying over 4 days to get the equivalent dose of nicotine delivered to a smoker from one cigarette. This is a unique property of nicotine though. Other chemicals in second hand smoke can reach some pretty toxic levels much quicker than that, in minutes not days.
The side effects felt from being exposed to second hand smoke are from Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen Cyanide and some other noxious chemicals that can reach levels that are well above OSHA standards for safety. If a non-smoker happens to have a heart condition or an asthmatic or bronchial problem, and exposure to second hand smoke induces an incident on the spot, it would be said by all that the second hand smoke was more dangerous to that non smoker than the first hand smoke was to the smoker him or herself at the time. But rest assured, if the second hand smoke could induce the attack, if that person had smoked him or herself it would have induced a lot earlier and probably more severely. I have to say probably because the second hand smoke exposure may have fatal consequences for the predisposed non-smoker. But again, if second hand smoke did it, if that person were a smoker they would likely have experienced much sooner from their own self induced exposure.
The best way to keep your exposure to nicotine and the 4000 other chemicals and poisons to a bare minimum is to never take another puff! |
|
Reply
| | | From: Joel | Sent: 5/22/2006 11:59 PM |
Actually, we have a whole board at the Freedom site that addresses second hand smoke issue. Here is a link to that board:
http://www.msnusers.com/FreedomFromTobaccoQuitSmokingNow/newsarticles.msnw?action=get_threads
I am having problems pasting links so if you can just copy the above line into your web browser you will be directed to a series of articles addressing this issue.
Joel |
|
Reply
| | | From: Joel | Sent: 5/6/2007 12:06 PM |
Here are three videos that touch on the issue of how second hand smoke compares to actual smoking: | Video Title | Dial-Up | HS/BB | Audio | Length | Added | | The Palmolive bottle demonstration | 2.84mb | 19.1mb | 1.15mb | 07:45 | 10/11/06 | | See how smoking destroys the lungs | 1.55mb | 4.59mb | | 04:13 | 11/27/06 | | Lung cancer | 3.04mb | 6.55mb | | 18:48 | 11/05/06 | | | | | | | |
|
|
First
Previous
2-5 of 5
Next
Last
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to General