The silent suffocation from secondhand smoke

Jun 14, 2010 Full story: WTVF Nashville 2,012

Secondhand smoke, or environmental tobacco smoke, is the stealthy smoke that swirls off the burning end of a cigarette.

Full Story
First Prev
of 101
Next Last

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

#1 Jun 14, 2010
We need SS troops to invade peoples home to be sure no smoking is taking place. The sooner, the better.

Since: Mar 08

Smyrna TN

#2 Jun 14, 2010
I am so tired of people making second hand smoke into a big issue. You are exposed more to the exhaust your car puts out in a short trip but that is OK.

As far as the 3,000 deaths they contribute to second hand smoke there is no way to determine if second hand smoke was a factor, especially when you compare it to the 3 million deaths per year they contribute to air pollution. According to one of the government reports put out the reports lists this danger, and that danger, but if you read all the way down to the bottom the writers admit their findings is based off of what should happen and they cannot determine at what levels second hand smoke is dangerous.

Funny second hand smoke is deadly but the pollution we breath everyday is acceptable levels.

Quit attacking smokers and focus on real problems. According to a report on Science Daily 1.3rd of the world's population die each year due to pollution related illnesses.
hillbillyred

Crossville, TN

#3 Jun 14, 2010
Jason B Bour wrote:
I am so tired of people making second hand smoke into a big issue. You are exposed more to the exhaust your car puts out in a short trip but that is OK.
As far as the 3,000 deaths they contribute to second hand smoke there is no way to determine if second hand smoke was a factor, especially when you compare it to the 3 million deaths per year they contribute to air pollution. According to one of the government reports put out the reports lists this danger, and that danger, but if you read all the way down to the bottom the writers admit their findings is based off of what should happen and they cannot determine at what levels second hand smoke is dangerous.
Funny second hand smoke is deadly but the pollution we breath everyday is acceptable levels.
Quit attacking smokers and focus on real problems. According to a report on Science Daily 1.3rd of the world's population die each year due to pollution related illnesses.
I don't smoke but I agree with you. I think that the smoker is taking all the bad stuff out of the cigarette as they smoke it. What they are blowing out is more bad breath than anything. I don't like the smell of smoke but I think smokers should have some rights. Just don't blow it in my face. They should have places where they can smoke though where people that don't smoke doesn't have to smell it. I don't think "that" many people die from smoking either. How can you prove it was their smoking??? My dad smoked for about 80 years and he died from an aneurism in his abdomen at age 93. He had a long long life and his death had nothing to do with smoking.
But what about the drunk driver??? How many deaths are related to drunk driving??? But drinking is okay. We see advertisements on TV and it is no big deal but we can't see cigarette commercials. Of course I would rather not see either one. But it isn't fair to smokers. I think some idiots in the government are trying to dictate to us what they want, so where is the freedom we are suppose to have.
just candid

AOL

#4 Jun 14, 2010
Degenerates, drunks, riffraff, and trashy type people are almost all people who also smoke. 0>:~}
Felon3

Nashville, TN

#5 Jun 14, 2010
Wow if people dont like smoking then stay home where you have control!
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#6 Jun 14, 2010
generalsn1234567 wrote:
We need SS troops to invade peoples home to be sure no smoking is taking place. The sooner, the better.
Such Drama..........
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#7 Jun 14, 2010
Jason B Bour wrote:
You are exposed more to the exhaust your car puts out in a short trip but that is OK.
No, you're not.
Jason B Bour wrote:
especially when you compare it to the 3 million deaths per year they contribute to air pollution.
Only 2.5 million people die in America per year and only 3-4% are attributed to air pollution. You're talking out of your ass.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#8 Jun 14, 2010
Felon3 wrote:
Wow if people dont like smoking then stay home where you have control!
Agree completely. Smokers stay home.

“secondhand smoke is a joke”

Since: Jun 09

tobaccoville kentucky

#9 Jun 14, 2010
The new Tobacco Prohibition

I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

Now onto the falsehood......

We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED'S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

“secondhand smoke is a joke”

Since: Jun 09

tobaccoville kentucky

#10 Jun 14, 2010
A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth......
A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA'S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :
JUNK SCIENCE
''EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.
This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.''
So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA'S stand that global warming was real.
The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.
Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.
4 % is carbon monoxide.
6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

“secondhand smoke is a joke”

Since: Jun 09

tobaccoville kentucky

#11 Jun 14, 2010
Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.

Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.

Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them....Osha has whats called PEL'S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments...[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.

The actual standard to use is OSHA'S

The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air.....now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

“secondhand smoke is a joke”

Since: Jun 09

tobaccoville kentucky

#12 Jun 14, 2010
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.

Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ''EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen''......milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren't determined to be a carcinogen....The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0....Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.

“secondhand smoke is a joke”

Since: Jun 09

tobaccoville kentucky

#13 Jun 14, 2010
But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim.....thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree's claim about shs/ets.

Oh! have you heard the one about ''laugh'' thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.

The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#14 Jun 14, 2010
The funny part is the "South will Rise Again".

You're as addicted to pathetic nonsense as you are to tobacco.

Since: Mar 08

Smyrna TN

#15 Jun 15, 2010
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're not.
<quoted text>
Only 2.5 million people die in America per year and only 3-4% are attributed to air pollution. You're talking out of your ****.
I did not put world wide in that. Sorry that was my fault.

Now as far as the stats they quoted, they are also talking out their rear. They contribute 3,000 deaths per year to lung cancer due to second hand smoke, but not to pollution? How was they able to determine that since those same people are exposed to deadly gases constantly on a daily bases. Gasses that will kill you in a confined area in 15 mins, and so far I have not heard of anyone dying in 15 mins in a smoke filled bar.

Since: Mar 08

Smyrna TN

#16 Jun 15, 2010
By the way they are now trying to prove drinking 2 drinks a day is as bad for you as smoking a pack of cigarettes, and that drinking causes lung cancer.

Since: Mar 08

Smyrna TN

#17 Jun 15, 2010
Funny how in the summer they tell you not to work or exercise outside due to the poor air quality, but they can only contribute air pollution related deaths to second hand smoke.

Believe it or not, but I had someone complain to me about my second hand smoke one day while I was smoking outside. After she told me my cigarette was killing her she huffed off to her idling SUV.

“Nulla poena sine lege ”

Since: Sep 09

So. Wake County (Right Coast)

#18 Jun 15, 2010
what about the second hand smoke from the Gulf's oil burn off?

or the hippie incense?

and what about the BAR-B-QUE smoker?
OMG! is my Hickory and apple wood safe STILL?

WHO THE F*** ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO TREAT MY OWN BODY?

I bet more people get sick with sexually transmitted disease than smoke - before you screw with my right to smell peoples smoke in my auto or home
... get a law banning promiscuous sex FIRST!

FOR THE RECORD: I am not a smoker!
Praps

Nashville, TN

#19 Jun 15, 2010
Confederate1989 wrote:
A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth......
A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA'S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :
JUNK SCIENCE
Osteen was, in his younger days, a tobacco lobbyist. Any reputation he had as "anti-tobacco" likely came from his agreement that nicotine IS a drug--a concept the tobacco companies themselves state quite clearly in many of the documents that have become public domain. In fact, tobacco company execs are KNOWN to have referred to their busines as "selling an addictive drug". But, then, that's not Osteen.

Osteen--whose decision was riddled with comments that showed he had NO grasp of scientific process--decided early in the issue that his court WAS an acceptable venue for a case that hinged on scientific process. When the case came up for appeal, his most basic decision--that he was perfectly capable of addressing these issues--was thrown out. Anything that someone who was NOT qualified to be looking at in the first place is bogus on the face of it.

Among other things, he chastened the EPA for having had an "a priori hypothesis". That's what a hypothesis IS for crying out loud. It is a "guess" that is being investigated by the study. If you don't have it beforehand, then you have no focus for the research. That is in chapter one of any "general chemistry for non-majors" class, and it is included in introductions to a variety of other courses, just to make sure that it gets through.

Of course Osteen--having never a clue about scientific process--uses "theory" interchangeably with "hypothesis", just so we can KNOW he needs help finding his toilet-paper target.

Once again, his ruling was thrown out on appeal--because he had no business taking such a case in the first place. Smoking apologists and propagandists, of course, declare that a "technicality" and say that his decision should STILL be our guidepost.

Or, they might just trot it out as if it WERE an importan decision, without telling anyone that it hit the circular file as soon as his peers took a look at what he'd been up to.

The EPA study passed peer review. Osteen didn't.

Get over it and stop spamming us with his discredited line of bull.
UR Flawed Claude

Nashville, TN

#20 Jun 15, 2010
AntiTypical wrote:
WHO THE F*** ARE YOU TO TELL ME HOW TO TREAT MY OWN BODY?
Who are you to take that decision out of the hands of others and spew your carcinogenic miasma in their faces? At least if someone is only TELLING you what to do, you still have some choice. Once you've blown your fumes around, no one in proximity has a choice of how to treat their own body. Breathing is not an option.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 101
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Smoking Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Growing e-cigarette trend raises safety concerns (Jul '13) 6 hr Taajsgpm 127
No smoking in Restaurants... (Oct '07) 7 hr Schmones 1,734
ocb premium slim rolling papers 12 hr Ray tay 1
Remedies for erectile dysfuntion in young men. (Nov '10) 14 hr paultyson12 43
Smoking ban exemption bill reaches W.Va. House 20 hr generalsn 1
Saturday is entry deadline for Driven to Quit C... 21 hr much bigger problem 1
Grant to fund no smoking effort in Glen Allan 21 hr DR DRE 1
More from around the web