Can anybody explain me in an intelligent fashion second hand smoke??!
Question: Can somebody explain me in a intelligent fashion about the second hand smoke??
Its hard to me to believe than second hand skoke is worse to you than first hand smoke ....simply becouse if im smoking I am subject both to first and second hand smoke , or first hand smoke is smart and evil enough to imunize you against the allegadly much more dangerous second hand smoke???
I Can buy you if you dont want to smell or inhale any smoke if you dont smoke .... but saying that you , non smoking directly , are in more risk than me , who smoke direclty ...AND INDIRECTLY..... c mon ..... i find this childish
Answers: Can somebody explain me in a intelligent fashion about the second hand smoke??
Its hard to me to believe than second hand skoke is worse to you than first hand smoke ....simply becouse if im smoking I am subject both to first and second hand smoke , or first hand smoke is smart and evil enough to imunize you against the allegadly much more dangerous second hand smoke???
I Can buy you if you dont want to smell or inhale any smoke if you dont smoke .... but saying that you , non smoking directly , are in more risk than me , who smoke direclty ...AND INDIRECTLY..... c mon ..... i find this childish
No , I doubth anyone are going to explain it in the fashion you want , they are going to give you a lecture about it its bad or not , wich is not the point
And youre rigth ... second hand smoke technically cant be worse than direct smoking, stressing it to the limit , second hand smoking can be very bad for your health , no doubth about it , but by no means it can be worse, this question had been arise before, and again , youre rigth , its very bad ( and disgusting if I may add) but at most as bad as smoking directly
see
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
and for the girl above me , read the question it isnt if smoking is bad or not , anybody with an IQ greater tan 50 can understand its bad, the question is if it is worse
I don't know where you got your information, but it's not considered worse for you than 1st-hand smoke. It's considered almost as harmful, and potentially cancer-causing.
its worse
bc someone who doesnt smoke...
is affected by the 2nd handsmoke
therefore he's not used to it, get it?
and can affect his health worse
my parents smoked like chimneys.
It put my little brother in the hospital. We almost lost him.
we all have: asthma, allergies and bronchitis every winter. Our lung capacity is only 85% of normal
one brother took up smoking anyway, cancer killed him at the age of 42--he did not see his girls grow up. He never met his grandkids.
His wife nearly died of grief, a widow at 42 with three kids to raise.
I know it is not a scientific study, but cause and effect is quite clear.
The second hand smoke is not going through a filter before it enters your lungs.
Secondhand smoke is a toxic cocktail consisting of poisons and carcinogens. There are over 4000 chemical compounds in secondhand smoke; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens.
When a cigarette is smoked, about half of the smoke is inhaled / exhaled (mainstream smoke) by the smoker and the other half floats around in the air (sidestream smoke).
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) plays a part in more health problems than you might realize. The following facts point out why it is so important to have smoking bans in place. No one should be forced to breathe in air tainted with cigarette smoke.
Secondhand Smoke and Cancer
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen.
Cancers linked to passive smoking include:
Lung cancer - 3000 nonsmokers die every year from lung cancer caused by ETS
Nasal sinus cavity cancer
Cervical Cancer
Breast cancer
Bladder cancer
Some chemical compounds found in smoke only become carcinogenic after they've come into contact with certain enzymes found in many of the tissues of the human body.
In a study published in Circulation on May 23, 2005, investigators report that the cardiovascular system of nonsmokers is extremely sensitive to tobacco toxins inhaled during passive smoking. They reached this conclusion by analyzing 29 studies that measured the risk of heart disease in people who never smoked tobacco, but who were exposed to secondhand smoke.
While secondhand smokers only inhale about 1/100th the dose of smoke inhaled by the smokers themselves, the effect of that secondhand smoke is large. Secondhand smokers have a risk of coronary heart disease that is 30% higher than for nonsmokers who are not exposed to secondhand smoke. In contrast, the risk for actual smokers is increased by 80%. So, while the dose of smoke inhaled by passive smoking is 100 times smaller than for smokers, the increase in risk to the nonsmokers is much, much greater than that. Indeed, their excess risk is almost 40% as high as the excess risk to the smokers themselves.
The investigators further listed the effects that secondhand smoke have been shown to have on the cardiovascular system that can lead to an increase in cardiac disease. These include: making platelets stickier, causing inflammation, reducing HDL cholesterol levels, increasing LDL cholesterol levels, and increasing insulin resistance. Some of these effects can be measured after just a few minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke.
That is taken from a web site, your argument seconf hand is worse than first hand???? No, first hand is by choice, you buy it, you ignite it, you inhale it. Second hand, they do no choose, they do noy buy, they do not ignite, but they do inhale! Therefore the argument is based on the fact that in Public Places were smoking is allowed, it should be banned to avoid those who do not smoke being placed at high risk. Remember if a Bar Tender who does not smoke spends 12 hours in a smoked filled Bar, he is probably inhaling 200 cigarettes a day, more than the average smoked by smokers. Therefore should they succumb to Lung Cancer, well they could take the Bar Owner to Court for not protecting their health, while at Work! However, we have a Public Ban, so you cannot smoke in any Public Place. Probelm being the smokers leave the Bar to walk outside to have a smoke and the non-smokers are now joining them, as the non-smokers are missing the fun! In fact, men meeting females, more meet outside in the smoking area then in the Bar! Likewise Bars are now closing down, because they stay at home to drink and smoke.
Smokers I think are exposed to smoke and they might build up a tolereance level. While the non-smokers do not smoke, so when they are exposed, it is a bit like a severe allergic reaction. If they carry a cancer gene that is triggered by some toxin, that could explain why so many non-smokers are succumbing to Lung Cancer. However, the fumes from Diesel Lorries is just as toxic but are we banning them?
No matter which way you look at this argument, you really cannot prove anything! Best of Luck