If the smoke that you inhale goes through a filter then shouldn’t it be less dangerous than the smoke that comes from the other end of the cigaret? What is the difference between the smoke that you inhale and the smoke that others inhale around you that allows for one to cause cancer but not the other?
That should be second hand smoking. :smack:
Can a mod please change the title?
Well, the smoke generated by a smouldering cigarette is generated at a different temperature than the smoke generated when a smoker actively draws air through the coal. I don’t know how this affects the composition of the smoke, but I know that can be a factor in other circumstances.
More importantly, I’d think, when you take a drag off a cigarette you’re inhaling a higher concentration of smoke than if you’re just breathing the air in the vicinity of a smoker. Also any reactions that may not have run to completion in a hot drag of a cigarette will have a chance to finish during the period of mixing with the atmosphere before someone inhales it second-hand.
If by “second-hand smoke” you’re referring to the smoke exhaled by smokers (rather than the smoke generated by a smoldering cigarette) the lungs act as a filter to remove a fair bit of particulate matter, and also impart moisture to the smoke tending to cause any remaining particulate to fallout rather more rapidly than “dry” smoke. Then we can again take into acount further chemical changes that may result from the introduction of water to the various compounds in cigarette smoke.
I couldn’t even begin to tell you about the changes in chemical composition of cigarette smoke from various sources and over time… it might be that exhaled smoke contains worse carcinogens than smoke form a smoldering cigarette. someone else will have to chime in on that one. However, I’d still say the difference in concentration between directly inhaled smoke v. second-hand will be the most important factor.
Certainly breathing in smoke is not good for you no matter how you slice it.
The issue with second hand smoke and its effects on others has a few issues. If you were to sit in a smoke filled room for extended periods on a regular basis then yes, you could probably expect health effects from it over time.
That said most non-smokers do not do that (those who work in a smoky bar would be one exception). The smoke off of the tip of the cigarette is unfiltered but then it gets considerably diluted by the intervening air on its way to you (unless you are for some reason hovering over the tip of the cigarette breathing it in). That compared to the full blown drag a smoker takes in on every puff doesn’t add up to much.
Fortunatley the body is fairly resistant to this or that floating in the air. If you live in a big city how much pollution from cars and such do you think you breathe in? Occasional contact to second hand smoke I doubt amounts to much to be worried about in the scheme of things. If you work in an environment where there is a lot of cigarette smoke and do so for a long time or perhaps live with someone and get constant exposure to it over extended periods then I think there is a legitimate concern. If the guy standing next to you on a street corner has a puff of smoke drift your way I wouldn’t be too concerned. Probably annoy you more than have any discernable health effect. I would be more worried about the bus that just rolled by and belched a black plume of exhaust into the air than a nearby smoker.
You are probably assuming a linear relationship between exposure and effect.
Cigarette filters do a great job of keeping tobacco bits out of your teeth. They do little if anything to block unhealthful components in the smoke, and some studies indicate that they might actually make it worse.
Sidestream smoke is not benign, and some think it worse in some ways than the mainstream smoke the smoker is inhaling, but as has been mentioned it is significantly diluted in most environments. Studies about its effect in causing various diseases in non-smokers are still inconclusive. Nevertheless, it is obnoxious, and it’s reasonable to consider it unhealthful. What’s hard is comparing its effect on a non-smoker to the effect of mainstream smoke on a smoker. Being in a smoky room is just not the same as actively sucking in smoke from a cigarette.
Google on “sidestream smoke” for more info.
Which is the point I would suspect is most important here. In many causes, a small amount of a substance may not cause any harm at all, while more substantial quantities become much more dangerous. My understanding is that much of the hysteria promulgated around second-hand smoke was based upon a faulty method of extrapolating from the high levels of exposure that a smoker receives to the much less significant exposure of a nonsmoker in their vicinity. There is much less clear research linking second-hand smoke to health problems, which is a problem if you take the scientific approach and demand evidence for an assertion.
So is it just the amount of exposure? If the amount of exposure was the same, would the sidestream smoke be more harmful?
GaryT makes an assertion that the filter does little to remove the harmful qualities of cigarette smoke. I am unsure of the validity of that and suspect it depends on the brand of cigarette and the filter they employ. Regardless you definitely are getting much diluted smoke in the sidestream. I do not have a scientific study to back this up but I find it hard to credit that sidestream smoke is worse for people in the same room as a smoker than the drags a smoker takes (not to mention the smoker also gets the sidestream smoke as well so it is like a double effect).
I’m no expert on it, but here’s some info:
From here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=318700 (post #2)
“NPR did a piece some years back where the tobacco industry found that filters actually concentrate many of the things people think they’re supposed to be filtering out (this was back in the 1950s).”
From here: http://www.hpb.gov.sg/hpb/default.asp?pg_id=1141
“Do filters reduce the dangers of cigarette smoking? – Filters trap only part of the tar and nicotine found in cigarettes. What’s left behind is the rest of the tar and nicotine, and ALL of the poisons.”
From here: smokehelp.org is for sale
“Are Filter cigarettes better? – Slightly. Filters can reduce the health risks but not completely.”
From here: http://home.datacomm.ch/rezamusic/quitting_cigs.html
"Many incorrectly believed that cigarettes are less dangerous when filtered…most respondents were not aware of filter fallout, which is the inhalation of fibers released from cigarette filters when the smoker inhales.
While reading this thread something came to mind. Nicotine is the worst incredient in cigarette smoke. It does damage to the lungs, the heart and causes the addiction to cigarettes and probably more. The problem with someone quitting is the need for a “nicotine fix”. How many non-smokers who’ve had their workplaces cleared of secondhand smoke had trouble with withdrawal symptoms? Has any non-smoker whose SO has quit smoking, snuck down to the local bar to get a quick fix of secondhand smoke? Has any non-smoker who gets their teeth cleaned had the technican make remarks about the build-up of nicotine on their front teeth? Although I doubt there is much danger from secondhand smoke, it has effectively been used to make those of us who continue to smoke more responsible as to where and when we light up. 
[sup]and that is a very good thing![/sup]
Who says it doesn’t?
Even Cecil just says the evidence is weak that it does. That isn’t the same as it doesn’t. In fact; it very likely does- but it likely isn’t a major causitive agent. Just not concentrated enough, would be my WAG.
And do note that Cecil agrees that SHS is harmful- just that the evidence it causes CANCER is weak.
AFAIK, no one has compared in detail the composition of smoke produced by a smoldering cigarette, smoke inhaled while actively smoking a cigarette, and exhaled smoke.
They might all be more or less identical in composition, or the different temperatures of combustion and presence of moisture could cause different reactions to occur giving each one a significantly different chemical content from the next. I certainly don’t know enough to tell you anything other than that it could go either way as to which is more harmful.
Just a nitpick: It’s a pet peeve of mine when people call the smoke off the tip of a cigarette “secondhand smoke”. The term “secondhand” itself implies that it has been used by someone; therefore “secondhand smoke” is the stuff the smoker blows out after he or she takes a drag.
I was taught, many years ago in elementary school, that the stuff that comes off the tip of the cigarette is called “passive smoke”.
Right, we can be sure that there is a difference between SHS and direct smoking, but why is that. Why aren’t people getting addicted to SHS?
The evidence saying SHS causes cancer is weak, but you still think it very likely does cause cancer. How did you come up with that conclusion?
Read Cecils article. Several studies say it does- but others are inconclusive. That’s usually evidence that it does happen, but not always, or that it’s a weak casuitive agent. In this case, by the evidence so far, it appears that it’s does cause cancer, but it’s not a strong causitive agent. I’d guess that a few, rare, or weak exposures aren’t dangerous (as far as cancer goes). It likely takes long term repeated exposures. Here- the evidence isn’t certain either way, i admit. However, it is dangerous, even if the chance of getting cancer from it is slim- or even none.
Dudes don’t get addicted to SHS becuase it doesn’t have that much nicotine.
I agree with you. The fact that SHS causes cancer remains unproven, but it might cause cancer and it is dangerous.
Here is another one of Cecil Adam’s Column.
That should be the best way to sum up the issue.
Now we should focus on the differences between inhaling smoke directly and passively. The only differences seem to be the concentration of the smoke that is being inhaled and possibly the chemical reactions that occur when smoke is exposed to air. Can anyone clarify the existing proposals or suggest anything else?
Funnily enough, there’s a TV ad on Brit TV about the dangers of smoking in the presence of babies. I only caught the last few seconds, though.
I wondered about this, too. There was a commercial being put out by the State (New York) last year strongly suggesting that a man had given his wife cancer by smoking in the house. I thought perhaps they knew something that Cecil didn’t in 2000.