# Second hand smokers not safe?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [October 15, 2003, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557 "2003-10-15T12:38:26Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Israfell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Israfell)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/1 "2003-10-15T12:38:26Z")
I live in Singapore and the government has been airing alot of anti- smoking commercials about second hand smokers are equally at risk of getting cancer.
I’m curious cause some of my friends smoke and so does most of my family members(2 sisters, my dad, all my uncles) How does second hand smoking affect me? assuming i’m hanging out with at least one of them every day for an hour.
Plus i heard that this guy got lung cancer because his dad smoked alot even though he doesnt.
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/2 "2003-10-15T13:05:08Z")
The idea is that the smoker is inhaling the fumes through a filter. You, on the other hand, are subject to the identical fumes only without the benefit of a filter to remove larger particles. Ultimately, since the same chemicals are entering your body, your body is expected to react as if you were a regular smoker.
Of course there is an issue of dilution. There’s no way that you would be subjected to the same dosage as you father on a per cigarette basis.
---
### Author:  [@pasunejen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pasunejen)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/3 "2003-10-15T15:00:55Z")
From Robert M. Julien, _A Primer of Drug Action_ (ninth edition):
> [@](#):
>
> In addition to the direct effects of cigarettes on smokers, the environmental pollution caused by smokers can have adverse consequences for nonsmokers. About 4000 Americans die annually from lung cancer caused by other persons’ smoking (so-called passive smoke), and an additional 37,000 deaths every year follow from heart disease contracted as a result of inhaling passive smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to passive smoking have a coronary death rate 20 to 70 percent higher than nonsmokers not exposed to passive smoking.
---
### Author:  [@pasunejen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pasunejen)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/4 "2003-10-15T15:04:11Z")
I just realized that that quote contains no relevant information about the amount of exposure needed to cause severe effects like cancer and heart disease, but my impression has always been that it’s pretty high. Having a bunch of friends and a number of family members who smoke might do it, though–obviously this is only anecdotal, but I had a friend who had major problems (had to have a couple surgeries, etc.) with her lungs due to her parents’ smoking.
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/5 "2003-10-15T15:26:52Z")
From this [American Cancer Society](http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/15/acs_health.doc) site
> [@](#):
>
> According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (June 2002):
> • Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace have a 16-19% increased risk of lung cancer.
> • Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke from their spouses have an increased risk of lung cancer that is 30% for men and 20% for women.
> • Involuntary smoking increases the risk of an acute coronary heart disease event by 25-35%.
> • Full-term infants born to women who smoke weigh approximately 7 ounces less than those born to non-smokers.
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/6 "2003-10-15T15:38:39Z")
Though I should point out there are other views on this. From the [British Medial Journal](http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057)
> [@](#):
>
> Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
---
### Author:  [@j.c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j.c)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/7 "2003-10-15T16:07:17Z")
Clue - the ACS site cited above says “Full-term infants born to women who smoke weigh approximately 7 ounces less than those born to non-smokers.”
That 7-ounces is your clue that they made this stuff up. If the birth weight was presented as women who are smokers will have a baby whose birthweight is X percentage lower than if they didn’t smoke, that might mean something.
One baby might weigh 7 ounces less than another baby for any number of reasons – that’s what babies weigh in that family, the mother is a tiny Asian woman, the mother is a crackhead, the mother is 13. Hmmm. Do you think that Asians, crackhead, and the kind of 13-year olds who get pregnant might also be the type who are, statistically, likely to smoke? I’m not disputing the low-birth weight link for women who smoke, I’m pointing out that this bullet list is done in BS style.
We know about low birth weight because, women who were basically like other women except for their nicotine habit had babies with lower birth weights. (Although it’s possible this is because, in general, they ate less, it is still the case that the end result is smaller baby, at greater risk if something goes wrong.) This is how science works. Look at what science has to say about the second-hand smoke claims.
Oh, I don’t mean to be snitty. I’m not angry at you. I’m mad at people who will make up crap because they can’t trust people to think (that is, people who truly want people to take better care of themselves, but feel they must use hysterical exaggerations to achieve that) and people who are up to no good (lawyers).
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/8 "2003-10-15T16:36:58Z")
I’m guessing you’re talking to me. That’s fine, I don’t mind one way or the other. However, the ACS bullets are based on an International Agency for Research on Cancer document from 2002.
And from [American Medical Women’s Association](http://www.amwa-doc.org/publications/WCHealthbook/smokingamwa-ch07.html)
> [@](#):
>
> Babies born to women who smoke during pregnancy weigh, on the average, 7 ounces less than babies born to nonsmoking women. The relation between smoking by the mother and lower birth weight is separate from other factors that can influence birth weight, including race, number of previous births, maternal weight, socioeconomic status, sex of the child, and length of the pregnancy.
seems to address your concerns. I suppose the 7 oz handed out is to address the fact that 7 oz out of a 7# 8 oz baby would by ~6%. The 7 oz numbers seems to give greater weight to the impact on the baby. It also seems to be an excerpted from a 1995 book. Possibly this “7 oz” thing has simply embedded itself into the literature. :dubious:
---
### Author:  [@Israfell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Israfell)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/9 "2003-10-15T17:01:48Z")
whao hey, i didnt mean to stir up rants… But i was just curious if it was “really” a serious problem. Seems to me that it is… but no point finding this out without having any solution to it. At least I’ll tell my family not to smoke around me cause i wanna live longer :), and… thanx to you i have “something” to scare em with.
---
### Author:  [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/10 "2003-10-15T18:58:44Z")
Cecil points out that the most important studies on the subject are fudged, and that [this time the weasels may be right](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html).
Even scientists _want_ to believe the obvious connection between second hand smoke and cancer, but when people say “prove it,” the best the EPA can come up after a slow-cooking the data is a 19% increased risk.
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/11 "2003-10-15T19:17:09Z")
weasels? 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Apoptosis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apoptosis)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/12 "2003-10-15T21:12:57Z")
Hey **Israfell** ,
Note that it may not be merely the secondhand smoke you should worry about. Smokers have an increased chance of lower respiratory tract [infection](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10225579&dopt=Abstract). Here’s a hypothesis for you: merely hanging around smokers, whether they are smoking at the time or not, increases _your_ chance of contracting a respiratory tract infection. To my knowledge, no data is available to support or disprove this hypothesis. However, it may be prudent for you to wear a respirator when spending time with your friends and family.
-Apoptosis
---
### Author:  [@Achernar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Achernar)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/13 "2003-10-15T21:41:34Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by j.c. \*
> One baby might weigh 7 ounces less than another baby for any number of reasons - that’s what babies weigh in that family, the mother is a tiny Asian woman, the mother is a crackhead, the mother is 13. Hmmm. Do you think that Asians, crackhead, and the kind of 13-year olds who get pregnant might also be the type who are, statistically, likely to smoke? I’m not disputing the low-birth weight link for women who smoke, I’m pointing out that this bullet list is done in BS style.
Right, right, we all know that correlation is not the same thing as causation. Presumably you also got into a huff when [Cecil claimed](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_096.html) that studies say that smoking “prevents or at least slows the onset of Alzheimer’s disease” when really all he’s pointing out is correlation, not causation.
---
### Author:  [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/14 "2003-10-15T22:31:12Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Grey \*
> \*\*The idea is that the smoker is inhaling the fumes through a filter. You, on the other hand, are subject to the identical fumes only without the benefit of a filter to remove larger particles. \*\*
So wait. Are you really saying what I think you’re saying?
Let’s break this down.
Two people in a closed room. One smokes, one does not.
The smoke coming from the cigarette is filtered into the smoker, while it isn’t going into the non-smoker. Thus, the non-smoker is at more of a risk because the larger particles.
So what happens when the smoker takes the cigarette from his mouth? Wouldn’t he be taking in the same larger particles at that time considering the filter is no longer present?
---
### Author:  [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/15 "2003-10-15T22:32:32Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Israfell \*
> \*\*I live in Singapore and the government has been airing alot of anti- smoking commercials about second hand smokers are equally at risk of getting cancer.
> \*\*
Your government is a bunch of idiots and liars. The World Health Organization did an enormous and comprehensive study on the risks of second hand smoke. Their conclusions were that it was simply insignificant.
Here is their study:
[http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf](http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf)
---
### Author:  [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/16 "2003-10-15T22:35:09Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Achernar \*
> \*\*Right, right, we all know that correlation is not the same thing as causation. Presumably you also got into a huff when [Cecil claimed](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_096.html) that studies say that smoking “prevents or at least slows the onset of Alzheimer’s disease” when really all he’s pointing out is correlation, not causation. \*\*
Actually, just to put a hole in the airheads of antismokers, nicotine has been shown specifically to reduce secretion of the toxic amyloid beta protein that is strongly implicated in Alzheimer’s disease.
> **[Nicotine lowers the secretion of the Alzheimer's amyloid beta-protein...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12446972/?dopt=Citation)**
>
> Reports of an inverse relationship between nicotine intake, due to cigarette smoking, and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) prompted us to investigate the effects of nicotine on amyloid beta-protein precursor (AbetaPP) processing in rat....
There are idiots who have taken the whole “correlation is not causation” mantra far too far. Sometimes, correlation very well may point to a causative connection.
---
### Author:  [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/17 "2003-10-15T22:40:01Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Grey \*
> \*\*From this [American Cancer Society](http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/15/acs_health.doc) site \*\*
>
> According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (June 2002):
> • Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace have a 16-19% increased risk of lung cancer.
> • Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke from their spouses have an increased risk of lung cancer that is 30% for men and 20% for women.
> • Involuntary smoking increases the risk of an acute coronary heart disease event by 25-35%.
All lies based on junk science, pseudoscience, and scientific fraud. These people are cultists, not scientists. Go read the real science. The claims that the ACS makes are based on crap like the pack of juggled, fiddled, fudged, and dishonest crap published by the EPA.
The World Health Organization did an HONEST study, and it turned out to contradict the anti-smoking cultists’ lies.
---
### Author:  [@Apoptosis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apoptosis)
#### Post date: [October 15, 2003, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/18 "2003-10-15T23:23:36Z")
Hey **Seven** ,
Yeah, you’ve picked up on a point that many people overlook. Obviously, a smoker will be inhaling unfiltered smoke _as well as_ filtered smoke. The nonsmoker will only be inhaling unfiltered smoke. It is a fallacy to state that somehow the nonsmoker is _more_ at risk for cancer/heart disease than is the nonsmoker.
-Apoptosis
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/19 "2003-10-16T01:24:46Z")
**Apoptosis/Seven** did you miss the part were I specifically mentioned dilution?
**Dogface** did you miss the part where I cited the study basically refuting the ACS?
---
### Author:  [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/20 "2003-10-16T01:50:22Z")
I heard that a recent UCLA study (actually, it was conducted by UCLA and a school in England, I think) shows that secondhand tobacco smoke doesn’t really do anything (other than the problems it may cause asthmatics and such). My dad smokes and I don’t have any respiratory problems (although he usually only smokes outside)…although I have seen someone get “messed up” by inhaling second-hand smoke from something other than tobacco.
Personally, I think you should tell family and friends not to smoke around you because it bothers you (if it in fact does). If I smoked, that would be a good enough reason for me to find another place to do it.
I also think there are much better reasons not to smoke than an unproven load of government BS. For example: Nicotine is extremely addictive, cigarettes keep getting more and more expensive, there’s a significant stigma attached to smoking in public (at least in California), _first_-hand tobacco smoke has been proven to cause cancer, etc.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557.md?page=2)