# Second hand smokers not safe? **URL:** \ **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:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pasunejen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/58956e/32.png) [@pasunejen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pasunejen)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/21 "2003-10-16T02:04:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > 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. It’s true that nicotine has beneficial effects, but nicotine is not, strictly speaking, the cause of the problems caused by smoking; it is simply the substance that addicts smokers to cigarettes. It’s the particles in which nicotine is suspended and the other chemicals they contain that are the carcinogens–this is why nicotine replacement (patch, inhaler, gum, whatever) is preferable to allowing a smoker to continue smoking; the addictive substance is administered and stepped down (it does have a lot of detrimental effects to counter the nice one we know about) while removing the most serious threat to health. And while the risk of complications is certainly higher for a smoker than for a non-smoker in the same room/breathing the same air, it hardly seems fair that the non-smoker should suffer such serious consequences due to something they can’t control. And they do, at least often enough that one ought to be careful. ---
**Author:** ![Israfell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Israfell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Israfell)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/22 "2003-10-16T04:51:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*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. \*\* I couldnt agree more with you on the bunch of liars part.\<---- they do alot more than lie… But im getting alot of mixed signals here. So am i at a serious risk or just a slight one? I hate the fumes but after so many years… i got used to it. Only thing is, do i need to start watching out for myself? Cause i’d hate to tell my family on my death bed… Yeah you “sorta” murdered me. ---
**Author:** ![Apoptosis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Apoptosis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apoptosis)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/23 "2003-10-16T05:50:39Z")
Hey **Grey** , No, I didn’t miss the part where you specifically mentioned dilution. I also didn’t miss the part where you specifically said: > [@](#): > > 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. (Bolding mine) -Apoptosis ---
**Author:** ![Ludicrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Ludicrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludicrous)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/24 "2003-10-16T08:22:10Z")
Actually, instead of dilution he is implying diffusion. The smoke diffuses in the air and you, the 2nd hand smoker, inhale a miniscule proprtion of what the smoker acutally intakes. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2003, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/25 "2003-10-16T11:25:10Z")
**Apoptosis** I suppose if I had said passive smokers receive the same _dosage_ of fumes you would be right. However I said the _composition_ of the fumes is identical, not the dosage. And, while **Ludicrous** is right about diffusion being the mechanism the end result is a dilution of the chemicals within the air space. You and **Seven** do bring up a good point that I guess I buried under some assumptions. Active smokers breathe both primary and secondary smoke/fumes while passive smokers only breathe the secondary. **Israfell** basically it comes down to this, passive smoke likely will not kill you but it’s a pain to deal with from a cosmetic point of view (clothes smell, rooms smell) and for some with breathing problems the particulate matter is an irritant. I suggest you speak with your family and figure out a practical way to reduce the amount of smoke you need to put up with until you can move out. ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2003, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/26 "2003-10-19T08:21:44Z")
hmm, only just noticed this thread. > [@](#): > > Originally posted by **Israfell** > … anti- smoking commercials about second hand smokers are equally at risk of getting cancer. … [nitpick] saying that passive smokers face the same health risks as smokers (such as lung cancer), isn’t quite the same as saying “second hand smokers are equally at risk of getting cancer”. [/nitpick] > [@](#): > > Originally posted by **Dogface** > … Your government is a bunch of idiots and liars. … whatever nonsense the government might be harping next in their campaigns, it would be better if you’d find something a little more worthy to rant about rather than at a branch of the government looking to clear up the little amount of breathing space we have… and you would do better, **Dogface** , than to hurl insults like that on a debatable subject as this. i’d tried to access your link but it’s a subscription site so i’ve randomly googled a couple of links for you on the WHO website instead. the very first result yields [this](http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html) > [@](#): > > **PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU** > … The World Health Organization (WHO) has been publicly accused of suppressing information. Its opponents say that WHO has withheld from publication its own report that was aimed at but supposedly failed to scientifically prove that there is an association between passive smoking, or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and a number of diseases, lung cancer in particular. Both statements are untrue. > > The study in question is a case-control study on the effects of ETS on lung cancer risk in European populations, which has been carried out over the last seven years by 12 research centres in 7 European countries under the leadership of WHO’s cancer research branch – the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). > > The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: \*passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers. … \* and something more [recent](http://www.who.int/mediacentre/notes/2003/np14/en/), > [@](#): > > … Moreover, Mr Byrne has focused attention on the dangers of passive smoking taking on those who see it as a non-issue and declaring that “our medical faculties are piled high with studies estimating that passive smoking accounts for between 30 000 and 50 000 deaths every year in the European Union.” … if that isn’t enough for you then i’ll throw IMHO as well - as far as this thread is concerned, the answer to the OP is yes, since there is enough addicted smokers and tobacco industry people who choose to vex seemingly well intentioned people, the road to the final answer (if any) will be in GD. in the meantime, here’s my take - whatever else is in tobacco smoke, there will always be soot, and that is reason enough for me not to have someone else use my lungs as an ashtray. on preview - why yes, i am not a smoker. and among other things i would very much welcome a study claiming that thick pungent floral perfume is evil for the passive inhalers… ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2003, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/27 "2003-10-19T09:27:12Z")
Like all of us I had 2 grandmothers. One was all about clean living. She never drank, loathed smoking with a passion and was very active up to her last day (she was an avid gardener and club-joiner, a regular social butterfly). She was the nana that used to ring up to give you lectures about feeding children vegetables. She was a wonderful grandmother and died at 89. My other grandmother smoked like a chimney and was fairly fond of a tipple too. She lacked in confidence and became a bit isolated in later life but she was always fun. As kids we knew visiting her always meant chocolate, lollies (candies to americans), fizzy drink…all the stuff frowned on in my house. She got emphysemia because she was such a heavy smoker and her last year was not the most pleasant. She was a wonderful grandmother and she died at 88. We all die from something. This past week a friends 34 year old cousin had a stroke while jogging, she was a non-smoker and health fanatic. I’m a smoker and I will be till I can’t be arsed paying for it anymore. If second hand smokers feel hard done by that I’m sorry. I never smoke in the presence of someone whom I know smoke bothers because I’m considerate. 88 or 89, smoker or non-smoker, we are all going in the end. ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2003, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557/28 "2003-10-19T13:18:42Z")
Warning: hijack ahead! **calm kiwi** , I’m a little bit confused about the meaning of your post. You are absolutely right that we are all going to die of something. Most people would be lucky to reach the age of 88 or 89, smoker or not. My own mother’s family was divided pretty evenly between smokers and non-smokers, and none of them lived to see 70. But you seem to be implying (or perhaps you subconsciously believe because of your own experience) that smokers are more “fun” than non-smokers. If that was, indeed, your implication, I don’t believe it. My mother smoked until about 10 years before she died of lung cancer. She was a huge pain in the ass. My father smoked right up until the day cancer killed him, and he was a fun guy. I’ve never taken up smoking, but I have it on good authority that I’m a fun mom, and have every intention of being a “candy for breakfast if that’s what the little darlings want” kind of grandmom one of these days. For myself, I have no axe to grind with smokers, so long as they don’t blow it in my face. Logically, it seems that seconghand smoke would almost **have** to have impact. After all, if one can get high from second-hand pot smoke, couldn’t one get ill from second-hand cigarette smoke? It certianly **seems** like the answer would be yes. But, seeing as how the jury still seems to be out, I’ll just note that being exposed to too much smoke bothers the **hell** out of my allergies! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-hand-smokers-not-safe/207557.md?page=1)