Is it true that second hand smoke is harmless?

Question

On Penn and Teller BS!, scientists said that second hand smoke was not proven to be harmful.

Answer 1

There are some good studies cited on Wikepedia regarding the perils of second hand smoke. The studies have tended to focus on homes where someone smokes (the effect on the spouse and the children) and a clear correlation between second hand smoke and health problems has been established. The one area that seems to lack study is concerning second hand smoke in the workplace and other public areas. Some still try to argue that we don't have to ban smoking in public areas. Casual, occasional exposure is probably not a problem, but if you are stuck working in a place where heavy smoking goes on continuously, I would think that the effect would be the same as living with a smoker. I just don't buy what Penn and Teller say. Isn't their specialty fooling people with smoke and mirrors?

Answer 2

It's proven to be harmful. It hasn't been proven to cause lung cancer. (I saw the episode and loved it.) Honestly, the cancer risk from smoking is not particularly high, it's just higher than not smoking. The most dangerous effects of cigarette smoking are respiratory and cardiovascular damage.

Second-hand smoke can be very harmful to people with pre-existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma and emphysema. Constant exposure has been proven to be harmful to children, causing allergies, asthma, and a higher rate of respiratory infections.

Occasional exposure to second-hand smoke is not significantly harmful to healthy adults or children. If you find it annoying, that's your right, but you're not going to die from it.

For the "second-hand smoke is more dangerous than first-hand" crowd, don't be ridiculous. Even with a filter, the smoker is getting a much higher concentration of contaminants than anyone breathing the byproduct diluted throughout the air in the room. And yes, LOTS more non-smokers die of lung cancer, because smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer.

Answer 3

It is probably about the same as breathing exhaust fumes from automobiles depending on the concentration of the smoke. It may not be harmless but it's not as bad as inhaling it directly from the source. As for the filtered/unfiltered question, the larger particles given off that are not caught by the cigarette filter are likely to be more easily filtered out by our bodies own natural filters before getting deep into the lungs.

Answer 4

It's not harmless but by the time the smoke goes through the filter on the cig. and through someone's body it's a lot less harmful than first hand smoke!

Answer 5

I wouldn't go as far as to use the label "harmless", but years after the studies were performed, many of the labs have admitted that the results were skewed to lend creedence to a stated position that 2nd-hand smoke was harmful.

Now additional studies have rendered the previous results as unsubstantiated, with no evidence of deaths related to it whatsoever.

I do know there are individuals who are predisposed to being sensitive to the presence of smoke, (asthma, etc), but that includes many types of smoke and airborne maladies too.
But that is a specific case and not one to consider as the norm, since not everyone fits in that group.

Answer 6

It is harmfull. As a matter of fact, second-hand smoke is more dangerous than smoking a ciggarette because the chemicals are unfiltered by the paper when you get it from the end.

Answer 7

NO!! It's more dangerous that smoking a cigarette yourself. In a cigarette there is a filter, in second hand smoke there is not. In fact, more people die from lung cancer that have never smoked than people who actually smoke regularly.

Answer 8

Im sure when he smokes at home it harms you too psychologically. You should sue the school. Tax payers get bored having too much money.

Answer 9

Yes it is true recent studies have proven it. Check this out

Answer 10

really? as of what i know, second hand smoking is much dangerous.....there is a possibility of lung cancer