second hand smoke?

Question

I work in an office were people smoke. It's not a big office so it travels. I am 20 and do not smoke. Am I harming my lungs? Am i taking time off my life? Please give me proof not just common knowledge that smoking is bad for you. Personal expereinces?

I need to know i've been inhaling second hand smoke for bout a month? Am i dying or going to die from this within 5 years? I live in Montreal, Quebec, smoking in public places here is illegal.

Answer 1

What Is Secondhand Smoke?

Secondhand smoke is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 250 chemicals known to be toxic or cancer causing, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.1

Secondhand smoke is also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS); exposure to secondhand smoke is called involuntary smoking, or passive smoking.

It is not easy to avoid secondhand smoke because about one in four people smoke.2 The following list shows how secondhand smoke is harmful to yourself and your family.

The Dangers of Secondhand Smoke:

Secondhand smoke causes about 3,000 deaths each year from lung cancer in non-smokers.3

Secondhand smoke causes irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat.4

Secondhand smoke can also irritate the lungs, leading to coughing, excessive phlegm and chest discomfort.5

Secondhand smoke has been estimated to cause 22,700-69,600 deaths per year from heart disease in adult nonsmokers.6

Answer 2

Yes, second hand smoke is worse for you because you're breathing in pure smoke, there's no filtter so you're not getting any sort of protection from the nasty stuff. Obviously life long smokers are at a higher risk of getting cancer and what not, but second hand smoke is just as dangerous, i've know one girl who's parent that smoke and she was SERIOUSLY effected by it, not going to go into long *** details.

Answer 3

I think it is strange that you are forced to work in such an environment in the 21st century.
Most places make smokers go outside.
I don't have any proof that it's bad for you. I smoked for 17 years and just quit in January. Now I know how bad it smells. I'd hate to have to sit in a smoky room and work.
Maybe you should find another job.

Answer 4

Of course. Shouldn't be smoking outside, rather than in the office?

Answer 5

Yes. Matter of fact, second hand smoke is worse then smoking yourself. Think about it like this: You eat. Your body takes what it wants. Then you poo. The second hand smoke is the poo. Its whatever the body didn't take.

Want some facts?

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Answer 6

well here is some personal proof....im 21 and do not smoke. my dad has smoked constantly (one after another) all of my life and it has caused me to have a permanent cough, problems breathing and constant problems with my nose. almost every one i know (friends) smoke around me and it just makes it worse. try to avoid it as much as possible!

Answer 7

yes you are
it KILLS people
why do you think California and many other states made it against the law to smoke at a work place or where food is served... because it kills people...
check to see if it is a law in your state.if it is..then they HAVE to go outside to smoke...and it it is not..get a law going in your state...
and maybe you need to look for a new job fast...
good luck

Answer 8

sorry can't give u personal experience, just know that THEY say it is true. u won't die for a few years, but u r definately better off working someplace else. can't believe anyone still allows smoking in their office. good luck.

Answer 9

yep second hand smoke does more damage matey, least there drawing it in with a filter,it shouldnt be in your workplace kick them outside or get fans that will remove it

Answer 10

------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”

“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2164936/?tool=pmcentrez

------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
“Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”

Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790
“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”

http://www.cigarmony.com/downloads/smoking%201440.pdf
“Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS(environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk.”

Showtime television, "How the EPA, CDC, Lung Association, and etc." support their claims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGApkbcaZK4

US National Cancer Institute researcher explains the frauds involved in secondhand smoke media reports.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9gtMKB6X2o

Then the US Surgeon General went over all the studies to date in 2006 again and even though he went on public TV and announced "No safe level", the report itself showed exactly the opposite.
---The evidence is … not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke. (p. 13)
---The evidence is … not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.(p. 13)
---The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.(p. 11)

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf