what are the risks of passive smoking?

Answer 1

There are no risks associated with passive smoking that are scientifically verifiable.

Consider the 2 largest studies ever:

the WHO announced with much fanfare that those who were subjected to passive smoking ran a 16 to 17% greater chance of contracting lung cancer. What they failed to mention is that the chances of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer is only 0.01%, meaning the increased risk equates to only 0.0017%, which in statistical terms is zero.

The other large study was conducted with a sample of over 35,000 non-smoking spouses of smokers, by scientists from the Universities of Califonia and New York. They found that there was no statistical evidence ot suggest these non-smokers (in a study which ran from 1959 to 1998) suffered greater mortality rates than non-smokers generally from either coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or any level of exposure.

I suspect this won't be the most popular answer, because so many people are health facists. That of course is the problem: lots of people with little tolerance and a big axe to grind, overlooking scientific study because they prefer instead to mis-interpret statistics and ban things they don't like themselves.

Me? I'm a militant smoker.

In response to later answers, the idea that something should be banned because you don't like it is nonsense. I may not like your after shave or perfume, but I'm not recommending that people who wear either should be forced to sit outside. And I note that, rather than picking on the largest study, which showed no link between coronary heart disease or lung cancer rates and passive smoking, you've picked on the 0.0017% chance in the WHO report to justify your argument. Statistically speaking, 0.0017% is the equivalent of 0, and, given that the margin of error was several orders of magnitude greater than the ten thousandths of a percent being measured, one could as easily argue that it shows a positive effect. No serious statician would even include such a result, and especially not trumpeting the 16-17% increased risk, unless there was a political (or at least politically correct) motivation.

While the death of Roy Castle was very sad in an abstract sort of way (lots of people die every day, and I don't know them either, so what do I care?) even the British Medical Association, that well known defender of smokers rights (!) only claim that about 800 people a year die of passive smoking - the most alarmist claim made. To put this into perspective, there were 1,650 deaths related to falls, 3,508 road traffic deaths and 3,946 deaths related to accidents in the home. Thus in order for your argument to be logically consistent and concerned with saving lives rather than banning things you simply don't like, you should first focus on banning cars, houses, and anything which allows people to raise themselves more than 6 inches off the floor.

More details on the study:

In May 2003, the British Medical Journal carried the results of research conducted by James Enstrom of the University of California, which monitored the non-smoking partners of 35,561 smoking spouses over a period of 30 years from 1959 to 1998. The study found that exposure to ETS was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time, or at any level of exposure.

Other quoted figures:
Road Traffic deaths 2003 from government figures published August 2004
Accidental deaths – ONS Statistics for accidental deaths - 1998

And as predicted, the number of - ratings for my answer is high, proving that an age is called dark not because there is no light, but because people refuse to see it.

Answer 2

I'm afraid there is no easy answer beyond simply avoiding smoking altogether. It's quite known that second hand smoke is dangerous as well. We've all heard the story of a the waitress that got lung cancer even though she never smoked a day in her life. Unfortunately that example is often repeated across many bars or restaurants that still allow smoking. Suggest the book "The Easy way to quit smoking" by Allen Carr. This is the most influential, most profound book I have ever read because it made me quit this disgusting pack a day habit.

Answer 3

The risks of passive smoking are exactly the same as the risks of smoking.

The entertainer Roy Castle died some years ago due to working in the smoke-filled environment of the clubland circuit. He wasn't a smoker.

Answer 4

Very low. Most of the tar and other noxious substances stay in the original smokers lungs leaving very little to contaminate others. The risks are hyped up by the PC/Health and Safety brigade who have over-reacted to a possible percieved threat.I should add that I am a non=smoker but do not want to influence the freedom of choice of others!

Answer 5

In retaliation of winballpizard's comment,

Although the passive smoking risks are low, I'd rather they were zero. I hate walking into a smoky room and not being able to breathe, and I'd rather not be exposed to smoke that causes a risk (however low) of cancer and ill health. 0.0017% is still higher than 0% Smoking in public places should be banned. If you fancy a tab, pop outside, I have no problem with the outside seats of a bar/restaurant being smoking. Inside, however, should be smoke-free.

Answer 6

The effects of secondhand smoke are grossly exaggerated. The American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and other health organizations and anti-smoking nazis cannot name even one single person who has died from secondhand smoke, despite claims that thousands of people die from it each year.

Answer 7

You get all the benefits or otherwise for free.
The government misses out on all the taxes smokers pay so if you go into hospital you didn't pay your way.
If you want to smoke buy your own.

Answer 8

it is equally vulnerable as that of active smoking, only the effects are a bit late as compared to active smoking

Answer 9

Two words "Smoke Inhalation!" =oP

Answer 10

you can also have lung cancer.. same risks like those who really smokes.. there are lots of cancer that could develop because of smoking..