Does Secondhand Smoke really kill?

Question

My dad smokes and since he drops me to work everyday, I get some added exposure. Plus the guy I share my office with also smokes. Neither one is a chain smoker (they smoke about one every two or three hours), but I am still concerned. Should I be?

Answer 1

Tobacco companies and many of their supporters commonly respond to this question by saying you get worse exposure from being outdoors, around automotive traffic, or through workplace factors.

The difficulty with this response/argument is that, no matter who expresses it, no matter how well-worded it may be, and no matter how vehemently it is expressed, it is always irrelevant.

This is because it does not directly address the question.
Instead, such argument tends to mislead, and it serves to deflect the question. Its specific purpose is to avoid a direct answer.



Carcinogens, by definition, are chemicals that are known to cause cancer.

Second-hand tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen.
(US EPA, and many others, made this abundantly clear)

People who are exposed to second-hand smoke are at higher risk of cancer than those who are not so exposed.

Many people are more susceptible to the effects of second-hand smoke than others. Some people are greatly susceptible to those effects.

There are many reasons for this increased susceptibility, but it remains true that exposure to small amounts of second-hand smoke may be just as harmful to them, and possibly more, as exposure to a larger amount would be for another person.



All of this has been very well established by a great many medical studies done by accredited universities, hospitals and doctors throughout the world. over the course of years.

The immediate effects of second-hand smoke on the human body are well documented, but tobacco-related/caused cancer cannot be identified in an individual for some time, as it occurs at a cellular level and its effects are not immediately visible. Usually, when the effects are identifiable, there is a substantial problem.

Your question was " Does secondhand smoke really kill?"

The answer is an unqualified YES.


If a second question was "Am I one of those people who are more susceptible to the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke than other people, and will it kill me?", the answer must be one of only two:

Time will tell, or, Wait and see.


The risk is there.
You have some control over the risk.
The choice to exercise that control is yours.

Answer 2

Yes, it is bad for you. Because when a normal smoker smokes they have a filter on the cigarette (assuming its not a cigar), so when you second hand smoke your breathing in the same material with no filter.

Answer 3

Yes, yes, and yes!

Most notable example of a non-smoker who died from second-hand smoke is Roy Castle.

You should be very concerned.

Hope that helps.

Regards
Business in Barnet
http://www.business-in-barnet.com

Answer 4

VERY! Yes secondhand smoke or passive smoking is just as bad as actually smoking itself!

Try to either ask them both nicely to smoke away from you or try to move your desk!

Answer 5

YES!!! Actually, second hand smoke will kill you faster than smoking the cigarette yourself. So steer clear of smoke. Cigarettes contain lots of toxins and constant consumption can be deadly.

Answer 6

Passive Smoking has never been proven to to be any more dangerous than going for a walk through a city. in fact its probable far more dangerous to jog on the streets than it is to sit next to a smoker.

Answer 7

------------- 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

Answer 8

Yes second hand smoke is a killer

Answer 9

too much of it could kill. it's not going to kill you right away, it destroys your lungs and body slowly.