Drinking a glass of milk...More dangerous than second hand smoking?

Question

I heard on TV (was probably a comedic skit, but I'm still curious), but is it really true drinking a glass of milk is worse than second hand smoking?

Answer 1

the taqbacco company was just trying to say that and lie to make it sound like it doesn't hurt you at all, I saw that commercial too.

Answer 2

The USA allows dairy farmers to use hormones and chemicals that are totally illegal in Canada because of the long term serious health effects, so its at least as bad as second hand smoke... The chemical companies want it that way to make money from those chemicals, and look like heros to the milk producers, Then the milk farmers get more milk from the same amount of cows, and look productive and efficient and profitable, Then the public doesn't need to know, and its not publicized, to avoid upsetting the $y$tem. Of course you saw it in a comic skit, so if you hear the truth, you'll be conditioned to laugh it off. Perfect System !

Answer 3

By "second hand smoking," do you mean smoking with your less dominant hand? (ie if you're right handed, smoking with your left and vice versa).
I suppose that could be dangerous-I'm not good at anything with my left hand, so I'd probably set something on fire.
However, I am lactose-intolerant, so drinking milk is VERY hazardous for me. You DON'T want to know what happens when I drink milk.
So, in my case, yes, I suppose drinking milk could be more dangerous than second hand smoking. ;)

Answer 4

No not true at all. Milk has many great nutrients in it, including of course calcium. It is very good for you. Second hand smoke on the other had, can give you lung cancer faster than someone who is a smoker. You can still drink milk.

Answer 5

Certainly not unless you have lactose intollerance!

Second hand smoke goes directly to your lungs and damages it. Some say second hand or passive smoking is worse then smoking a cigarette for yourself because the smoke doesn't go through a filter.

The benefits of drinking milk far outweigh any disadvantages.

Answer 6

Science has clearly demonstrated that the RR (relative risk) between milk and cancer is stronger than that between secondhand smoke and cancer. The point is that neither is of any concern.

-------- Secondhand smoke is as safe as dust
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...
“Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk”(p. 5)
“Our results support the concept that exposure to exhaust fumes and or soot/smoke (***from non-tobacco
sources***) is a source of carcinogenic exposure.” (p. 7)
“ETS exposure was not found to significantly increase risk among never smokers in this study”(p.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
William Osteen (US District Judge) ruling against the EPA
*The ruling shows by scientific definition that 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)

“Group A classification in large part on a resulting relative risk of only 1.19, without adequately explaining why the Agency had required every other Group A carcinogen to exhibit a much higher relative risk, or why it had recently found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to classify other agents in Group A. All of the 15 chemicals or mixtures previously classified by 'EPA as Group A carcinogens have higher relative risks than ETS.”(p. 76)

IAQC (Indoor Air Quality Control) epidemiologist Dr. Kabat observed, "An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." E.L. Wynder & G.C. Kabat, Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer: A Critical Assessment, I.SAB.7.1 at 6 (JA ,216). (p. 76)

FYI: Cow Milk has a cancer relative risk of 2.6 which is shown to be much higher than a lifetime exposure to secondhand smoke and animal meat is even higher than that.

Answer 7

f**k no drinking milk is WAAAAAAAAAAY better for u then second hand smoke. dude if ur talking about that one commercial on TV it tells u the answer. drinking milk isn't dangerous at all unless ur allergic to it but still its way better then second hand smoke.

Answer 8

No way. I drink milk every day and I am perfectly healthy. They were probably making fun of smoking/drinking alcohol.

Answer 9

The milk would have to be poisoned or something like that. But its from the whadafxup commercials about the cigarrette companies and there many claims. they have a few other commercials with the guy dressed up as a fluffy purple muppet.

Answer 10

It was sarcastic commercial. It was making fun of the tobacco industry claiming that cigarettes are safer than a glass of milk.

Answer 11

Only if you drink a glass of milk in a smoking area!