Is second hand smoke bad for you?

Question

Before you ask why this is in this category, read the whole argument.

You wouldn't find a single scientific study that can prove that second hand smoke is bad for you, because it's impossible to empirically measure the amount of second hand smoke you can receive in your life while controlling for other factors like smog and pollution.
We do know that smoking (first hand smoke) is bad for you, and we also have a preponderance of OBSERVATIONAL data and CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that leads researchers to the conclusion (or hypothesis) that second hand smoke is bad. But in truth, we have no actual, real, PROOF of it, and we never will.

So if there is no scientific proof, why believe it?
*cough, cough*

THANK YOU, Acid, for at least getting what I was hinting at. =]

AZ- Agreed, I'll have to come up with another example to prove my point then. Something less "touchy" =]

Answer 1

Hmm, an interesting question. I wonder if observational evidence of God (the marvels of creation for example) would be enough to convince people that God exists ;o)

Answer 2

Well, the smoking issue is the single most lied about topic in the history of the world.

In 2003 the British Medical Journal released the results of a 40 year study on second hand smoke. That study showed that second hand smoke has no effect one way or the other.

But then this topic like so many others is about what people want to believe most so then what the truth actually is.

The President of the American Heart Association wrote a letter to the BMJ condemning their findings and asking why they released the results. So much for scientific studies, eh?

Answer 3

Well, it has been said that second hand smoking is worse than smoking itself. The reason for this is that a smoker inhales the smoke through the filter on the cigarette which can filter out most of the larger particulate matter contained in the smoke. Second hand smoke is inhaled directly and therefore the larger particles are taken directly into the lungs where they can cause more damage. Both direct smoking and secondhand smoke contain a variety of toxic chemicals which can cause significant health problems over time. The larger particles however act faster to damage lung tissue leading to a variety of respiratory problems when compared to direct smoke. This does not mean however that a non-smoker is at greater danger than a smoker although this claim has been made. Unless the smoker is breathing filtered air they are taking both direct smoke and second hand smoke into their bodies significantly increasing the damage done.

Answer 4

I believe this is an attempt to use an example that is not related to religion to prove a point about religion. Second hand s,smoke, while is not measurable, is bad for you based on the occurrence of it presence in the history of many respiratory aliments and other conditions. It is a common factor....
This is likely the base of you argument on the lack of proof as far as good is concerned and it is a good argument, if a person is willing to accept circumstantial evidence and find a common occurrence in the "presenting complaint"

Answer 5

I guess all the proof I need is living with a smoker. My mom smoked when I was growing up and I had tons of illness that is contributed to second hand smoke. When I moved out of the house I am rarely to never sick. Also like clock work when I was a kid if I rode in the car with her for any amount of time within 24 hours I was at the Dr. with horrible bronchitis. I guess that is proof enough for me. Not to mention, like most things in life, common sense tells you breathing a pollutant like that in any way cannot be good for you.

Answer 6

Because without scientific proof, we still know that if first hand smoke is bad for you, then second hand smoke can't be good for you. It's the same smoke, only not filtered. This isn't a good metaphore for what you are talking about.

Why do you care if people believe in God or not?

Lastly, science hasn't disproved God. So until it does that, you can't say He doesn't exist without a shadow of a doubt. You can only have faith that He doesn't exist. Just like we can have faith that He does. I think most people who have the science arguement don't really know much about science past high school.

Answer 7

I think you hit the head right on the nail. The answer to this question seems to depend on whether one is a smoker or not. My Mom, for many years, had smoker's lungs and was constantly told to quit smoking or she'd die, probably of cancer. The funny thing about it is that my Mom never smoked, but all her friends and my Dad did, and she was around it so much that she may as well have been a smoker for all the medical and physiological problems that came from being around it. But like you say, they can't categorically prove it, so that must mean my Mom was sneaking some major smoking in somewhere in private. I always wondered what she did while we were in school! For shame.

Answer 8

Actually, there is no "proof" that smoking is bad for you. Perhaps people who are prone to developing heart disease, emphysema, lung cancer, bladder cancer, peripheral vascular disease and a variety of other conditions tend to smoke for the same underlying reasons. There is no such thing as absolute scientific proof. The intrinsic skepticism in science calls for alternate explanations, even when a phenomenon is well characterized.

Answer 9

well, for the most part, if you are a non smoker, you spend most of your time in smoke free places. Which means, if you wind up around smokers, the second hand smoke could hurt you more then the smokers, because you are not use to the smoke like the smokers are.

but don´t take my word for it, just watch a bunch of nonsmokers walk in to a smoke filled room and watch the coughing, and you tell me, who hurts more, smokers or nonsmokers...what i am saying is, i believe second hand smoke is just as bad as first hand, but to a nonsmokers, its worse.

Answer 10

There is a very large amount the huge difference in this question and a question of god is the HUGE amount of observational data and lack of data going against the belief.

The age of the planet and life that has been on it are a great place to start when questioning Christian beliefs.

Answer 11

If the government started putting out ads for (sex with sheep) lets say. TV ads, billboards, radio, school lectures on how good it is, and its played over and over again after a small amount of time with no scientific data and even though we know that its sick some of us will start to believe its OK