nova_gteuk
Member
Registered: 15th May 02
Location: South Wales Drives: The Bandwagon
User status: Offline
|
Wrong the smoke exhaled from a smoker has less toxins in because its been absorbed by the body,its the smoke from the tip off the fag it lets off when lit is the danger.
the end off the day they should have smoking and non smoking pubs that would of solved it not an entire ban. 
|
topshot_2k
Banned
Registered: 1st Dec 03
Location: Northampton Drives: Pug GTi-6
User status: Offline
|
i want to be able to go in a pub without some cunt damaging my health for their dirty and selfish habit.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by nova_gteuk
quote:
Originally posted by nova_gteuk
Wrong,The smoke exhaled from a smoker has less toxins in because its been absorbed by the body,its the smoke from the tip off the fag that lets off the bad smoke which is the danger.
the end off the day they should have smoking and non smoking pubs that would of solved it not an entire ban.
no the body changes it into carbon monoxide or something i forget exactly what but its a known fact exhaled smoke is more dangerous
|
nova_gteuk
Member
Registered: 15th May 02
Location: South Wales Drives: The Bandwagon
User status: Offline
|
I want be able to live a healthy life with all the motorists and their dirty selfish ways  
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
I would have liked to smoke a cigarette without some smart arsed cunt telling me something I already new in a selfish, arrogant way.
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
no the body changes it into carbon monoxide or something i forget exactly what but its a known fact exhaled smoke is more dangerous
Facts need backing up with evidence Steve
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Why is second-hand smoke more harmful than what smokers inhale?
Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that smokers inhale directly from their cigarettes. It also has five times as much carbon monoxide. Sidestream smoke is particularly dangerous. It contains the same carcinogens as mainstream smoke, but in even higher concentrations. A lit cigarette left sitting in an ashtray burns more slowly than when a person actively puffs on it, so it releases more smoke into the air. About two-thirds of the smoke from a burning cigarette is never inhaled by the smoker and goes directly into the environment.
http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/FAQCHNResourceTemplate&cid=1001925
[Edited on 01-07-2007 by Steve]
|
nova_gteuk
Member
Registered: 15th May 02
Location: South Wales Drives: The Bandwagon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by nova_gteuk
quote:
Originally posted by nova_gteuk
Wrong,The smoke exhaled from a smoker has less toxins in because its been absorbed by the body,its the smoke from the tip off the fag that lets off the bad smoke which is the danger.
the end off the day they should have smoking and non smoking pubs that would of solved it not an entire ban.
no the body changes it into carbon monoxide or something i forget exactly what but its a known fact exhaled smoke is more dangerous
quote:
The non-smoker breathes "sidestream" smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette and "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker. Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a major source of indoor air pollution.
What's in the smoke?
Tobacco smoke contains over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. [1] Many potentially toxic gases are present in higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke and nearly 85% of the smoke in a room results from sidestream smoke.
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html
its the tip off the fag just like i said ?
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Passive smoking (also known as secondhand smoking, involuntary smoking, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS exposure) occurs when smoke from one person's burning tobacco product (or the smoker's exhalation) is inhaled by others. Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.[1][2][3][4]
Passive smoking is one of the key issues leading to smoking bans in workplaces and indoor public places, including restaurants
Long-term effects
Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (i.e. in case of cigarette, a mixture of smoke released from the smoldering end of the cigarette and smoke exhaled by the smoker) causes the same problems as direct smoking, including heart disease,[5] cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and lung ailments such as COPD, bronchitis and asthma.[6] Specifically, meta-analyses have shown lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20-30% greater risk of lung cancer, and those exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased risk of 16-19%[7].
A wide array of negative effects are attributed, in whole or in part, to frequent, long term exposure to second hand smoke[8][9][10]. Some of these effects include:
Cancer:
General: overall increased risk[11]; reviewing the evidence accumulated on a worldwide basis, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2002 that "Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."[12]
Lung cancer: the effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. Studies from the USA (1986,[13][14] 1992,[15] 1997,[16] 2001,[17] 2003[18]), the UK (1998[19][20]), and Australia (1997[21]), as well as pooled international cohorts (2004[22]) have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.
There is conflicting information regarding increased risk of breast cancer[23][24]
Passive smoking does not appear to be associated with pancreatic cancer[25]
Ear, nose, and throat: risk of ear infections[26]
Circulatory system: risk of heart disease[27]
Lung problems:
Risk of asthma [28][29]
Pregnancy:
Risk of miscarriage and birth defects[30]
Risk of premature birth[31]
General:
Worsening of asthma, allergies, and other conditions[32]
Risk to children[33]
Risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)[34]
Risk of developing asthma[35]
Risk of lung infections[36][37][38][39]
More severe illness with bronchiolitis, and worse outcome[40]
Increased risk of developing tuberculosis if exposed to a carrier[41]
Risk of allergies
Risk of Crohn's disease[42]
Risk of learning difficulties, although this may only be in children exposed before birth.[43] Animal models suggest a role for nicotine and carbon monoxide in neurocognitive problems[39]
Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.[44]and in children[45]
[edit] Short-term effects
Persons with asthma can experience attacks brought on by passive smoking[46] whether they are adults or children,[47][48][49] supporting calls for a smoking ban.[50]
Tobacco smoke is an irritant, and allergy sufferers can experience stuffy or runny noses, watery or burning eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, a feeling of suffocation, and other typical allergy symptoms within minutes of exposure. Some people with no known allergies and without asthma may cough in smoke-filled rooms, get headaches, feel nauseated, feel sleepy, and experience other ill effects, when they would not normally exhibit these symptoms without the presence of smoke.[citation needed]
Many former smokers, and those who are trying to quit prefer to not be around smoke as it can cause them to have cravings. Some people simply do not like the odor, which clings to hair, clothing, furniture, and rugs.
Many of these short-term effects terminate after the exposure ends. Repeated exposure, however, is believed to cause more serious long-term effects.
[edit] Epidemiological studies of passive smoking
Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking.
In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the evidence available from epidemiological and other studies regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.[51] Some studies make the claim that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25 per cent increase in risk of death from heart attack, are more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes contract genital cancer. Some research, such as the Helena Study[52], suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. The Helena Study claims that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent[53]. Parents who smoke appear to be a risk factor for children and babies and are associated with low birth weight babies, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections.[54]
In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:
These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.[55] [56]
Additionally, studies assessing passive smoking without looking at the partners of smokers have found that high overall exposure to passive smoking is associated with greater risks than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers.[57]
The National Asthma Council of Australia[58] cites studies showing that: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:
Smoking by either parent, particularly by the mother, increases the risk of asthma in children.
The outlook for early childhood asthma is less favourable in smoking households.
Children with asthma who are exposed to smoking in the home generally have more severe disease.
Many adults with asthma identify ETS as a trigger for their symptoms.
Doctor-diagnosed asthma is more common among non-smoking adults exposed to ETS than those not exposed. Among people with asthma, higher ETS exposure is associated with a greater risk of severe attacks.
In France passive smoking has been estimated to cause between 3000[59] and 5000 premature deaths per year, with the larger figure cited by Prime minister Dominique de Villepin during his announcement of a nationwide smoking ban: "That makes more than 13 deaths a day. It is an unacceptable reality in our country in terms of public health."[60]
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Why is second-hand smoke more harmful than what smokers inhale?
Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that smokers inhale directly from their cigarettes. It also has five times as much carbon monoxide. Sidestream smoke is particularly dangerous. It contains the same carcinogens as mainstream smoke, but in even higher concentrations. A lit cigarette left sitting in an ashtray burns more slowly than when a person actively puffs on it, so it releases more smoke into the air. About two-thirds of the smoke from a burning cigarette is never inhaled by the smoker and goes directly into the environment.
http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/FAQCHNResourceTemplate&cid=1001925
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
there so much evidence out there about smoking it really is pointless you two arguing any different
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
What are we debating? Can't be arsed to read copied info.
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
I've already said I don't disagree smoking is bad 
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
but you asked me to find evidence that second hand smoke is mroe dangerous
|
nova_gteuk
Member
Registered: 15th May 02
Location: South Wales Drives: The Bandwagon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Why is second-hand smoke more harmful than what smokers inhale?
Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that smokers inhale directly from their cigarettes. It also has five times as much carbon monoxide. Sidestream smoke is particularly dangerous. It contains the same carcinogens as mainstream smoke, but in even higher concentrations. A lit cigarette left sitting in an ashtray burns more slowly than when a person actively puffs on it, so it releases more smoke into the air. About two-thirds of the smoke from a burning cigarette is never inhaled by the smoker and goes directly into the environment.
http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/FAQCHNResourceTemplate&cid=1001925
So basically what i said
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
but you asked me to find evidence that second hand smoke is mroe dangerous
I was intrigued more than arguing
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
and i think if you read that long post i just made this shows the chances of being harmed by second hand smoke are quite high, high enough to be worried about socialising in such conditions
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by nova_gteuk
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Why is second-hand smoke more harmful than what smokers inhale?
Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that smokers inhale directly from their cigarettes. It also has five times as much carbon monoxide. Sidestream smoke is particularly dangerous. It contains the same carcinogens as mainstream smoke, but in even higher concentrations. A lit cigarette left sitting in an ashtray burns more slowly than when a person actively puffs on it, so it releases more smoke into the air. About two-thirds of the smoke from a burning cigarette is never inhaled by the smoker and goes directly into the environment.
http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/FAQCHNResourceTemplate&cid=1001925
So basically what i said
so second hand smoke is more dangerous than what the smoker smokes then, which is what i said about 2 hours ago lol
[Edited on 01-07-2007 by Steve]
|
nova_gteuk
Member
Registered: 15th May 02
Location: South Wales Drives: The Bandwagon
User status: Offline
|
well if this was such a threat how come more people die a year due to the gases let off by a car than a cigarette?
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
proof? i doubt that very much
|
Rebecca
Member
Registered: 8th Jun 07
Location: Penwortham, Lancashire Drives: Integra Type R
User status: Offline
|
Who cares. Everyone dies eventually anyway.
|
nova_gteuk
Member
Registered: 15th May 02
Location: South Wales Drives: The Bandwagon
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by nova_gteuk
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Why is second-hand smoke more harmful than what smokers inhale?
Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that smokers inhale directly from their cigarettes. It also has five times as much carbon monoxide. Sidestream smoke is particularly dangerous. It contains the same carcinogens as mainstream smoke, but in even higher concentrations. A lit cigarette left sitting in an ashtray burns more slowly than when a person actively puffs on it, so it releases more smoke into the air. About two-thirds of the smoke from a burning cigarette is never inhaled by the smoker and goes directly into the environment.
http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/FAQCHNResourceTemplate&cid=1001925
So basically what i said
so second hand smoke is more dangerous than what the smoker smokes then, which is what i said about 2 hours ago lol
[Edited on 01-07-2007 by Steve]
i said on this page thats its the dangerous stuff that comes from the lit end and not the second hand smoke that causes illness?
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
indeed but whilst i have a choice id rather die later rather than sooner just so some random person can have a fix of there bad habit
|
Rebecca
Member
Registered: 8th Jun 07
Location: Penwortham, Lancashire Drives: Integra Type R
User status: Offline
|
And you could get hit by a bus tomorrow doesn't mean busses should be banned in public places.
[Edited on 01-07-2007 by novabex]
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by nova_gteuk
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by nova_gteuk
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Why is second-hand smoke more harmful than what smokers inhale?
Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that smokers inhale directly from their cigarettes. It also has five times as much carbon monoxide. Sidestream smoke is particularly dangerous. It contains the same carcinogens as mainstream smoke, but in even higher concentrations. A lit cigarette left sitting in an ashtray burns more slowly than when a person actively puffs on it, so it releases more smoke into the air. About two-thirds of the smoke from a burning cigarette is never inhaled by the smoker and goes directly into the environment.
http://www.canadian-health-network.ca/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=CHN-RCS/CHNResource/FAQCHNResourceTemplate&cid=1001925
So basically what i said
so second hand smoke is more dangerous than what the smoker smokes then, which is what i said about 2 hours ago lol
[Edited on 01-07-2007 by Steve]
i said on this page thats its the dangerous stuff that comes from the lit end and not the second hand smoke that causes illness?
if you read the extract there are two types of smoke, second hand and sidestream, second hand is more dangerous, and side stream, the stuff from the tip is more dangerous yet
|
