Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by normalothercitrusfruit)
    Nah, it doesn't really - it's a common misconception
    (Original post by http://old.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html)
    How does smoke affect the passive smoker?

    Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. [3]



    In the longer term, passive smokers suffer an increased risk of a range of smoking-related diseases. Non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, have a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. [4] A major review by the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children. [5] A more recent review of the evidence by SCOTH found that the conclusions of its initial report still stand i.e. that there is a “causal effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on the risks of lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and a strong link to adverse effects in children”. [6] A review of the risks of cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) noted that “the evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers”. [7] A study published in the British Medical Journal suggests that previous studies of the effects of passive smoking on the risk of heart disease may have been under-estimated. The researchers found that blood cotinine levels among non-smokers were associated with a 50-60% increased risk of heart disease. [8]



    Deaths from secondhand smoke

    Whilst the relative health risks from passive smoking are small in comparison with those from active smoking, because the diseases are common, the overall health impact is large. Professor Konrad Jamrozik, formerly of Imperial College London, has estimated that domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry. This equates to about one-fifth of all deaths from secondhand smoke in the general population and up to half of such deaths among employees in the hospitality trades.
    Its not a misconception
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Degausser)
    Its not a misconception
    From the Daily Telegraph:

    The scientific evidence to support their belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist. In the course of writing a book on "scares", I recently trawled through all the scientific literature on the health risks of tobacco, ever since Richard Doll's seminal paper in 1950 alerted the world to the link between smoking and lung cancer (when 82 per cent of British men were smokers). Over the next 30 years, the realisation that smokers risked serious damage to their health led to a 50 per cent drop in the habit. But this divided people into three groups: more or less addicted smokers, generally tolerant non-smokers and fiercely intolerant anti-smokers.

    At the end of the Seventies, the anti-smokers first seriously turned their attention to what they called "passive smoking". Over the next decade, it is fascinating to follow how, try as they might, they could not come up with the evidence they wanted to prove that "environmental tobacco smoke" was directly harming non-smokers' health. They became greatly excited by a series of studies which purported to show a link between smoking and cot deaths. But these somehow managed to ignore the fact that, in the very years when cot deaths were rising by 500 per cent, the incidence of smoking had halved.

    A further series of studies in the Nineties, mainly in the US, claimed to have found that passive smoking was causing thousands of deaths a year. But however much the researchers tried to manipulate the evidence, none could come up with an increased risk of cancer that, by the strict rules of epidemiology, was "statistically significant".

    In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other, run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers. In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk. This confirmed Sir Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me".

    In each case, the sponsors tried to suppress the results, which were only with difficulty made public (the fact that Enstrom and Kabat, both non-smokers, could only get their results published with help from the tobacco industry was inevitably used to discredit them, even though all their research had been financed by the anti-tobacco cancer charity).

    In the early years of this decade, the anti-smokers had become so carried away by the rightness of their cause that they no longer worried about finding disciplined evidence for their statistical claims. One notorious but widely-quoted study commissioned by 33 councils campaigning for a "smoke-free London" came up with the wonderfully precise claim that 617 Britons die each year from passive smoking in the workplace. No longer was there any pretence at serious debate. This was a propaganda war, in which statistics could be manufactured at will. (The European Commission's 2006 figure for annual deaths from passive smoking in the UK was around 12,000, some 20 times higher than the figure quoted by the British Government itself.)

    By the time the Commons pushed through the smoking ban in February 2006, a kind of collective hysteria had taken over. MPs fell over themselves in boasting how many lives they were about to save. One Department of Health official was quoted as equating its significance to the Act setting up the National Health Service in 1948.

    As clouds of self-righteousness billow out over England this weekend, the anti-smokers may be entitled to give us their view that smoking is a thoroughly noxious and nasty habit, even that it can exacerbate respiratory conditions such as asthma or bronchitis arising from other causes. They can even claim that the ban will save lives by persuading smokers to give up. But the one thing they cannot claim is any reliable evidence for their belief that passive smoking is responsible for killing people. Sir Richard Doll was right. It is merely a sanctimonious act of faith.

    It is a misconception
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by normalothercitrusfruit)
    Nah, it doesn't really - it's a common misconception
    Of course it does! There are loads of statistics out there on how bad second hand smoke is and it's even more frustrating when you choose not to smoke and have to breathe it in anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chloe_abbey)
    Of course it does! There are loads of statistics out there on how bad second hand smoke is and it's even more frustrating when you choose not to smoke and have to breathe it in anyway.
    Yes, but you're not reeeeeally breathing all that much in - see my above post :yep:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leemkule)
    Do you avoid all major cities then? The air is anything but clean, smokers or not.
    (Original post by Entangled)
    I love how the popular defence seems to be 'such-and-such does more damage.' If this is the case, then why would I want to add the unnecessary damage caused by cigarettes? Other things give you cancer? Fine, that's a simple one, cigarettes would be a nice start to whittle down the risks.
    Cars have catalytic converters to reduce harmful waste gases - cigarettes do not. You cannot 'passive drink' - you can 'passive smoke.' Two pretty simple sentences, two pretty simple points.

    (Original post by Entangled)
    And it does have consequences, even passively as some people have disputed. The nicotine has rotted your brain to delusion if you think that there are no effects for the bystanders.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    Cars have catalytic converters to reduce harmful waste gases - cigarettes do not. You cannot 'passive drink' - you can 'passive smoke.' Two pretty simple sentences, two pretty simple points.
    You can however have you face smashed in by a drunk.
    And catalytic converters are not 100% effective and there are alot of cars

    WHy not reduce these by living on a farm in the countryside?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    Cars have catalytic converters to reduce harmful waste gases - cigarettes do not. You cannot 'passive drink' - you can 'passive smoke.' Two pretty simple sentences, two pretty simple points.
    If you think the air in a city is 'clean' due to catalytic converters then you're an absolute idiot.

    Alcohol is a direct cause of violence, cigarettes are not. This is also a simple sentence and a simple point that you refuse to acknolwedge.

    Interesting how you completely ignored normalothercitrisfruits post which completely picked apart the over-exaggerated risks of passive smoking.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crazylemon)
    WHy not reduce these by living on a farm in the countryside?
    Well, funny you should say that. I do.

    (Original post by leemkule)
    If you think the air in a city is 'clean' due to catalytic converters then you're an absolute idiot.
    Oh dear. It was all going so diplomatically until you went for that one.

    Righty-ho, let's sieve through this. Firstly, I'm perfectly aware that catalytic converters are not 100% effective, but the measures that are taken to reduce the harm caused by exhaust gases are a damn sight better than those in place on the end of a cigarette.

    (Original post by Entangled)
    Alcohol itself has very little effect on anybody other than the drinker, however tobacco and the rest, that are puffed out by millions around the world, quite easily affect those that are not actively taking those chemicals.
    But of course, I'm just sweeping the point under the rug and completely refusing to acknowledge it. 'Passive drinking' does not represent the bloody nose acquired when a drinker punches you in the face. That's 'getting punched.' Passive drinking would be inhaling fumes of alcohol as somebody else drinks - I haven't got drunk as other people drink around me and I don't, have you?

    Thirdly, I felt that Degausser summed up my feelings pretty aptly. Far be it for me to argue with the middle class Telegraph writers that have the money and social status to uphold the habit. Maybe I should dig up a Wikipedia article to counter the point, it would seem appropriate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    Thirdly, I felt that Degausser summed up my feelings pretty aptly. Far be it for me to argue with the middle class Telegraph writers that have the money and social status to uphold the habit. Maybe I should dig up a Wikipedia article to counter the point, it would seem appropriate.
    Well, if you won't listen to the Daily Telegraph, maybe The Sun is more your thing...

    PASSIVE SMOKE 'NOT BAD'

    PASSIVE smoking is less harmful than feared, a controversial new study claimed yesterday. The report is significant because of its scale, studying 120,000 people in California from 1959 to 1998. More than 35,000 of them were non-smokers living with a smoker. Those exposed to “environmental smoke” did not suffer significantly higher rates of lung cancer or heart disease, it was claimed. Researchers said passive smoking could not cause a 30 per cent increased risk of coronary heart disease the figure generally accepted by experts. They added: “It seems premature to conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes death from coronary heart disease and lung cancer.”
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by normalothercitrusfruit)
    Well, if you won't listen to the Daily Telegraph, maybe The Sun is more your thing...

    PASSIVE SMOKE 'NOT BAD'

    PASSIVE smoking is less harmful than feared, a controversial new study claimed yesterday. The report is significant because of its scale, studying 120,000 people in California from 1959 to 1998. More than 35,000 of them were non-smokers living with a smoker. Those exposed to “environmental smoke” did not suffer significantly higher rates of lung cancer or heart disease, it was claimed. Researchers said passive smoking could not cause a 30 per cent increased risk of coronary heart disease ? the figure generally accepted by experts. They added: “It seems premature to conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes death from coronary heart disease and lung cancer.”

    (Original post by BBC Website - [url)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/3235820.stm][/url]
    However, it is true that the health risks of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke are much smaller than those posed by actually smoking.
    And the pro-smoking lobby, including the campaigning group FOREST, argue that the case against passive smoking has never been properly proved.
    They point to a study by the University of California published in the British Medical Journal which found that the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. This in turn, is disputed by the anti-smoking lobby, which points out that after considering the BMJ study, the UK Government's Committee on Carcinogens and SCOTH still concluded that environmental tobacco smoke is carcinogenic, and responsible for several hundred deaths a year in the UK.
    So they've charted that one out already.


    (Original post by BUPA - [url)
    http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html][/url]
    The researchers chose this subgroup of nonsmokers because they reasoned that being married to smokers meant that this group was exposed to secondhand smoke. According to their analysis of this group, passive smoking (by inhaling a spouse's cigarette smoke) wasn't significantly associated with an increased risk of death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. From this finding, the study's authors, suggest that passive smoking cannot cause the 30 per cent increased risk of coronary heart disease that it is currently believed to cause. Instead, they argue that it might cause a much smaller effect. However, they couldn't rule out the possibility of a 20 per cent increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
    But the American Cancer Society (ACS) - the organisation whose data was used - has strongly criticised the study. The analysis was funded by the tobacco industry and supported by the now defunct Centre for Indoor Air Research (CIAR) - a group funded and founded by cigarette companies. "We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems it literally failed to get a government grant," said Dr. Michael J. Thun, vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research. "The ACS welcomes thoughtful, independent peer review of our data, but this study is neither reliable nor independent."
    Bingo. A little bit of a checkered background to the study then. And since we're into quoting great chunks of text just now, the BUPA source brings up another few interesting points:

    Participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to secondhand smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone came into contact with it, whether they were married to a smoker or not.
    No information was collected on the sources of secondhand smoke other than spousal smoking.
    No information on smoking habits after 1972 was included in the analysis, even though the observation period continued for another 26 years.
    On average, participants were 52 years old when enrolled on the study. Many spouses who reported smoking in 1959 would have died, quit smoking or ended the marriage during the 38-year follow up, yet their surviving partners are still classified being passive smokers in the analysis.
    Much of the follow up relates to older age groups where the effects of many environmental risk factors become less apparent.
    EDIT - I forgot to mention, that Sun reference was a cheap shot. If I was good-natured, I'd say that I'm just in it for the pictures.

    SECOND EDIT - Tried to clean up the quote titles, but something seems to be failing me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by normalothercitrusfruit)
    Yes, but you're not reeeeeally breathing all that much in - see my above post :yep:
    Ok so I hadn't read your above post, being lazy and just reading what had been quoted lol but now I have I admit it's interesting but anyone can find statistics that back up their point of view.

    I just can't believe that anyone thinks that cigarette smoke which is very harmful to smokers (surely everyone accepts this) can be breathed in by others and have little or no effect. Especially if you live with someone who smokes inside or anyone who smokes around you on a regular basis all the crappy smoke is bound to screw up your lungs over time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)


    EDIT - I forgot to mention, that Sun reference was a cheap shot. If I was good-natured, I'd say that I'm just in it for the pictures.
    :rofl: I do actually read The Sun, but only for saturday's Clarkson column :yep:

    Oh, and who else would fund such a study apart from the tobacco industry? I mean, no government is going to want the risk of smoking to be downplayed - so it really isn't that unexpected tbh and doesn't change the result

    (Original post by chloe_abbey)
    Ok so I hadn't read your above post, being lazy and just reading what had been quoted lol but now I have I admit it's interesting but anyone can find statistics that back up their point of view.

    I just can't believe that anyone thinks that cigarette smoke which is very harmful to smokers (surely everyone accepts this) can be breathed in by others and have little or no effect. Especially if you live with someone who smokes inside or anyone who smokes around you on a regular basis all the crappy smoke is bound to screw up your lungs over time.
    I agree, it's easy to find evidence for any point of view. But I think the main point is that there is very little evidence linking passive smoking to long-term damage to health. Ok, it may seem logical that if you're breathing in smoke passively it'll cause the same damage as if you're actually smoking - but there is little evidence to suggest this. For a start the smoke has spread itself around so you're not actually breathing in the same concentrated amount.

    Here's BoJo on the subject :yep:

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Entangled)
    Well, funny you should say that. I do.
    Good for you.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by normalothercitrusfruit)
    Oh, and who else would fund such a study apart from the tobacco industry? I mean, no government is going to want the risk of smoking to be downplayed - so it really isn't that unexpected tbh and doesn't change the result
    Welly welly welly. The same source (BUPA) outline two newer, more streamlined studies on smoking and it's effects:

    (Original post by BUPA (same link))
    Notable research includes a study published in the BMJ in 1997, conducted by Hackshaw and colleagues, which analysed 37 passive smoking studies and found a 24 per cent increase in lung cancer among people living with smokers. In fact, said the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), "Tobacco specific carcinogens found in the blood of non-smokers provided clear evidence of the effect of passive smoking."
    Additionally, far more reliable data was obtained in the ACS Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) study, which was about 10 times larger than Dr. Enstrom's work. They enrolled patients in the 1980s, when fewer exposures to tobacco smoke outside the home existed, and therefore far less "background noise", and follow-up has been much better (over 99 per cent). The results unquestionably show an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease.
    That first study took place out of the Department of Environmental and Preventive Medicine (Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in St Bartholomew's) and the Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry in London.

    The second study seems to be much more straightforward, with complications in the statistics minimised. This, coupled with a bigger trial group, leads to a more reliable result which is easier to support. Interestingly, both studies found an increase in risk of lung cancer in non-smokers, and the second found heart disease on top of that.

    And thank you for the kudos for living in the countryside. Not often I get praise for that one.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 23, 2009
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.