Passive smoking stats-anyone know?
Discussion
Anti-smokerists keep throwing passive smoking hysteria at every smoking discussion but does anyone actually know the true figures?
I'm sure I read once that, despite the proven link, the chances of actually dying from a passive smoking related illness are something like 1 in 20million.
True figures are never actually quoted (presumably because they are un-sensationalist) and all you ever read are vague,almost irrelevant tid-bits such as 'prolonged exposure to passive smoking increases your chances of lung cancer by 20%' without actually telling you what the bare stats are. Is it 20% increase on a one in a billion chance? ors is itactually 20% of a 1 in 20 chance?
I suspect the former is most likely as, if it were the latter, the figures would be readily available.
Anyway- does anybody know any factual statistics? (not taken from tabloid headlines)
Cheers
I'm sure I read once that, despite the proven link, the chances of actually dying from a passive smoking related illness are something like 1 in 20million.
True figures are never actually quoted (presumably because they are un-sensationalist) and all you ever read are vague,almost irrelevant tid-bits such as 'prolonged exposure to passive smoking increases your chances of lung cancer by 20%' without actually telling you what the bare stats are. Is it 20% increase on a one in a billion chance? ors is itactually 20% of a 1 in 20 chance?
I suspect the former is most likely as, if it were the latter, the figures would be readily available.
Anyway- does anybody know any factual statistics? (not taken from tabloid headlines)
Cheers
Bruciebabe!
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15741188&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum
Knock yourselves out....
You can even read the full article. I haven't 'cos i couldn't care less.
Knock yourselves out....
You can even read the full article. I haven't 'cos i couldn't care less.
Cheers Milner.
This article is a good example of what I was talking about though.
It uses the phrase 'might account for' before mentioning numbers.
Might account for? then surely also might not account for.
I conclude that passive smoking might be extremely harmful, but then again it moght not.
.
Obviously I'm not having a dig at you as you havent read it..
This article is a good example of what I was talking about though.
It uses the phrase 'might account for' before mentioning numbers.
Might account for? then surely also might not account for.
I conclude that passive smoking might be extremely harmful, but then again it moght not.
. Obviously I'm not having a dig at you as you havent read it..
Roy Castle.
Feckin' bloke died from perfoming in too many smoky clubs according to his wife.
Well no-one made him do it did they? If he hadn't been such an egotistical t
t he would have decided his health was more important and got a job where he was 'safe' but not famous.
Passive smoking might kill you. so might drinking two bottles of Bells whisky. But then again it might not.
Feckin' bloke died from perfoming in too many smoky clubs according to his wife.
Well no-one made him do it did they? If he hadn't been such an egotistical t
t he would have decided his health was more important and got a job where he was 'safe' but not famous. Passive smoking might kill you. so might drinking two bottles of Bells whisky. But then again it might not.
Well folks, I'm not sure, but I am a chemist, I do smoke and I have also worked with some of the countries leading scientists on the subject who also smoke. I fully appreciate that smoking gives you lung cancer, generally due to aromatic or nitrousamine derivatives. I could try and water down the argument saying that one piece of fried bacon contains more nitrousamines than the smoke from 20 packets of fags, but you don't breathe fried bacon in. Smoke in general is quite nasty stuff, that includes house fires and bonfires. Stuff is carcinogenic, even essential chemicals in your body are carcinogenic, god wasn't a good chemist when he designed humans! Anyway, realistically looking at exposure here, it is true that smoke contains carcinogenic compounds, but let's stop to consider the actual concentrations of those involved. Let's say a smoker smokes 20 fags a day, his lung wall and air tract are exposed to a concentration of that proportional to the area of that system, the problems arise where carcinogens are made water soluble and adhere to the lining of the lung/pipes/etc. There is quite a low concentration of this happening but one molecule of benzene or nitrousamine is enough to react with DNA and create a tumour (in certain cases). So, statistically we should ignore the actual process involved and relate incidences of lung cancer to whether someone smokes. There is a relationship but it isn't as clear cut as people say, if you are exposed to carcinogens, your probability of getting cancer increases, having said, it is still a probability. To actually pin the cause of a cancer to smoking specifically, is a matter of opinion, the mutated cell could have been caused by any number of carcinogenic "smells" like unleaded petrol, fried bacon, diesel exhaust, etc, etc. I would be very wary of anyone trying to actually put a statistical relationship on the actual ties, if I read there were actually figures, I would regard them with great suspicion. On to passive smoking, obviously the smoke here is a)very diluted and B) covered in water, so whilst the smoke is more dilute, the nasties are covered in water which makes them easier for the lung to absorb. So, the probability on one hand is distorted from the dilution and then counter-distorted by the actual form of the smoke. Having a quick think about the order of size here, the smoke is considerably more dilute, this is a major factor and so the number of carcinogenic molecules experienced by a passive smoker is considerably less, considering that the smoke is not 100% nasty stuff, you can appreciate that the order of size is very small indeed. I would neglect the effect of increased solubility of the smoke, as it is such a low order thing. Having said, people trying to put statistics on this phenomena should be regarded as trying to put a political agenda on something which is difficult to quantify scientifically (very difficult indeed). Consider the every day risk of airborne carcinogens, there are a whole variety of sources and these relative to passive smoke will be in quite a lot of cases, of similar order in size of exposure, so again, it is difficult to label the cause of a non-smokers lung cancer to passive smoking. It would be deeply unscientific. From a outsides point of view, exposure to a lot of A/C is unavoidable and since smoke has elements of carinogenaity, people choosing to smoke near you do actually increase your exposure, hence risk.
As a smoker, I don't smoke in my house or in my car with other people as I am aware that it's pretty horrible, however, that is my choice, I appreciate people not smoking when I'm not, but to try and muster up a 2CV driving weardy-beardy anti-smoking agenda on a load of assumption based pseudo science, is stupid and lacks any credibility. It is a moral issue if you ask me and perhaps people shouldn't be given the choice. I get rather cross when my academic discipline is abused for the ends of a load of veggies.
Anyway, rant over. Don't believe all you hear.
As a smoker, I don't smoke in my house or in my car with other people as I am aware that it's pretty horrible, however, that is my choice, I appreciate people not smoking when I'm not, but to try and muster up a 2CV driving weardy-beardy anti-smoking agenda on a load of assumption based pseudo science, is stupid and lacks any credibility. It is a moral issue if you ask me and perhaps people shouldn't be given the choice. I get rather cross when my academic discipline is abused for the ends of a load of veggies.
Anyway, rant over. Don't believe all you hear.
Tyre Smoke said:
Roy Castle.
Feckin' bloke died from perfoming in too many smoky clubs according to his wife.
Well no-one made him do it did they? If he hadn't been such an egotistical t
Sorry, but I can't believe I've just read this flippant sh*t, you callous disrespectful moron - it's the
limit. I met Roy a number of times when I was a youngster as he was patron of a fund and hosted a number of events for an acquaintance of mine who was left paralysed after a car accident. Although he was ill himself, he put others first to raise money for a good cause.
A truly nice man IMO.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff