Secondhand smoke is harmless

[DC2]

Having said that, subjecting someone to smoke in an enclosed space for years is certainly not healthy for them.
But the extension of bans on smoking has gone WAY too far, and keeps on getting even more absurd.

And when "they" keep trying to lump vaping in with smoking, it darn sure is relevant to discuss here.

 

[skoony]

I don't know if it matters any, but my son was born with bronchopulmonary dysplagia, and even though hubs and I smoked outside and never smoked in the car with him, Children's hospital still said in his medical records that he was exposed to secondhand smoke. I really felt like a crappy parent when I saw those records.

what specifically was in those records. it might be by knowing that you smoked they
added it as a note. they have to collect and report this information. that's how the
government collects this sort of data. it is also why this data is so skewed.
regards
mike

 

[Lessifer]

Having said that, subjecting someone to smoke in an enclosed space for years is certainly not healthy for them.
But the extension of bans on smoking has gone WAY too far, and keeps on getting even more absurd.

And when "they" keep trying to lump vaping in with smoking, it darn sure is relevant to discuss here.

Somehow the idea of "living with a smoker, or working in a smoking establishment for 40hrs/week for years, could lead to increased risk" became "walking past a smoker will give you COPD."

 

[DC2]

Somehow the idea of "living with a smoker, or working in a smoking establishment for 40hrs/week for years, could lead to increased risk" became "walking past a smoker will give you COPD."

When you see a mother shooing their precious angel away from a smoker lest they be killed dead on the spot...
You know the brainwashing has been so very, very effective.

 

[DC2]

Somehow the idea of "living with a smoker, or working in a smoking establishment for 40hrs/week for years, could lead to increased risk" became "walking past a smoker will give you COPD."

The "somehow" is explained very well, in the very words of the anti-smoking cabal, within the link I posted above...
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

Yeah, I posted it again, because everyone should read it.

 

[69CamaroSS]

A thought:

LIFE ITSELF (more so cellular replication) causes cancer. Carcinogens of all types simply increase the risk of a malformed cell to replicate because it deforms more cells in an otherwise equal comparison....law of averages....

Lesson:
Exposure to less carcinogens/toxins lowers our likelyhood of developing cancer (or tumors, masses, diseases etc) based on probability.

Conclusion:
vape ON!!! As it's the lesser (but not totally devoid of) the many toxin/carcinogen laden "vices we often indulge in"!!!

 

[hurricanegirl100]

No idea if it's truly dangerous or not. Stinks like hell, though.

 

[firerat]

I saw a no smoking sign in a parking garage.

To me, that's like putting a no ...... sign on a urinal.

 

[BlueCanary]

When you see a mother shooing their precious angel away from a smoker lest they be killed dead on the spot...
You know the brainwashing has been so very, very effective.

I actually had the idiot teenage girlfriend of my friend's teenage son tell me, with complete seriousness, that just walking past someone on the sidewalk who was smoking a cigarette could give someone a heart attack. Just a whiff of secondhand smoke in passing.

While I'll grant that secondhand smoke STINKS (to the point that I was at a party with a bunch of smokers a few weeks ago and felt compelled to apologize to my poor husband on the way home for subjecting him to that funk for 8 years, even though I never smoked inside) and that living with a smoker for a prolonged period of time might cause some health effects…some people are just getting stupid about it.

 

[Paradicio]

The whole second-hand smoke thing is very relevant here.

I will, respectfully, disagree. Vaping is not smoking. The more we associate ourselves with smoking, as opposed to differentiating ourselves, the more we will be lumped in with them.

 

[Penn]

Reading comprehension? Replacing actually reading with assumptions?

I'm guessing many took the OP's word for it that the two links said the same thing he is claiming.

First link from Rush does not say "HARMLESS" at any point. That is about lung cancer.

Second link does say in the title that second hand smoke is "no danger" but read on. It only focuses on lung cancer and mortality. Granted if you take the title of the article in conjunction with some statements that can be inferred as "no danger" but it fails to concretely address any other negative effect.

Between personal experience and observation of other people's experience the causal link does exist between second hand smoke and some minor health issues such as the afformentioned COPD, bronchitis and even burning eyes. But when you talk cancer, neither saying there is a link nor saying the is not a link has not been proven.

What has been demonstrated is the ANTZ of the world have over exaggerated alleged links and people have bought the propaganda. So yes it is relevant to vaping but going 100% on unfounded claims to fight their unfounded claims is a losing battle. So perhaps what we can learn from this is to not just claim the exact opposite of their propaganda.

 

[englishmick]

I remember back in the 90's the kids started coming home from school and giving us a hard time about smoking. From talking to friends it seemed like they had been given a script of exactly what to say to us. We never smoked in the house, but the warnings were for us rather than what it might do to them. I'm still torn about whether that was a good thing or not. I do know people who quit smoking because of it.

I wonder if one day the grandkids will come round and tell me vaping will make me go blind.

 

[DC2]

I will, respectfully, disagree. Vaping is not smoking. The more we associate ourselves with smoking, as opposed to differentiating ourselves, the more we will be lumped in with them.

I agree with the comment that we must strive to always disassociate vaping from smoking.
But the fact is that "they" are doing all they can to constantly keep trying to associate vaping with smoking.

So we must strive to disassociate, but be ready and prepared to fight against those who will constantly pursue opposing goals with opposing strategies.
And that means discussing these things, understanding them, and using our understanding to try and discredit the liars.

JMO

 

[WattWick]

I remember back in the 90's the kids started coming home from school and giving us a hard time about smoking. From talking to friends it seemed like they had been given a script of exactly what to say to us. We never smoked in the house, but the warnings were for us rather than what it might do to them. I'm still torn about whether that was a good thing or not. I do know people who quit smoking because of it.

I wonder if one day the grandkids will come round and tell me vaping will make me go blind.

Wonder how many parents think their kid actually thought up the phrase "Don't you want to see me grow up and have kids of my own one day" all by themselves

 

[Jman8]

you're kidding right?

my dad got chronic bronchitis from his coworker smoking in their 25 X 25 ft shop, he'd quit smoking years before this guy came to work for him and then he's got a smokers cough again..after six months of it.

and there's more "valid" studies...SMOKE (not vapor we're talking about) here's the EPA's take on it..Setting the Record Straight | Smoke-free Homes | US Environmental Protection Agency
Secondhand Smoke

cancer.org..etc..you get my drift..you're full of it

I wonder what the EPA and cancer.org have to say about vaping. I'm sure it is all scientifically accurate like their info on smoking is.

 

[supertrunker]

"I actually had the idiot teenage girlfriend of my friend's teenage son tell me, with complete seriousness, that just walking past someone on the sidewalk who was smoking a cigarette could give someone a heart attack. Just a whiff of secondhand smoke in passing."

We live in hope.

"Wonder how many parents think their kid actually thought up the phrase "Don't you want to see me grow up and have kids of my own one day""

Depends how much crap i have to endure from you in the meantime!

T

 

[Lilvapie]

"I actually had the idiot teenage
girlfriend of my friend's teenage son tell me, with complete seriousness, that just walking past someone on the sidewalk who was smoking a cigarette could give someone a heart attack. Just a whiff of secondhand smoke in passing."

We live in hope.

"Wonder how many parents think their kid actually thought up the phrase "Don't you want to see me grow up and have kids of my own one day""

Depends how much crap i have to endure from you in the meantime!

T

Yeah. ETS is very different chemically..

 

[Lessifer]

Reading comprehension? Replacing actually reading with assumptions?

I'm guessing many took the OP's word for it that the two links said the same thing he is claiming.

First link from Rush does not say "HARMLESS" at any point. That is about lung cancer.

Second link does say in the title that second hand smoke is "no danger" but read on. It only focuses on lung cancer and mortality. Granted if you take the title of the article in conjunction with some statements that can be inferred as "no danger" but it fails to concretely address any other negative effect.

Between personal experience and observation of other people's experience the causal link does exist between second hand smoke and some minor health issues such as the afformentioned COPD, bronchitis and even burning eyes. But when you talk cancer, neither saying there is a link nor saying the is not a link has not been proven.

What has been demonstrated is the ANTZ of the world have over exaggerated alleged links and people have bought the propaganda. So yes it is relevant to vaping but going 100% on unfounded claims to fight their unfounded claims is a losing battle. So perhaps what we can learn from this is to not just claim the exact opposite of their propaganda.

I actually took it as the OP was saying it is harmless, and posted links to back up their view. I did read the links and they're both just press summaries of info that, like you pointed out, don't actually say that SHS smoke is "harmless."

I haven't seen a study yet, though it may be out there, that looks at the laundry list of ill effects of smoking and their association with those at high risk of SHS exposure, like spouses/children/workers in smoking environments. Lung cancer is only one effect, and I don't think it's even the most common, though it's one of the most serious.

 

[Rotowoman]

When you see a mother shooing their precious angel away from a smoker lest they be killed dead on the spot...
You know the brainwashing has been so very, very effective.

OH, don't I know it!! Of course, I was not allowed in my son's house while smoking. (Hey, their house, their rules). I wasn't allowed around the grandbaby if I even smelled like a cigarette.

 

[Rotowoman]

I know this is probably not relevant to the seriousness of this thread, but I look at it this way. I've lived all my life on this planet breathing in tobacco smoke until now. I've lived all my life breathing in exhaust fumes from cars and buses. I've breathed in second hand smoke from refineries. I've inhaled who knows what from who knows where........we're not EVEN going to talk about the bathroom.

I'm not dead yet, and I suspect it will be a while. You just can't kill bad grass.