Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it harmless?? No, but few things in life are harmless... even sleeping all day is harmful. On your scale of 1 -10 I'd say it was around a 6 maybe a 7. It's more harmful than drinking milk (unless you're alergic to milk) but less harmful, to me at least, than any perfumes or Fabreeze.
Actually, somewhere in my files, I have a sad news story of a teen who was trying to hide the scent of smoke on her clothes from her mother but died from a reaction to over-spraying herself with Febreeze or somesuch in an enclosed space -- either a closet or a small bathroom.
Is it harmless?? No, but few things in life are harmless... even sleeping all day is harmful. On your scale of 1 -10 I'd say it was around a 6 maybe a 7. It's more harmful than drinking milk (unless you're alergic to milk) but less harmful, to me at least, than any perfumes or Fabreeze.
Is it more harmful than drinking milk? The last I checked, 40 years of constant daily exposure in poorly ventilated 1950s - 1970s style smoking conditions was claimed to give an increased lung cancer ratio of 1.19 (about one extra chance in a thousand -- after 40 years of such exposure.) Meanwhile I think that 8 oz of whole milk per day gave a ratio of 1.62 : over three times as "dangerous."
I think that the levels you can realistically come in contact with for the average person (not those with special genetic sensitivities) are safely filtered through the bodies process of toxin filtration like many other toxins we come in contact with daily and never think twice concerning their PEL and TLV levels.
I think anyone who is going to present the argument of it being a danger and then does not also consider and add to their argument the reality of numerous other elements and their levels we come in contact with daily is cheery picking to purport an agenda. That is, they want their position to be valid for this specific situation, but not for others and it is the pinnacle of self interested bias.
the variable of SHS an individual is exposed to is huge. small kids with small lungs in an enclosed car is different then sitting down wind or walking by a person smoking. one of the reasons why people are exposed to less SHS is because more places are now non smoking, cars, planes, malls.
nullifying the argument by trying to equalize it? if you play it that way then you would also support that smoking was dangerous both to the smoker and non smoker alike
That question very much depends upon at what level of concentration.
Yes, there are dangerous chemicals in tobacco smoke, just as their are dangerous, air-borne chemicals around us all the time from various sources, but they are not a THREAT to us unless their concentration reaches a critical level.
So...in answer to your question: No, it is not harmless BUT it isn't dangerous to us either in concentrations we're normally exposed to in our daily lives. A passing whiff of SHS is not going to hurt you.
perhaps I should of used the world unhealthy instead of dangerous. if it is the amount that is in question where do you draw the line to avoid it? should we allow smoking in planes again?
Is it harmless?? No, but few things in life are harmless... even sleeping all day is harmful. On your scale of 1 -10 I'd say it was around a 6 maybe a 7. It's more harmful than drinking milk (unless you're alergic to milk) but less harmful, to me at least, than any perfumes or Fabreeze.
thanks for answering the question as it was asked.
Nomander... whoops! I guess I wasn't clear in what I was saying. LOL! I wasn't recommending the STUDY ... I was recommending my response BENEATH the study (you need to click where it says "12 comments" just below the main abstract/info on that link. For convenience:
===
read the third element down in the Rapid Responses of the British Medical Journal at:
Still and No have addressed this well, but let me add an example I like to give. If I stuck you in a closet with a few dozen feet of burning deck rope for an hour, you'd be unlikely to survive. It most certainly wouldn't be "harmless."
But if you went to your local fast food emporium and they were hosting a kid's birthday party and brought out a cake with a half dozen or so tiny burning ropes on it that the kid then blew out ... would that be harming you? Would you feel a need to get up and leave the restaurant out of the concern for the possibility that some tiny increment of carcinogen from those fires might land you in a cancer ward someday?
Of course not -- unless you were crazy.
OR... unless you'd been terrorized by a multi-billion-dollar campaign that had beaten the idea into your head for decades that such exposures were "deadly."
And that's exactly the case with tobacco smoke: In normal, decently ventilated situations, it's simply neurotic, perhaps even psychotic, to obsess about the scent or even the visible wisps of smoke in the air; but because of the amount of brainwashing that has occurred over the last thirty years, life-restricting worries that would once have landed a person on a psychiatrist's couch are now being treated as normal.
They're not. A friend of mine took some writing I had done and extended it a bit in a way that I originally thought was just funny. After a while I began realizing it was dead serious: there really *IS* a condition best described by her label of "AntiSmoking Dysfunction Syndrome" and it *IS* a serious affliction that's become very harmful in our society. See:
and then look around you at the people who wave their hands and hold their breath and cross the street and devote huge amounts of time and energy into fighting a "threat" that for the most part is simply an engineered creation designed to promote behavior control.
why the need to "compare" it to other things? apples and oranges. is smoking cigs harmful to your health? you shouldn't have to qualify the answer. is SHS harmful to humans health? again it shouldn't need qualifying. yes or no is all the answer it needs
ASDS or people that believe either extremes of the issue is another matter all together. you either believe some or all of the research or not.
as an ex smoker I know well people who are anti smoking, most of them don't need a disorder to be rude, they just hate smoking. with that being said there is also a mental disorder people who do smoke. they refuse to believe that smoking is addictive or harmful. some even acknowledge it is harmful to their health but continue smoking anyway because they deep into addiction. some smokers refuse to acknowledge they are addicted. or who ignore all the "research" so they can continue to smoke.
as to the public being brainwashed to think smoking is bad, to what degree have we been fooled? give me a general 1 to ten if you can
the variable of SHS an individual is exposed to is huge. small kids with small lungs in an enclosed car is different then sitting down wind or walking by a person smoking. one of the reasons why people are exposed to less SHS is because more places are now non smoking, cars, planes, malls.
nullifying the argument by trying to equalize it? if you play it that way then you would also support that smoking was dangerous both to the smoker and non smoker alike
Respond to the discussions concerning TLV and PEL of individual toxic components and you will understand the discussion we are having. You claim "huge", but the fact is none of the chemicals in SHS we are discussing are reaching dangerous levels, and this is according to the same agencies you would reference to claim that they are.
This is the problem. SHS is not an element, it is a combination of many elements to which the facts concerning PEL and TLV are clearly defined by those agencies as to their harmful levels which according to those agencies when we evaluate each specific element is not harmful in the amounts people can encounter physically, yet they turn around and claim SHS is harmful anyway? Do you see the problem with their conclusions and the support they use to make such a claim?
We are talking about each element within SHS which ranges from many types of "possibly" harmful chemicals, most notably benzene which we already specified that is far less in SHS exposure than what an average diet of fruits and nuts would achieve.
So explain to us how the PEL and TLV levels are reached for each of these chemicals with SHS in such an environment? You do realize that in order to surpass already administrative stated levels of safe toxic chemical exposure, one would have to place themselves in contact wish SHS in an environment that is not practical to real world exposure? That is, how many 10x10x10 no ventilation rooms do you think a person enters that has 100's of cigarettes (in many cases of the chemicals TLV thousands and hundreds of thousands) burning to which someone would even remotely approach the toxic level of exposure for that given chemical?
The problem here is we are taking the data of the very agencies to which are claiming harmful exposure and instead of simply taking their word and treating SHS as a single element, we are looking at the chemical breakdown of each element to which those agencies classify individually and showing that their own data doesn't support their claim.
Maybe you could explain the problem here, because I am a bit confused how each chemical individually is safe at a certain level, but then SHS with those elements are somehow all of a sudden above the safe levels? It seems to defy logical thinking and most certainly defies scientific analysis.
why the need to "compare" it to other things? apples and oranges. is smoking cigs harmful to your health? you shouldn't have to qualify the answer. is SHS harmful to humans health? again it shouldn't need qualifying. yes or no is all the answer it needs
The question of whether smoking cigarettes is harmful is very different than the question of whether normal exposures to SHS are harmful. I think smoking cigarettes is harmful. I'll respond to you on SHS if you'll tell me whether your think that the smoke from burning ropes is harmful.
Quote:
as to the public being brainwashed to think smoking is bad, to what degree have we been fooled? give me a general 1 to ten if you can
Again, this thread isn't talking about whether smoking is good or bad or harmful or not. Conflating the two things, smoking for the smoker and exposure to smoke by the nonsmoker, is an argumentation trick -- you may not be meaning to use it as such, but it's a common one used by Antismokers all over the world. If you're truly interested in seeing exactly what I think on the subject, read the first four sentences at:
If you have any specific, substantive criticisms of any of the research cited and arguments expressed there please let me know. I promise I won't mind.
why the need to "compare" it to other things? apples and oranges. is smoking cigs harmful to your health? you shouldn't have to qualify the answer. is SHS harmful to humans health? again it shouldn't need qualifying. yes or no is all the answer it needs
ASDS or people that believe either extremes of the issue is another matter all together. you either believe some or all of the research or not.
as an ex smoker I know well people who are anti smoking, most of them don't need a disorder to be rude, they just hate smoking. with that being said there is also a mental disorder people who do smoke. they refuse to believe that smoking is addictive or harmful. some even acknowledge it is harmful to their health but continue smoking anyway because they deep into addiction. some smokers refuse to acknowledge they are addicted. or who ignore all the "research" so they can continue to smoke.
as to the public being brainwashed to think smoking is bad, to what degree have we been fooled? give me a general 1 to ten if you can
When did we enter FHS as a means of position? First hand exposure is a concentrated amount and has a level of TLV that is far above that of a SHS exposure.
If we are to use FHS as evidence of SHS, then we can also use water intoxication as a means to justify the warning of water as a dangerous toxic chemical. It would be absurd, but yet this is the angle you seem to suggest.
Moderation is the issue and in the case of our discussion, it is the amount of exposure one may come into contact with practically. A SHS exposure is not the same as a FHS exposure and to treat them as the same would be inappropriate.
As for the qualifying aspect, it most certainly does. You are promoting a fallacy by requiring a yes/no answer and it is devious.
Let me ask you. Can drinking water kill you? I want a yes or no answer, no need to qualify it, simply state the simple fact we both know so I can declare water as a toxin. Its absurd, devious, and agenda motivated. So please be honest about the discussion.
The public has been lied to. It has been rumor mongered with political and activist focus. while some of what they say is true, much like the question you posed, it is a fallacy meant to proclaim a conclusion that is invalid, a half-truth and misguided. This is what the public has been brainwashed with. They have been told "part" of the truth, which simply means they have been lied to about the whole aspect of the issue.
The fact is... is smoking addictive? It has qualities that for addictive people can be as such. Much of it depends on the individual and their makeup concerning physical and mental influences. Is it harmful? Well, this is also a issue of objection as smoking may be harmful based on genetic disposition or over use. There is a reason the product says "may" and not "will". The simple fact is, it depends on many factors.
That aside, FHS isn't the topic. SHS is and if we have to constantly use FHS as evidence, then the entire argument is lost as it is so far away from scientific and logical that there is no point in even discussing it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
thanks for answering the question as it was asked.
