Worried about breathing in secondhand cigarette smoke (bladder, surgery, doctor)
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.
I didn't mention the food we ate back then because I'd already said enough..I thought.
But...if you want to talk food, let's begin with DDT. It was on just about everything we ate because everyone used it liberally, including home gardener's. So were other pesticides as dangerous and there was very little control over it.
Meat packers were marginally inspected; retailers hardly at all. Food borne illnesses were quite common. And, we didn't pass it off as the "stomach flu."
Oh well, there's no point in going on. You're bound and determined to live in a state of panic and fear over something, so it might as well be cigarettes.
By the way, it's snowing and blowing here in my part of Texas right now. God knows what it's brought down out of the polluted air! Guess I'd better warn the kids to put mask's and bio-hazard suits on the grandkids before they let them go out and play in it...right?
I don't live in a state of panic or fear. Stop saying it.
It's such a typical way of defense that I see over and over again on this forum, if anyone brings up any issue about the toxins, you get accused of being in the state of panic.
The issues with the food those days was mostly bacteria, the issues with the food now is again, pesticides/toxins and heavy metals which don't cause "food borne illnesses" but cause long term harm. So it's 2 different topics.
Anyway - it's like beating a dead horse. What bothers me is that how easily people dismiss anyone's concerns. OP is concerned about the second hand smoke outside of her building, immediately her concern is dismissed. Everyone is entitled to feel concerned if they want to about anything they want.
And how fast the issue went from the real question that OP asked to "worry about other things that will kill you faster". Let's take away from the issue of selfish people polluting the environment with the filthy habit, to something else.
Fine - be proud that you avoided side effect of smoking and second hand smoking but don't advocate it as if it's not a big deal.
I don't live in a state of panic or fear. Stop saying it.
It's such a typical way of defense that I see over and over again on this forum, if anyone brings up any issue about the toxins, you get accused of being in the state of panic.
The issues with the food those days was mostly bacteria, the issues with the food now is again, pesticides/toxins and heavy metals which don't cause "food borne illnesses" but cause long term harm. So it's 2 different topics.
Anyway - it's like beating a dead horse. What bothers me is that how easily people dismiss anyone's concerns. OP is concerned about the second hand smoke outside of her building, immediately her concern is dismissed. Everyone is entitled to feel concerned if they want to about anything they want.
And how fast the issue went from the real question that OP asked to "worry about other things that will kill you faster". Let's take away from the issue of selfish people polluting the environment with the filthy habit, to something else.
Fine - be proud that you avoided side effect of smoking and second hand smoking but don't advocate it as if it's not a big deal.
You're right. Everyone is entitled to have whatever concerns they want, no matter how unfounded. What they SHOULDN'T have the right to do, though, is to use the power of the law to force others to quit doing whatever it is they find offensive. Neither do they have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced.
Some people already made up their minds, so it is wasting time to tell them something.
For those open-minded, this is a link mentioning 19 people, first hand smokers who lived 100-120 years. It contains additional 9 links about these people from a different news resources:
My question is, if the second hand smoking is harmful, how could these people survive until they reached a triple digit age, while they were first hand smokers?
I'm sure there are thousands of other smokers around 100 years old all over the world, and millions smokers 80-90 years old...
You're right. Everyone is entitled to have whatever concerns they want, no matter how unfounded. What they SHOULDN'T have the right to do, though, is to use the power of the law to force others to quit doing whatever it is they find offensive. Neither do they have the right to be bigoted and prejudiced.
Of course not. Smokers can smoke their lungs out outside for what I care, but they shouldn't tell me that secondhand smoke is not harmful, because it is simply not the truth.
Some people already made up their minds, so it is wasting time to tell them something.
For those open-minded, this is a link mentioning 19 people, first hand smokers who lived 100-120 years. It contains additional 9 links about these people from a different news resources:
My question is, if the second hand smoking is harmful, how could these people survive until they reached a triple digit age, while they were first hand smokers?
I'm sure there are thousands other smokers around 100 years old all over the world, and millions smokers 80-90 years old...
It is hard to say why, because the human body is too complex. Some people never smoked in their lives and get deadly sick, some people smoke and get sick and some people smoke and don't get sick and live until 80-90. That is just the way it is. However, it doesn't change the fact that second hand smoke is harmful to people who are consistently exposed to it even in small amounts. Denying it is simply being IN denial and not wanting to face the truth.
Another thing is just because someone survived until 80-90, doesn't mean their quality of life and health is super. It's not just about living longer, it's about living well.
It is hard to say why, because the human body is too complex. Some people never smoked in their lives and get deadly sick, some people smoke and get sick and some people smoke and don't get sick and live until 80-90. That is just the way it is. However, it doesn't change the fact that second hand smoke is harmful to people who are consistently exposed to it even in small amounts. Denying it is simply being IN denial and not wanting to face the truth.
Another thing is just because someone survived until 80-90, doesn't mean their quality of life and health is super. It's not just about living longer, it's about living well.
Well, as I mentioned above, some people have already made up their minds. My post above was for open minded.
Just like to add my own experience: Grew up in smokers home, started to smoke in my 20's, about 1 pack a day. I'm 56 now, doing better than most of 56 years old, as for heart and lungs at least.
The claim of harm from second hand smoke is a myth.
Well, as I mentioned above, some people have already made up their minds. My post above was for open minded.
Just like to add my own experience: Grew up in smokers home, started to smoke in my 20's, about 1 pack a day. I'm 56 now, doing better than most of 56 years old, as for heart and lungs at least.
The claim of harm from second hand smoke is a myth.
Sorry, but it's just not true. Maybe you can explain it to my son's classmate who is 5 and developed asthma because his parents were constantly smoking inside the house. His own mother tearfully admitted to me that she felt it was her fault.
There is no room to be open-minded in this situation.
Well, as I mentioned above, some people have already made up their minds. My post above was for open minded.
Just like to add my own experience: Grew up in smokers home, started to smoke in my 20's, about 1 pack a day. I'm 56 now, doing better than most of 56 years old, as for heart and lungs at least.
The claim of harm from second hand smoke is a myth.
Oh, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a total myth, but the science behind it is suspect at best.
One of the most commonly quoted studies done on second hand smoke is one which was done about 10 or 15 years ago by the CDC (I think). To get their figures, they called about 4000 selected individual's over the age of, I think, 65 and asked them a series of questions. One question asked the respondents to estimate the number of cigarettes, cigars and pipes they'd been exposed to over the past 50 years. They then used those fanciful estimates and other health data provided by those people to come up with a figure about second hand smoke.
What is a safe level of secondhand smoke?
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful
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.
