can someone please post some studies showing that second hand smoke is dangerous?
cause it's not!
Lets use some common sense. The tobacco smoke is dangerous when breathed through a cigarette filter, why would it be less harmful when breathed without a filter?
Your comment embodies the ignorant attitudes about smoking that causes health problems to millions of non-smoking individuals every day. If you want to smoke that is fine with me, but keep your disgusting habit and harmful side effects confined to an area that won't hurt anyone besides yourself.
Here are just a few of the studies that came up on Google Scholar. There are many many more. Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth"Exposure to second hand smoke (SHS) is believed to cause lung cancer. Pathological angiogenesis is a requisite for tumor growth. Lewis lung cancer cells were injected subcutaneously into mice, which were then exposed to sidestream smoke (SHS) or clean room air and administered vehicle, cerivastatin, or mecamylamine. SHS significantly increased tumor size, weight, capillary density, VEGF and MCP-1 levels, and circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPC). Cerivastatin (an inhibitor of HMG-coA reductase) or mecamylamine (an inhibitor of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors) suppressed the effect of SHS to increase tumor size and capillary density. Cerivastatin reduced MCP-1 levels, whereas mecamylamine reduced VEGF levels and EPC. These studies reveal that SHS promotes tumor angiogenesis and growth. These effects of SHS are associated with increases in plasma VEGF and MCP-1 levels, and EPC, mediated in part by isoprenylation and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors."Effects of "second-hand" smoke on structure and function of fibroblasts, cells that are critical for tissue repair and remodeling"Taken together, our results suggest that: (i) SSW may delay wound repair because of the inability of the fibroblasts to migrate into the wounded area, leading to an accumulation of these cells at the edge of the wound, thus preventing the formation of the healing tissue; (ii) the increase in cell survival coupled to the decrease in cell migration can lead to a build-up of connective tissue, thereby causing fibrosis and excess scarring."Second-Hand Smoke Exposure and Blood Lead Levels in U.S. Children"Background: Lead is a component of tobacco and tobacco smoke, and smokers have higher blood lead levels than do nonsmokers. Methods: We examined the relation between second-hand smoke exposure and blood lead levels in a nationally representative sample of 5592 U.S. children, age 4-16 years, who participated in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988-1994). Linear and logistic regression modeling was used to adjust for known covariates. Results: Geometric mean blood lead levels were 1.5 μg/dL, 1.9 μg/dL, and 2.6 μg/dL for children with low, intermediate, and high cotinine levels, respectively. The adjusted linear regression model showed that geometric mean blood lead levels were 38% higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25-52%) in children with high continine levels compared with children who had low continine levels. The logistic regression models showed that children with high continine levels were more likely to have blood lead levels ≥10 μg/dL than were children with low continine levels (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4; CI = 1.9-10.5). Conclusions: Second-hand smoke could be associated with increased blood lead levels in U.S. children aged 4-16 years."The effects of second-hand smoke on biological processes important in atherogenesis"Long-term exposure to "second-hand" smoke creates a state of permanent inflammation and an imbalance in the lipid profile that leads to lipid accumulation in the liver and in the blood vessels of the heart and aorta. The former potentially can lead to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and the latter to heart attacks."Effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on markers of inflammation: the ATTICA study"Our findings suggest another pathophysiological mechanism by which exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with the development of atherosclerosis."Second-hand smoke and human lung cancer"Since the early 1980s, there has been growing concern about potential health consequences of exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS). Despite SHS being established as a risk factor for lung cancer development, the estimated risk has remained small yet somehow debatable. Human exposure to SHS is complicated because of temporal variabilities in source, composition, and concentration of SHS. The temporality of exposure to SHS is important for human lung carcinogenesis with a latency of many years. To explore the causal effect of SHS in lung carcinogenesis, exposure assessments should estimate chronic exposure to SHS on an individual basis. However, conventional exposure assessment for SHS relies on one-off or short-term measurements of SHS indices. A more reliable approach would be to use biological markers that are specific for SHS exposure and pertinent to lung cancer. This approach requires an understanding of the underlying mechanisms through which SHS could contribute to lung carcinogenesis. This Review is a synopsis of research on SHS and lung cancer, with special focus on hypothetical modes of action of SHS for carcinogenesis, including genotoxic and epigenetic effects."
What about Wikipedia:
Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (that is, in the case of cigarettes, a mixture of smoke released from the smoldering end of the cigarette and smoke exhaled by the smoker) causes the same problems as direct smoking, including cardiovascular disease
, lung cancer
, and lung ailments
and asthma attacks
A wide array of negative effects are attributed, in whole or in part, to frequent, long term exposure to second hand smoke.
Some of these effects include:
- General: overall increased risk;, pp. 30–46 reviewing the evidence accumulated on a worldwide basis, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that "Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans."
- Lung cancer: the effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. A series of studies from the USA from 1986–2003, the UK in 1998, Australia in 1997 and internationally in 2004 have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.
- Breast cancer: The California Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2005 that passive smoking increases the risk of breast cancer in younger, primarily premenopausal women by 70% and the US Surgeon General has concluded that the evidence is "suggestive," but still insufficient to assert such a causal relationship. In contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that there was "no support for a causal relation between involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and breast cancer in never-smokers."
- Renal cell carcinoma (RCC): A recent study shows an increased RCC risk among never smokers with combined home/work exposure to passive smoking.
- Passive smoking does not appear to be associated with pancreatic cancer.
- Brain tumor: The risk in children increases significantly with higher amount of passive smoking, even if the mother doesn't smoke, thus not restricting risk to prenatal exposure during pregnancy.
- Ear, nose, and throat: risk of ear infections.
- Circulatory system: risk of heart disease,, ch. 8 reduced heart rate variability, higher heart rate.
- Epidemiological studies have shown that both active and passive cigarette smoking increase the risk of atherosclerosis.
- Lung problems:
- Cognitive impairment and dementia: Exposure to second-hand smoke may increase the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia in adults 50 and over.
- Low birth weight, part B, ch. 3., pp. 198–205
- Premature birth, part B, ch. 3 (Note that evidence of the causal link is only described as "suggestive" by the US Surgeon General in his 2006 report., pp. 194–197)
- Worsening of asthma, allergies, and other conditions.
- Risk to children:
- Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and in children., pp. 376–380
can someone please post some studies showing that exhaust fumes are not dangerous for a cycler?
cause than I could stop be bothered by all non-smokers who drive cars at the same time agitating against smoking - which can never be compared to the total environmental harm and health of society at large ;-)
Yeah, the system of logic makes a lot of sense....
Edited by Skotkonung, 19 October 2009 - 07:41 PM.