What would you like to do?

Can you get cancer from second hand smoking?

already exists.

Would you like to merge this question into it?

already exists as an alternate of this question.

Would you like to make it the primary and merge this question into it?

exists and is an alternate of .

It's not just smokers who argue whether second hand smoke is tied to lung cancer, it's anyone who has spent the time to look at the science about second hand smoke and lung cancer. The science just isn't present to support these claims, so if you claim to be non biased to either side, you would look into these scientific case studies and would question what most health organizations are claiming. Would you not question a used car sales man when he tells you the car he's gonna sell you for $50 is worth $30,000?

The Scientific Proof:
The [1]EPA was the only identity to claim second hand smoke as a carcinogen. The CDC, US Surgeon General and Lung Association base their information on the EPA report of 1993. The EPA collected 33 medical studies that studied the affects of non smokers married to smokers and their increases in lung cancer. The EPA's study resulted in a risk factor of less than 3.0 making it scientifically insignificant. The EPA report was also presented in front of district Judge William Osteen who ruled against the EPA report and states that the [2]EPA had "cherry-picked" it's data on the subject. The EPA did cast out 2 of the 33 study cases and ended up going with only 30 of them.

[3]Consumer reports looked into the 33 case studies and stated that of the 33 case studies, 26 showed an increase in lung cancer to those married to smokers, and 6 of them showed a decrease in risk in lung cancer to those married to smokers. Their report about the EPA report concludes "The studies showed that for any given nonsmoker, the lifetime risk of getting lung cancer remains small: 4 to 5 in 1000 ordinarily, and 6 to 7 in 1000 if he or she has been living with a smoking spouse."

Other large case studies such as the [5]World Health Organization (WHO), and the [4]British Medical Journal (BMJ) have done independent studies about the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. The BMJ study concludes, "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect." The WHO study also concluded there was no association between ETS and mortality.

After studying the evidence found between second hand smoke and lung cancer from both sides of the debate on the subject, the author of this section has found more studies indicating a link between second hand smoke and lung cancer, although the link seems so small it could easily be debated for years. Michael R. Fox.
Nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor.
- Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxins or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels.
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth. 4 % is carbon monoxide. 6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
Thanks for the feedback!

Is there conclusive evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke causes heart disease or cancer?

OPINION (see facts below) There is absolutely no  proven evidence that cigarette smoking alone causes cancer or that  secondhand smoke causes cancer. There are more environm

Can you get lung cancer from second hand smoke?

No Yes, indeed you can. You can also get it from other environmental factors, and it can be hereditary. There are many people who get lung cancer now for what seems to be no

Does second hand smoking harm you?

Second-hand smoke has been shown to be a cause of problems such as asthma, other respiratory complaints, and cardiovascular events including heart attacks.

Which is worst smoking or second-hand smoke and why?

well they are both completely unhealthy and thirthy minutes of second han smoke equals a full cigarrette for the person or people who in hale it. my opinion is that second han

What are the Cancers of second hand smoke?

the most common cancers of smoking/second hand smoke are heart and lung cancer, depending on how exposed you are to the smoke of a cigarette, you more than likey will not get

Of second-hand smoke?

are you trying to say of what will be the effects of 2nd hand smoke, if so then the effects are coughing will tar will accumulate and youll get lung disease
In Health

Can second hand smoking hurt?

second hand smoking can hurt you more then u know. it can cause everything that regular smoking can with even worse outcomes. your heart can become very very hurt, your lungs

What cancers can you get from second hand smoking?

From second hand smoke alone - NONE. Cancer is a multiple-factorial medical condition - i.e. several or many factors contribute to its development. Highly biased and cherry-pi