What would you like to do?
Is second hand smoke worse than first hand?
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition This s o r t a says it all These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one. So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS'' OSHA SAFE LEVELS All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR. For B e n z o [a]p y r e n e, 222,000 cigarettes. "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes. "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up. "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes. For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time. The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in s h s / e t s will have the same outcomes. So, OSHA finally makes a statement on s h s / e t s : Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting S e c y, OSHA. Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science! This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke: Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds. Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe. What's more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none. "I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs," said D r S h a r v e n Ta g h a v a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study........................... I've done the math here and this is how it works out with second hand smoke and people inhaling it! The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered: Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year. 146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY. A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose. Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible !
30 people found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
It is better to do neither. If you are concerned about your health, stay away from tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs, legal or illegal.
It not only hurts you but every innocent person around you who doesn't want to smoke. Every one who breathes in second-hand smoke is endangering their health, but young childr…en are particularly at risk as their lungs are smaller and more delicate. They are, therefore, seriously affected by tobacco smoke and the chemicals it contains. Young people exposed to second-hand smoke at home are seven times more likely to smoke. Second-hand smoke contains cancer-causing and other toxic substances that are often in greater concentrations than in the smoke inhaled by the smoker. Some chemical compounds found in smoke only become carcinogenic after they've come into contact with certain enzymes found in many of the tissues of the human body, so the smoke that is breathed out may be worse than the smoke breathed in by the smoker through the cigarette.
Second-hand smoke has been shown to be a cause of problems such as asthma, other respiratory complaints, and cardiovascular events including heart attacks.
yes if you second hand smoke you will die very and never second hand smoke because you will kill kids earlier
No, it isn't. But it's harmful for health anyway.
(There is a related question and a link to a speech by the US Surgeon General.)
no its worse it can kill u and you never wont to be around some one who does becausr the chemical could kill u well it can be as bad
My guess is that people exposed to 2nd hand smoke have longer exposure. Example. A bar tender works 8 hours in a smoke-filled bar. The smoker is there only 1 hour and smoke…s say 3 cigarettes. Who has higher exposure? It not only hurts you but every innocent person around you who doesn't want to smoke. Every one who breathes in second-hand smoke is endangering their health, but young children are particularly at risk as their lungs are smaller and more delicate. They are, therefore, seriously affected by tobacco smoke and the chemicals it contains. Young people exposed to second-hand smoke at home are seven times more likely to smoke. Second-hand smoke contains cancer-causing and other toxic substances that are often in greater concentrations than in the smoke inhaled by the smoker. Some chemical compounds found in smoke only become carcinogenic after they've come into contact with certain enzymes found in many of the tissues of the human body, so the smoke that is breathed out may be worse than the smoke breathed in by the smoker through the cigarette.
No, they're both the same except when you smoke one you have to spend your money, and the second hand smoker gets it for free :P
Smoke. Booze is a close second.
No, marijuana second hand smoke is less harmful for you than tobacco smoke. Marijuana smoke does not contain the deadly carcinogens that cigarette smoke does. I heard on a doc…umentary that there aren't any known cases of marijuana smoke alone causing lung cancer or emphysema. If someone is smoking weed around you then you don't really have anything to worry about.
No. More people die from first hand cirgarette 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 Drug Tests
first hand is definitely worse but second hand smoke can be fatal also.
A review, published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, in 1992, found a link between the exposure to second hand tobacco smoke, and increased risk of heart di…sease death among persons who have never smoked. Furthermore, the review attributed 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States to passive smoking. The experiments that Philip Morris tobacco company performed, in 1980s, to shed more light on the side effects of passive smoking proved that inhaled secondhand smoke is four times more toxic than firsthand smoke, a startling finding that tobacco companies deliberately hid from the people in order to protect their industry.