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 !
found this useful
Was this answer useful?
Thanks for the feedback!
No, it isn't. But it's harmful for health anyway.
Cigarette smoke contains many chemicals that are harmful and toxic to any living thing, your fish are no exception! Their exposure is increased with the use of air pumps by di…rectly injecting into the water anything that is in the air! Nicotine is very water soluble and very poisonous! If common sense prevails, you will take your smoke outside your fishes environ!
Secondhand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the EPA as a Class …A carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans. Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzpyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia. Secondhand smoke from pipes and cigars is equally as harmful, if not more so (Mayo Clinic release, Aug 97). What is written below was the original answer left by a complete moron. I have NEVER heard anyone say that they thought second hand smoke was not harmful. They are obviously not paying attention. It isn't! The smoke that goes into the person lungs is a carcinogen ( a substance or agent producing or inciting cancer). The smokers lungs absorb all most all of the unhealthy contaminents and they exhale, basically, a small amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). Although second-smoke is smelly it is not harmful. This answer is apparently from a smoker who doesn't want to face the facts. Read the Surgeon General's Report on smoking. Not only does the nonsmoker breath in chemicals exhaled by the smoker, they also inhale smoke from the burning cigarette. Until we can make smoking bubbles, smoking will be a health hazard for smokers and non-smokers alike. 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, 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.
first hand data is information that you have collected. Second hand data is information that a different source have collected.
Yes it does, Because no matter how long you hold the smoke in, there is still traces of THC in the smoke and if you happen to inhale it. you probabally wont get high unless yo…u are "Hotboxing" which is alot of smoke in a room.. in order to fail a drug test for second hand smoke you have to have 10 people smoking in a volks wagon bug for a half an hour and if u do fail your THC levels will be very low
Yes you can get second hand marijuana smoke. It's called a "Contact buzz". It's nothing major, and no more than slight dizziness for a short period of time. But as far as dru…g tests go, drug tests search for THC (The active chemical in marijuana.) And with second hand having so little, you should be absolutely fine.
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.
Secondhand smoking (or second hand smoke) is a combination of the smoke that is released from the end of a burning cigarette and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. O…ver 4,000 chemicals are found in a single puff of smoke, including more than 50 cancer causing particles. Second hand smoke can cause lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers. In addition to cancer, SHS can cause eye irritation, headaches, nausea, and dizziness (in non-smokers). It is also known as passive smoke or side stream smoke and is behind the massive smoking bans across the world on smoking in piblic places. Second hand smoke has been scientifically shown to cause cancer and exacerbate asthma especially in children. it is responsible even for heart attacks. It has given raise to increased use of electronic cigarettes For information on helping a friend or family member quit, please visit the Related Link.
Yes, actually a second hand smoker could die faster than the smoker himself. This is because the smoker breaths out the smoke of the cigarette before it could reach his lungs,… while the second hand smoker breaths in the air containing the smoke and all the carbon-monoxide and other poisonous chemicals to their lungs.
Second hand smoke can lead to the same effects of the actual smoker. There a studies that suggest that it has a worst effect than that of the smoker's; however, these studies …have not been extensively researched. In a overview second hand smoke can (Allegedly) cause lung cancer, health problems, and increase your chances of heart attack, stroke, asthma related death, etc.
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.
Being the actual person inhaling the smoke. An act wherein you are the one who smoke.
Yes they can. They have thesame respitory system as us which mean the breathe in thesame harmful stuff we do.
Short term, it may cause slight irritation, such as runny eyes and a tickly throat. It, or more likely the stress of coming into contact with the most dangerous substance ever… (is there anything else that has 'no safe dose'?), may trigger an asthma attack. Long term, i.e. over decades of 24x7 exposure, the vast majority of studies into its effects have given inconclusive results.
Yes you can. My girlfriend got her asthma because her mother was always smoking around her. Her mother doesn't smoke any more, but my girlfriend will use her inhalor three to …four times a day. No. Asthma is not "caused by" smoke, animal dander, pollen, etc. Those things may trigger an attack, but they are not the reason you have the condition. Yes and no. Asthma is hereditary in the way that some people are more likely to get it than others. Second hand smoke is both a trigger for an attack AND a factor that can lead to asthma, especially in young children. Asthma can be 'caused' by certain triggers, but that depends on your family history. No you cant get asthma from second hand smoke. There are over 40,000 triggers for asthma and has been found in children is being around passive smoke lowers incidences of asthma and heres why. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%. "Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders. The authors write: "We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens. "These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever." They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them." The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008 . This is a Swedish study. "Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7) CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children." Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14 ... In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients. The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. "