On 8/18/2015 3:32 PM, tony944 wrote:


On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Uncle Monster wrote:

Me too but I can't hate my parents because of it because they didn't
know any better. Fraking cigarette commercials of the time touted
smoking as good for your health. (Š™_˜‰)

[8~{} Uncle Sneezing Monster

There is ZERO evidence that second hand smoke can harm you.
Government created that myth.

You Sir are "IDIOT

I join Uncle in the ranks of idiots. I had a lot
of ear infections as a child of smokers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

Evidence
Exposure to secondhand smoke by age, race, and poverty level in the US.

Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to second-hand
smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct
smoking. Most of the research has come from studies of nonsmokers who
are married to a smoker. Those conclusions are also backed up by further
studies of workplace exposure to smoke.[53]

In 1992, a review estimated that second-hand smoke exposure was
responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in
the early 1980s.[54] The absolute risk increase of heart disease due to
ETS was 2.2%, while the attributable risk percent was 23%. A 2014
analysis of eighteen studies noted that "the association between
exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer risk is well established."[55]

Evidence shows that inhaled sidestream smoke, the main component of
second-hand smoke, is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke.
This fact has been known to the tobacco industry since the 1980s, though
it kept its findings secret.[56][57][58][59] Some scientists believe
that the risk of passive smoking, in particular the risk of developing
coronary heart diseases, may have been substantially underestimated.[60]

In 1997, the BMJ published an analysis of 37 epidemiological studies on
the relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer which
concluded that such exposure caused lung cancer. The increase in risk
was estimated to be 24 percent among non-smokers who lived with a
smoker.[61] A 2000 meta-analysis found a relative risk of 1.48 for lung
cancer among men exposed to secondhand smoke, and a relative risk of
1.16 among those exposed to it at work.[62] Another meta-analysis
confirmed the finding of an increased risk of lung cancer among women
with spousal exposure to secondhand smoke the following year. It found a
relative risk of lung cancer of 1.29 for women exposed to secondhand
smoke from their spouses.[63]

A minority of epidemiologists have found it hard to understand how
second-hand smoke, which is more diluted than actively inhaled smoke,
could have an effect that is such a large fraction of the added risk of
coronary heart disease among active smokers.[64][65] One proposed
explanation is that second-hand smoke is not simply a diluted version of
"mainstream" smoke, but has a different composition with more toxic
substances per gram of total particulate matter.[64] Passive smoking
appears to be capable of precipitating the acute manifestations of
cardio-vascular diseases (atherothrombosis) and may also have a negative
impact on the outcome of patients who suffer acute coronary syndromes.[66]

In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the
World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published
evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:

These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and
consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers
and exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes.
The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and
remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and
confounding.[3]

Subsequent meta-analyses have confirmed these findings.[67][68]

The National Asthma Council of Australia cites studies showing that
second-hand smoke is probably the most important indoor pollutant,
especially around young children:[69]

Smoking by either parent, particularly by the mother, increases the risk
of asthma in children.
The outlook for early childhood asthma is less favourable in smoking
households.
Children with asthma who are exposed to smoking in the home generally
have more severe disease.
Many adults with asthma identify ETS as a trigger for their symptoms.
Doctor-diagnosed asthma is more common among non-smoking adults exposed
to ETS than those not exposed. Among people with asthma, higher ETS
exposure is associated with a greater risk of severe attacks.

In France, exposure to second-hand smoke has been estimated to cause
between 3,000[70] and 5,000 premature deaths per year, with the larger
figure cited by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin during his
announcement of a nationwide smoke-free law: "That makes more than 13
deaths a day. It is an unacceptable reality in our country in terms of
public health."[71]

There is good observational evidence that smoke-free legislation reduces
the number of hospital admissions for heart disease.[72]
Risk level

The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health
Organization concluded in 2004 that there was sufficient evidence that
second-hand smoke caused cancer in humans.[3] Most experts conclude that
moderate, occasional exposure to second-hand smoke presents a modest but
measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The overall risk depends on the
effective dose received over time. The risk level is higher if
non-smokers spend many hours in an environment where cigarette smoke is
widespread, such as a business where many employees or patrons are
smoking throughout the day, or a residential care facility where
residents smoke freely.[73] Those who work in environments where smoke
is not regulated are also at higher risk. Workers particularly at risk
of exposure include those in installation repair and maintenance,
construction and extraction, and transportation.[74]

The US Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, estimated that living or
working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers'
risk of developing heart disease by 25€“30% and lung cancer by 20€“30%.[75]
Biomarkers
Breath CO monitor displaying carbon monoxide concentration of an exhaled
breath sample (in ppm) with corresponding percent concentration of
carboxyhemoglobin displayed below.

Environmental tobacco smoke can be evaluated either by directly
measuring tobacco smoke pollutants found in the air or by using
biomarkers, an indirect measure of exposure. Carbon monoxide monitored
through breath, nicotine, cotinine, thiocyanates, and proteins are the
most specific biological markers of tobacco smoke exposure.[76][77]
Biochemical tests are a much more reliable biomarker of second-hand
smoke exposure than surveys. Certain groups of people are reluctant to
disclose their smoking status and exposure to tobacco smoke, especially
pregnant women and parents of young children. This is due to their
smoking being socially unacceptable. Also, it may be difficult for
individuals to recall their exposure to tobacco smoke.[78]

A 2007 study in the Addictive Behaviors journal found a positive
correlation between second-hand tobacco smoke exposure and
concentrations of nicotine and/or biomarkers of nicotine in the body.
Significant biological levels of nicotine from second-hand smoke
exposure were equivalent to nicotine levels from active smoking and
levels that are associated with behaviour changes due to nicotine
consumption.[79]
Cotinine

Cotinine, the metabolite of nicotine, is a biomarker of second-hand
smoke exposure. Typically, cotinine is measured in the blood, saliva,
and urine. Hair analysis has recently become a new, noninvasive
measurement technique. Cotinine accumulates in hair during hair growth,
which results in a measure of long-term, cumulative exposure to tobacco
smoke.[80] Urinary cotinine levels have been a reliable biomarker of
tobacco exposure and have been used as a reference in many
epidemiological studies. However, cotinine levels found in the urine
only reflect exposure over the preceding 48 hours. Cotinine levels of
the skin, such as the hair and nails, reflect tobacco exposure over the
previous three months and are a more reliable biomarker.[76]
Carbon monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide monitored via breath is also a reliable biomarker of
second-hand smoke exposure as well as tobacco use. With high sensitivity
and specificity, it not only provides an accurate measure, but the test
is also non-invasive, highly reproducible, and low in cost. Breath CO
monitoring measures the concentration of CO in an exhalation in parts
per million, and this can be directly correlated to the blood CO
concentration (carboxyhemoglobin).[81] Breath CO monitors can also be
used by emergency services to identify patients who are suspected of
having CO poisoning.
Pathophysiology

A 2004 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the
World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the
same carcinogens as active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains more than
4,000 chemicals, including 69 known carcinogens. Of special concern are
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines, and
aromatic amines, such as 4-aminobiphenyl, all known to be highly
carcinogenic. Mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke, and second-hand smoke
contain largely the same components, however the concentration varies
depending on type of smoke.[3] Several well-established carcinogens have
been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at
higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke.[82]

Second-hand smoke has been shown to produce more particulate-matter (PM)
pollution than an idling low-emission diesel engine. In an experiment
conducted by the Italian National Cancer Institute, three cigarettes
were left smoldering, one after the other, in a 60 m³ garage with a
limited air exchange. The cigarettes produced PM pollution exceeding
outdoor limits, as well as PM concentrations up to 10-fold that of the
idling engine.[83]

Tobacco smoke exposure has immediate and substantial effects on blood
and blood vessels in a way that increases the risk of a heart attack,
particularly in people already at risk.[84] Exposure to tobacco smoke
for 30 minutes significantly reduces coronary flow velocity reserve in
healthy nonsmokers.[85]

Pulmonary emphysema can be induced in rats through acute exposure to
sidestream tobacco smoke (30 cigarettes per day) over a period of 45
days.[86] Degranulation of mast cells contributing to lung damage has
also been observed.[87]

The term "third-hand smoke" was recently coined to identify the residual
tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is
extinguished and second-hand smoke has cleared from the air.[88][89][90]
Preliminary research suggests that by-products of third-hand smoke may
pose a health risk,[91] though the magnitude of risk, if any, remains
unknown. In October 2011, it was reported that Christus St. Frances
Cabrini Hospital in Alexandria, Louisiana would seek to eliminate
third-hand smoke beginning in July 2012, and that employees whose
clothing smelled of smoke would not be allowed to work. This prohibition
was enacted because third-hand smoke poses a special danger for the
developing brains of infants and small children.[92]

In 2008, there were more than 161,000 deaths attributed to lung cancer
in the United States. Of these deaths, an estimated 10% to 15% were
caused by factors other than first-hand smoking; equivalent to 16,000 to
24,000 deaths annually. Slightly more than half of the lung cancer
deaths caused by factors other than first-hand smoking were found in
nonsmokers. Lung cancer in non-smokers may well be considered one of the
most common cancer mortalities in the United States. Clinical
epidemiology of lung cancer has linked the primary factors closely tied
to lung cancer in non-smokers as exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,
carcinogens including radon, and other indoor air pollutants.[93]
Opinion of public health authorities

There is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to second-hand
smoke is harmful.[4] The link between passive smoking and health risks
is accepted by every major medical and scientific organisation, including:

The World Health Organization:[3] The governments of 168 nations have
signed and currently 174 have ratified the World Health Organization
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties
recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that
exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."[1]
The U.S. National Institutes of Health[94]
The Centers for Disease Control[95]
The United States Surgeon General[2]
The U.S. National Cancer Institute[96]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency[97]
The California Environmental Protection Agency[9]
The American Heart Association,[98] American Lung Association,[99] and
American Cancer Society[100]
The American Medical Association[101]
The American Academy of Pediatrics[102]
The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council[103]
The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health[104]