Every working day, the CNNHealth expert Doctor answers questions from the audience.
Doctor on Wednesday.
Otis Braun, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society
David in Tampa, Florida, asked the question, how much second-hand smoke does not smoke?
If a person smokes a pack of cigarettes for 30 years a day and is only 1/3 more likely to die than a non-smoker, then, how likely are people who don\'t smoke more likely to die young simply because others smoke?
The expert replied: Dear David, I have to say that I do not agree with some of your risk assumptions.
Smoking is always frustrating.
I don\'t think there is an epidemic that is as devastating and preventive as tobacco consumption is.
Tobacco is the only product I can think of, and when used as expected, it causes at least half of users to die prematurely.
Smoking can lead to lung cancer, at least a dozen other cancers, as well as cardiovascular disease and lung cancer.
Second-hand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a smoke that is involuntarily inhaled.
Secondhand smoke can also lead to non-lung cancer, heart disease and lung cancer. smokers.
No safe level of exposure, but for a long time
Long-term exposure increases the risk of lung cancer by 10% to 15% and heart disease by 30%.
This means that between 5,000 and 10,000 people die each year from lung cancer and 40,000 from heart disease in the United States.
It is estimated that worldwide exposure to second-hand smoke in 2004 resulted in 50,000 deaths from lung cancer and 379,000 deaths from heart disease.
In the air of a smoker\'s home or workplace, it is easy to measure the components of tobacco smoke, such as carbon monoxide, nicotine, benzene, and small particles.
It is indeed a form of indoor air pollution.
These smoke by-products can be measured in the blood and urine of non-smokers exposed to them.
This means that the by-products and by-products they breathe into their bodies.
The person around the smoker inhaled more benzene than he or she inhaled, which is the reason for leukemia, and he or she will spend the same time filling the car with gasoline.
We are concerned about the exposure of children, especially young children who cannot stay away from smoking adult parents.
Children are also destined to last-
Exposure to second-hand smoke.
Exposure to second-hand smoke can lead to eye discomfort, asthma and other acute respiratory diseases, and is considered to be the cause of the death of the baby crib.
Preliminary studies have shown that secondhand smoke is dangerous compared to the spouses of older non-smokers
Non-smoking control married to non-smokers.
The risk of lung cancer is much higher for smokers \'spouses.
In addition, a study of smoke-free flight attendants who were allowed to work while smoking on a plane showed that the incidence of lung cancer was higher than that of non-smoking airline employees.
The narrow space of the plane brought them a particularly large amount of second-hand smoke.
Over the past 40 years, a lot of research has been done on secondhand smoke. A meta-
Analysis of 52 studies prepared for 2006 Surgeon reports on Smoking and Health shows that non-smokers who smoke for a long timeterm (
More than 20 years)
Exposure to second-hand smoke 1.
Compared with non-smokers who have never been exposed to second-hand smoke, the likelihood of lung cancer has increased by 21 times. A second meta-
Analysis of 25 studies showed that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke were 20% more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers working in smoking
Interestingly, the biggest benefit of limiting secondhand smoke is reducing heart disease.
There have been several testimonials that towns that have initiated laws that limit smoking in public and workplaces will have a reduced incidence of heart disease within a year of promulgation.
Exhaust gas discharged into the atmosphere from gasoline/diesel engines does not cause indirect damage to our lungs like tobacco? ?
Controlling tobacco lobby groups and trying to ban smoking is a long and difficult ongoing battle.
If the effort to ban tobacco smoke is completely successful, how long does it take to dismantle the oil lobby and declare it illegal?
I absolutely assure you that if you fill a room with cigarette smoke and fill another room with the exhaust gas from the internal combustion engine, the people in the smoke exhaust room will die faster than those in the used smoke exhaust room. . . .
I think it\'s an absolute fact, but we don\'t hear much. !
Let\'s completely ban tobacco, thus eliminating the deaths caused by secondhand smoke, and then see how much mortality is caused by lung cancer.
I suspect there will be a lot if these numbers are reduced! !
I agree with you. . . .
They ban smoking.
No, I don\'t smoke)
But mariijuana, who smokes for \"medical purposes\", is legalised, haha. . . .
I think they will suck back when they smoke a second cigarette! ! !
I totally agree with you.
I am a smoker and I am very aware of the dangers and exposure of smoking to myself and the people around me. . . . . . .
But this article and other articles I have read about smoking and secondary smoking never mention secondary smoking
Gasoline/diesel engines are discharged into the atmosphere, a toxic chronic HAZZARD for me and the health of the public
I have heard that very few people realize that big business is the reason why Jordan has been so defamed in the past.
The fact is, it was DuPont and Hearst that caused the loss, and DuPont wanted to sell nylon ropes and cannabis, a quality product that Hearst planted with several acres of pulp trees, and would like to insure marukett.
Another fact that is not often discussed is that cannabis is made better than pulp because of the natural resources used to grow plants.
Hearst and DuPont gathered to launch a marketing campaign to eliminate evil weeds.
They also do this with prejudice and harsh means.
I agree that secondhand smoke is terrible and should be prevented as much as possible.
I remember I touched it when I was a child and how my eyes and throat were burned by it. I hated it.
However, I am totally against the ban on smoking because these drug bans cause more problems than the original problem.
Unless you are willing to impose such severe penalties on smokers, it will become the next big moneymaker for drug smugglers.
Only the Communist Party of China can eradicate opium addiction through extremely cruel means.
\"After the 1949 incident, the Communist Party of China regime used unrestricted repression and social reforms to eradicate the world\'s largest opium market.
By the beginning of the 1950 s, the Highland opium area had become a new crop, dealers had been executed, and an estimated 10 million drug addicts in the country had been forced into compulsory treatment.
\"See will never accept this cruel approach, so the war on drugs is doomed to fail;
Like a war against smoking would fail.
The United States should legalize drugs and treat all drug addicts.
In order to succeed in the war on drugs, American civil liberties will have to be completely destroyed.
First, these laws limit smoking only indoors and near the entrance and exit of buildings.
You can smoke whatever you want outside.
As for car exhaust, in a closed space, there is a big difference between pollutants and pollutants outside.
I\'m not saying that car exhaust is good for you, but you can\'t park your car in a restaurant, so why is there any difference in smoking.
I\'m tired of smokers thinking they should have the right to shine wherever they want.
They have the right to commit suicide, but they have no right to take me with them.
You volunteered for the experiment? Probably not!
Carbon monoxide levels are similar when controlling other factors.
Best data suggest that non-smokers living near Highway 9 are at increased risk of lung cancer13% (
This is before the \"smog\" test of regular emissions in the United States)
In contrast, the spouse\'s second-hand smoke was 24%, which increased according to the year of exposure and the number of partner smoking.
Both exposures should be preventable.
Keeping the non smoking room was a good start and the smoke check was also a good start. You choose.
So if the car exhaust doesn\'t hurt us, try wrapping your lips around the tailpipe and you\'ll die in a few minutes.
I\'m pretty sure it\'s a lot more dangerous than used tobacco smoke.
It\'s easier to pursue smokers than to pursue car owners, because people don\'t give up smoking in the same way as people with fat ass don\'t give up cars.
In the 2006 Surgeon Report on Smoking and Health
Analyze the threshold of EPA arbitrarily reducing \"statistical significance\" for the sake of this \"study (
Not research, Yuan. analysis).
The Wall Street Journal reported this anomaly, but most researchers agree that the approach is not flawed, but dishonest, and they remain silent, because the cause is worth it-give the government the right to regulate where people smoke.
I smoke for more than 30 years and quit 11 years ago and I\'m glad I did but EPA meta-
Analysis is essentially a lie.
I\'m happy with a world where there\'s almost no smoking, but I hate the EPA\'s lies.
In the information age, I was confused when people chose to be ignorant on purpose.
Some people don\'t care about the truth because they have an agenda that, in their view, is better than the truth.
Thanks Conrad for providing a concise version of the actual facts behind EPA research.
This is a wrong study, and because the community\'s lemmings do not have the practice of thinking for themselves, they subscribe to the study.
Oh yeah, I\'m a nonsmoker.
The difference between used tobacco smoke and car exhaust is that car exhaust is the price for us to ship goods and personnel to ship fire engines and ambulances to people\'s homes.
You may live longer without car exhaust, but if your diet is monotonous, you will not live longer (
You can\'t grow locally due to lack of food)
You have to walk to the hospital when you are sick.
Tobacco smoke, on the other hand, has no value for society.
All costs and benefits are zero.
Then, having to breathe someone else\'s smoke, or smell the residue of smoking in the hotel room, etc, is completely a personal violation.
I like coffee.
My happy by-product is urine.
If the smokers dump their waste on me, then the transition is fair, right?
How about people around you having to endure terrible breathing?
Or is it causing damage to your teeth and your cardiovascular system?
Most of the events we participate in or the products we consume have dangerous risks and side effects. You\'re*SteveD. . .
Smoking does help to socialize. . . indirectly.
We need smokers, and they need cigarettes in order for smokers to produce tobacco smoke (
Or other tobacco products)
The manufacture and sale of cigarettes is a big business worth billions of dollars.
This provides jobs for people and taxes for the government.
These are all beneficial to society.
Let\'s not forget all the people who work in the area of health care who help take care of smokers.
As for exposure to the smoke of others. . .
The law prohibiting smoking in public places has largely eliminated this risk.
So much so that for most people they have to leave there and get in touch with it near s smokers.
Most hotels are smoke-free. . .
There are usually only a few if they do have a smoking room. . .
So please be moved if the small amount of tobacco left offends you.
In my opinion, the government has done a lot of things, so there is no
Smokers have gained a lot of benefits in terms of employment and taxes, compared to the fact that they have little access to second-hand smoke.
If the government is really concerned about the health of people, not big businesses and related taxes. . .
They will ban/ban smoking.
You\'re right. There\'s no value in smoke.
But smoke is a by-product of tobacco, it is taxed and continues to be attacked by taxes.
Every year, tobacco taxes continue to increase because the government knows that this is a good way to generate income.
Do you think the tax will go away if everyone quit smoking? No, taxes are passed on to everyone because the government depends on taxes.
This is a split issue and seems to be consistent with the theme recently.
I think we need to control the health hazards that we can control and recognize that we can\'t stop everything that can hurt us.
When a group called ASH asked about David, there was an interesting conflict with David, or \"Action on Smoking and Health \"(an anti-smoking group)
Set regrets for second-hand smoke. . .
All the harmful VOCs in the second-hand smoke fog seem to have been regulated by OSHA, but even in a small room their PELs are high and many smoke at the same time, OSHA PELs won\'t even be close to being broken by any VOCs in the used smoke!
OSHA\'s opinion is: \"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke show that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted to a lower level than the existing allowable exposure (PELS)
Mentioned in the air pollutant standard. . . .
It is so rare to find a workplace where there is so much smoking that it exceeds any personal counter-word. \"-
Greg watch, acting assistant secretary general, OSHA, Lehua J.
Plettten, PhD, July 8, 1997.
They used EPA data on the emissions of everything measurable in secondhand smoke per cigarette to compare them with OSHA\'s PELs.
The following excerpt comes directly from their report and their testimony in Washington: \"We assume a sealed, unventilated shell with an area of 20 feet square meters and a net empty ceiling of 9 feet square meters.
Obtaining ETS production data for each cigarette directly from EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes required to reach the minimum published \"dangerous\" threshold for each substance. Our chart (Table 1)
Each of these substances is illustrated, but let me report some notable examples. For Benzo[a]
Pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes are required to reach the published minimum risk threshold.
For acetone, 118,000 cigarettes are needed.
50,000 packs of stuffy cigarettes are needed for toluene.
At the low end of the scale-in the case of aldehyde or ammonia, more than 14,000 smokers need to smoke at the same time in our small room to reach the threshold that they may start to pose a danger.
Only 1250 cigarettes are needed for hydroquinone.
Will the ACS chief medical officer say the second question?
Is the hand smoke really not so bad?
Even if the WHO was first published, it was later recovered at the urging of the United States. S.
, The largest study so far on the second impact
Hand smoke, and no statistically significant risk was identified for those exposed.
Perhaps CNN should pick a less biased \"expert\"-or ask an expert to provide statistics related to the cited research-because the \"medical professional-born activist\" is not very persuasive. .
There is an interesting article on Cnn about the decrease in ear pain in childhood, which is related to the decrease in smoking among American adults.
Personally, secondhand smoke is annoying and I can\'t stand the stench of burning tobacco --
But if people can choose to smoke, then only their own health is affected and that is the choice they should be able to make.
I really don\'t care if others smoke.
This is their choice and life.
However, I do think it helps a lot to be polite to others.
I have a lot of allergies and mild asthma.
When I was exposed to the smoke, my eyes would start to feel burning and breathing felt like more effort was needed and eventually I started to breathe. My In-
The law chain smoking when we go to visit and I don\'t know how to tell them it makes me very uncomfortable.
They even noticed my respite and asked if I had anything to say?
This happens only when I visit them?
My eyes became red and water and sore, and I ended up either going out to rest or going to the bathroom with less smoke.
I was happy to go home when we left.
It takes a while before my airline feels uncomfortable.
I usually have to take all my clothes off before I get back to normal, wash them and take a shower.
They will also hold their grandchildren, even babies, while putting cigarettes in the other hand and blowing them on their faces.
Their theory is that they did this to both their son and their daughter, and no one was affected, so they were all good.
I can\'t help but notice the grandchildren (
People who often end)
There have been respiratory infections almost all the time and I was wondering how much smoke has affected them.
I just hope none of them will end up quitting the deal because of asthma.
I don\'t care if secondhand smoke will hurt me.
Put it in my face.
This is one of the most ignorant arguments I have ever heard.
Smokers always try to rationalize their habits because it is easier than stopping them.
But you can\'t hide the fact that they kill people.
Many of my family smoke like me.
Even so many people continue to smoke and make excuses.
Just admit that you know it\'s stupid and don\'t complain that my taxes should help you pay for treatment through the government when you\'re lying in bed.
In fact, Dunn, there is no legal proof that it did kill.
As for keeping it away from your face, in any case anyone who is normal and polite will try not to smoke on your face.
Those who do it without concern may be doing all sorts of rude things to people even if they don\'t smoke.
The bottom line is that tobacco is not illegal, and this ongoing campaign of discrimination against smokers is just another way for the government to control what we are allowed to do, while taxing it to raise money.
It\'s a free country, isn\'t it?
I have to pay 15000 tax a year, so if I want to smoke, I will do it!
I respect others and smoke in places like car exhaust. . IS MUCH WORSE.
So if you don\'t have a second hand cigarette move to somewhere else! ! !
Smoking does not kill you immediately. Instead, you will die because of smoking.
It is absolutely correct that smoking causes chronic lung obstruction.
So if you want to cut your hair, go ahead.
When you are sick, you can try to explain this to me, gasping because the air can\'t get into your useless, black, broken lungs through your tiny, swollen airway.
In the meantime, remove your nasty Black Death and foul smell from my airspace.
The medical expenses you are used to cause my insurance price to rise.
It will be more constructive to stop being persecuted and think about how your actions hurt people around you.
Special thanks to Mase for giving us a classic example of justice --indignant non-
Smokers who like to talk about all the ways smoking causes harm to their bodies and can lead to death.
Obviously, smoking brings a certain degree of risk (though second-
Hand Smoke seems to be a myth. . . )
This is not a novel observation.
But when he describes
There is a clearly exaggerated taste)
I ended up coughing, breathing death, and he did not mention his own death: probably in a nursing home, plus dementia and family burden and shame;
It may be that in a fierce car crash, his body was damaged in despair and pain;
Maybe in life.
Support in liver and/or kidney failureignored side-
The effect of all the pills his doctor gave him, and the pills he swallowed without considering;
Or maybe one day, when his body finally stops working for no reason, he will be at home.
When a report says \"smoking causes X\", you do not read the statement of fact.
Suppose you can identify the root cause in a system as complex as the human body has been for decades --
The long term interaction with the Earth is ridiculous, however, the arrogance implied in this statement is nothing but fun.
Assigning the cause of smoking to the whole society can comfortably blame cancerstricken-
Make your own decision to your own destiny, ignoring countless environmental hazards, workplace exposure hazards, etc.
After all, this guy has cancer and people make a lot of glorious, glorious money in running these factories and selling those big diesel trucks, right? ! ? Mase, second-
Hand smoke is not a real problem.
When ranking with all the dangers in the world, it\'s not something you need to avoid, let alone root on a large scale.
You just don\'t like the taste. Period.
I think it works, if so.
But if you don\'t like smoking, you don\'t have the right to smoke. . .
A lot of things.
Maybe I don\'t like the taste of your body.
Wash, is this important to anyone but me? Second-
I really believe that hand smoke is a myth created by lofty intentions: it is better for a person not to smoke and it is OK to encourage people to quit smoking.
But to encourage them and tell them that they are killing their children, that their own parents have hurt them for life and that the walls of their homes are toxic due to nicotine residues. . .
This is not to blame. Grow up. (
PS: By the way, your high premiums are caused by rampant greed and the worst excesses of capitalism.
Again, grow up. )
Is there a usual number of pets, dogs, cats, etc. killed by used smoke (if any.
How many people\'s death certificates list second-hand smoke as the cause of death.
Real test research has never had a total controlled environment of 100%.
Because regardless of any contact with the smoking period, many of these people will die from smae disease. i don;
I don\'t smoke, but I read the article and I don\'t smoke; t believe it.
I still think so;
It\'s all a smoke screen that makes people worry about something that\'s not so dangerous, so they don\'t worry;
Don\'t bother politicians with the real problems facing the country.
There is only one problem with the factors that lead to cancer, that is, many factors. there;
S. Air pollution smoked meat cars. Barbecue food.
Fruit and vegetables sprayed with insect repellent. microwaves.
Nobodt once wondered if they were safe.
Unfortunately, experts ignore the first question: \"How much second-hand smoke does a non-smoker smoke in any case?
\"The spouse of the smoker and the flight attendant is locked up on the plane and the smoker is clearly inhaling enough to cause problems, but you can never convince me (for example)a non-
For example, 20% of smoking attendants who work in the smoking area of a restaurant have a higher risk of smoking --
Related diseases, or (
What\'s more ridiculous is)
When I enter a building, passing by a smoker increases my risk.
Good point, but you\'re trying to apply logic and reason to a topic that has too much emotional value to our politicians who don\'t seem to want to fight a powerful counter
I used to smoke, and I managed not to smoke at about 4.
It\'s been 5 years, but when I walk past the people who smoke outside, I don\'t feel at all dangerous.
My parents are smoking and my breathing is good.
The main thing is that this is a good way to raise taxes on a few people.
And give the government support to let the insurance company burn your ass with a very high premiere rate.
Why have these articles never mentioned that the few studies that everyone likes to cite about used smoke are not credible?
This is lying long enough and loud enough before people believe it.
50% of traffic deaths are related to alcohol.
Therefore, drinking and driving are reduced.
But 50% of deaths are irrelevant.
If no one drinks and drives, then if we let people drink and reduce the number by 100%, traffic deaths will be 100% irrelevant numbers.
There\'s a lot on the doctor.
I think the Braun article is very suspicious, but there are two particular statements: 1.
\"The risk of lung cancer is much higher for a smoker\'s spouse.
\"Please define\" significantly.
\"This is a very vague word that can be\" rotated \"in any direction in order to express an opinion \". 2.
\"There have been several times that cities and towns that have initiated laws to limit smoking in public and workplaces will have a reduced incidence of heart disease within a year of promulgation. \" Really?
What is this reduction? On average?
Isn\'t this decline due to many other factors unrelated to smoking, such as people making healthier lifestyle choices, such as a better diet and more exercise?
This kind of thing has been popular recently. Don\'t you agree? Brawley?
I haven\'t seen anyone answer this simple question yet: If the second one
Hand smoke is very, very deadly, why don\'t we, the baby boomers, die more from lung cancer or cancer?
Almost all our parents smoke.
We grew up in smoke. laden homes.
People smoke in supermarkets, cinemas, school halls and other places.
Why are most of us still breathing? Hmmm? 1.
It is important to consider the incidence of non-lung cancer patients
Smoking spouse of smokers and non-smokers
Non smoking spouse
Smokers, at least 95% of this difference may be more than a statistical fluke.
That is to say, if there is no second impact
Hand smoke, the average rate is the same, you will only observe the * observed * rate in the sample size in 5% of the time. Or less. (
My guess is that it\'s a little less, though you\'re right, and it would be great if they actually gave some numbers. )2.
You put forward an alternative assumption that
Smoking laws, people\'s health is improving because they are all changing their way of life at the same time.
But if these lifestyle changes
The law of smoking, then if
Does smoking law have a direct or indirect impact?
The problem is that people seem to be getting healthier after these laws are enacted.
Therefore, these laws are good no matter how effective they are. (
However, I think after the change of the lifestyle of the alternative theory,
The promulgation of the smoking law is very far-fetched-it doesn\'t make much difference every year, presumably they are looking at the trend, so not only do they see the difference, but even if the overall interest rate keeps falling, the difference is also much larger than in previous years and subsequent years. )3.
Baby boomers die from a variety of diseases, including cancer, heart disease and other smoke
However, the susceptibility of people is not only affected by toxins, but also by genetics, lifestyle and other factors.
Only one of the 100 people may have died of lung cancer (
Before other things)
Due to the second contact
But in the population of millions, that means 10,000 people can prevent death.
This is twice as many as 9/11 victims.
@ DX2718, good point of view, food for further thinking.
However, considering that the baby boomers face so many second
Hand-drawn, discount to the person who smokes at one time (such as myself)
Or still smoking, I don\'t think the percentage of people who died of smoking
What is consistent with these recent studies is related diseases.
I have to put the salt bottle at hand and assume the countersmokers.
I\'m a hipster, smoking. . .
When you can also smoke in the hospital and doctor\'s office.
I personally know no one (or pet)
People who died of secondhand smoke
But unfounded arguments, opinions, and statistics may give me a headache. Kate said it well.
Are not most people aged 70 and 80 dead?
Is it not normal to die when you are 70 and 80 years old? Exactly!
Everyone is dead.
The topic became too emotional because the untrustworthy \"research\" convinced so many people that \"children\" were in danger.
A few years ago, I had a discussion with the doctor who wanted me to quit smoking (
I haven\'t smoked for more than 4 years)
She said I should quit smoking and not drink (
I have never really done a lot.
Don\'t eat greasy food, I will live longer if I give up all these bad habits.
My answer is: Doctor, do you call this life?
I would like to see it illegal to smoke. I hate it.
I\'m always away from where you can smoke but it\'s impossible to get away completely.
I walk to work and there is always someone smoking outside their office building and I have to pass.
When it\'s windy, I\'m probably 50 yards away and still smell it.
I have zero tolerance. I have asthma.
If I was exposed to smoke, it would take a few minutes for my lungs to get hurt.
I do everything I can to take precautions, but this is still not completely avoidable.
Ha ha, go buy a bubble!
LC6624 talking about marijuana, you don\'t know what you\'re talking about.
You\'re right, Kate!
I am also a baby boom \".
41 years ago, when I had children, including doctors and nurses, everyone in the hospital smoked.
I remember the ashtray in the hospital room, I remember holding a cigarette in one hand and a bottle in one hand for my child!
I felt horrible when I thought about it, but that\'s the truth. Who knew!
By the way, my baby and I are still healthy!
Well, everyone knows the potential and real impact of smoking, but the money to fight it is not more than smoking.
There is also more air entering the building;
They are not sealed;
Windows can be opened;
Vegetables in supermarkets do not continue to spray chemicals
Fill them up with water and possibly keep them \"fresher\" indefinitely \".
In order to relax, people will have a drink with a cigarette.
This reduces the pressure.
I assume that with the advent of smoking bans, the overall incidence increases, and the reduction in educational outcomes, quality of health care, social creativity and overall life satisfaction.
Those who are able to do these correlations can do this easily without the need for statistical means.
The problem is that it is obviously illogical to try to deny the bad effects of tobacco.
Maybe many of us continue to smoke because we link smoking to rest, relax, and then continue to live.
The most productive and creative people in the world smoke.
Where would we be without them?
Where Are We Now?
It would be great if they really quoted the research they quoted.
If you can find some objective data, link to the data and its source.
Otherwise, this is a meaningless answer to the question.
There is no doubt that smoking is an unhealthy habit. . .
But the smoking alarm
Ism has surpassed its peak these days.
Paranoia just doesn\'t match the data.
People are exposed to worse things every day than second-hand smoke.
While I agree that smokers and others need to be polite to others, I also see once again that people become absolute and irrational fears about others (
In this case)
The effect of 2nd hand smoke.
The real facts seem to show that this is no more harmful than the environment, but our government continues to appease the extreme fear by practicing what Stephen Colbert says is \"true.
If it looks and sounds like it should be true then it must be true!
In terms of explaining why we have such problems in this country today, we have taken a long way because there is no shortage of gullible people and a large number of instigators to take advantage of them.
Nothing but sheep!
There is a very simple solution to the problem of second-hand smoke.
Smokers are required to wear a smoke-proof helmet.
This way, smokers can smoke anywhere they want, and the rest of us don\'t have to smell the stench caused by tobacco smoke.
It doesn\'t make it more dangerous for smokers to smoke, and it doesn\'t make people nearby breathe in secondhand smoke.
This is a good idea. Love it!
LOL to laugh at smokers trying to selfjustification.
Smokers are disgusting losers.
You look like an idiot when you stand outside the building and smoke on the sidewalk-haha!
Yeah, well, you look amazing. . . . LMAO.
Why always self-righteous non-
First name smokercalling shots?
Your IQ is down at least 20 points.
The resistance to second-hand smoke is mainly to general smoking.
There is a group of people in this country who are constantly complaining about what smoking will do, and they are an increasingly greasy squeeze wheel.
It is impossible to have second-hand smoke that is worse than sitting next to a bonfire and sucking smoke.
Having said that, I would add that I think it is a good idea to avoid smoking around everyone, especially children.
When you light the campfire in the middle of the restaurant where I eat, I also complain about this.
Compare the effects of secondhand smoke to everything else (
Car exhaust, etc ).
Ridiculous-smoking is the only thing some people think they should have the right to do anywhere (
Restaurants, planes, office buildings, etc).
Can\'t smoke on the plane, OK, we\'re in a sealed jar, I can understand.
I can\'t smoke in the office, OK, we are locked in the same space for a long time and I can respect that.
Outdoor Stadium/concert venue can\'t smoke, it\'s outside but we are all limited to a tight space so I will make this sacrifice, because I have seen how smoke hovers in groups large enough.
Can\'t smoke in restaurants even in smoking areas, OK, most smoking areas are a joke (
In fact, \"it\'s a joke\" because they don\'t exist anymore \")
So I go out after my meal so that I don\'t get in the way of your enjoyment of eating.
Can\'t smoke in the bar, I think there are more dangerous activities in the bar than cigarettes, but of course, OK, I hate the fun of my smoke interfering with your 12 shots before you drive to your next destination.
Can\'t smoke within 25 feet of an entrance, although this is an inconvenience for me, but I don\'t think it poses any statistically significant risk to others or even kills them, and while they obviously can survive millions of other environmental toxins in the air, I\'m a good person, so even on windy days, I want to make sure I won\'t be anywhere near you when you get into a building.
But I\'m not kidding, my employer now has a policy that I can\'t even smoke in my own car on their campus.
This is the direct result of most people like you saying \"smoking is annoying\", so any rules that limit smoking are OK, even if what is banned has absolutely no effect on me.
Next, the employer says employees can\'t smoke even if they don\'t work (
Oh wait, it\'s already happening).
After that, maybe it\'s time to look for people who post stupid anonymous pseudonyms on the blog site, or something that most others find offensive or annoying. Second-
Hand smoke is a very popular whip post.
You can smell the cigarette but you can\'t smell the carbon monoxide which will kill you right away.
There are many environmental pollutants that can and will cause health problems for a long time.
We are all in regular contact with them for a long time. I had a co-
Workers living in New York City our office building is right next to eight lanes-think of semi discharging diesel gas all day-but even though he never thought about his own environment at home and at work, he was very positive about the second one.
The workers smoked their hands while resting outside the building.
Like many anti-
He never complained about the environmental pollution he could not smell, but it caused his alarm because he could smell cigarette smoke.
He\'s not the only one I \'ve ever seen.
Smoking in closed, closed areas (such as aircraft) is a major environmental risk.
But if someone is smoking outside, unless they are standing close to you, or blowing smoke on your face, the particle rate of a few parts of the million is very low.
Because it has a strong smell, you can see it there even outside, but unless you are very weak or allergic to cigarettes, chances are you shouldn\'t measure the size of the coffin yet.
For 60 years, my grandfather smoked 5 packs of unfiltered cigarettes a day. My non-
Grandma who smoked, exposed to his second
For decades, health was good at the age of 91.
I know an anecdote doesn\'t refute the theory, but hopefully you can understand why I\'m a little cynical about people who can go crazy if they smell smoke.
Yes, all the clean air generated by diesel smoke from car exhaust, buses, trucks, coal and power plants is much safer than used smoke.
Let me take a break. It\'s too illegal.
We\'re all here now.
I have many relatives who are exposed to secondhand smoke fog, but none of them have lung cancer.
No smoking is all PR.
They have started to ban smoking anywhere in the hotel.
University is an example.
Now, even outside and away from the entrance to the building, it is illegal to smoke on many campuses.
I would like to remind you that if our topic is to ban products that will do harm to health, then the next step should be to drink.
Once you allow them to ban smoking, they get away, and the next step is to ban anything that leads to a health risk.
Karma is a person who you know and be careful what you want.
No smoking anywhere! CASE CLOSED!
I\'m looking here for information about 2nd hand cigarettes, trying to figure out if it\'s really as bad as people think it is.
Not very good luck.
All the information seems to come from government agencies, which they say is bad.
The only thing I found, saying it wasn\'t from people.
Every article I read talks about studies that prove to be harmful, but none of them list them and there is no indication of where they can be found.
I am always tired of anything that has nothing to do with the government.
The government is always lying and there is an agenda for government agencies and any type of group.
For the final result they want, it is unbiased to have any research that is truly honest.
I\'m rarely afraid, if any.
I read that some studies have proved wrong.
In any case, where is the real evidence?
I know that smoking hurts smokers, but does it really hurt non-smokers?
I know a non-smoker doesn\'t like the smell, but where is the evidence that it actually hurts them?
I have never heard of anyone dying because of the smell.
All I know so far is what I see.
I am a baby boomers and I grow up when everyone is smoking everywhere and it doesn\'t seem to hurt me at all.
The baby boomers are exposed to 2nd more hands than anyone today.
Our parents smoke and they live longer than our generation.
What is that deal?
Is this the truth or propaganda designed just to make smokers forgotten?
Not long ago, most people smoked.
Nowadays, smokers have become a popular choice for people to choose and commemorate.
Even worse than the metamorphosis and criminals in our society.
I see a lot more people die of alcohol than people who die of 2nd cigarettes.
Alcohol will kill those who abuse alcohol and those who are innocent who don\'t even drink alcohol.
Why not be as offensive as tobacco use?
In general, people believe in the things they are told, never study, and don\'t even think that things are true or not.
Even with all the information on the Internet now, it is difficult to find the truth of anything.
Most of them are comments from the public, they have opinions but no real knowledge.
The doctor told us that 2nd cigarettes were bad, but where did they get the information from?
Doctors are trained by large pharmaceutical companies, and everything about large pharmaceutical companies is for profit.
They teach doctors to take pills that make them profitable.
They have a vested interest in the government agencies that are doing their bids.
So how does a person know the truth?
My mother has a chronic lung obstruction and because she smokes, she has a heart problem now, which is common in her family.
She lived with smokers all her life and is now almost 85 years old.
If 2nd hands are as bad as they say, how is she still here?
Especially considering that she has been suffering from chronic lung obstruction for 30 years.
I have an uncle who smokes all his life and comes into contact with 2nd cigarettes. He lives to be 88 years old.
Where is the evidence?
Is it 2nd of the hand smoke that makes them sick, or are all the chemicals, contaminants, and environmental hazards that we touch every day the culprit?
The \"meta-analysis\" cited by doctors here has been widely and reliably debunked as a hacker. science.
In fact, the EPA was completely destroyed in court by a judge who knew he was lying.
In fact, the report found that the growth rate was 19% when the confidence interval was 1.
This means that the real result may come from-81% to +119%.
So basically, this is a false study.
There is no medical journal that will be studied because they are cherries.
Selected and \"analyzed\" by activists rather than scientists \".
A quick review of the buried who Research I will tell you that at home or in a smoking workplace with another smoker, only about 6 cigarettes will be filled in your lungs every year. Yes, SIX.
Do you really think it will affect your health?
For the record, I don\'t smoke or like the smell of cigarettes.
However, with all the research finding that secondhand smoke is harmless, I don\'t feel the need to lie.
Deliberately and repeatedly inhaling smoke into the lungs is not a good thing.
I think human evolution has shown us this.
The job of medicine is to show people the facts so that they can make the right decisions about their way of life.
You can\'t blame these professionals if they think these facts are good for a healthier lifestyle-they are health professionals.
However, if people choose to take risks in their own lives, it is their own business.
Obviously the main question is not how my choices affect me, but how my choices affect you. Second-
The hand smoke is real, not an illusion.
And, it seems clear at this point that 2nd-hand cigarettes do have some unhealthy effects on some people, especially if the effects are ongoing and repetitive, not just
Secondary indoor exposure
Hand smoke is not good for your health, it seems clear, especially if you are in a closed area.
But unless humans move quickly in the direction of non-smoking, it seems like a long process to ban smoking outsidepollution-anywhere.
One may see the logic of no smoking in outdoor public areas where many people gather, but it is difficult to see the logic of smoking --bans in open-
Air areas where few people gather.
Common sense will tell you that smoking outdoors in most cases will not have a serious impact on others unless they are standing next to you.
Let\'s keep in touch with reality.
Tobacco is money. maker, a tax-
Political contributor payer
This gives it influence and influence.
The use of tobacco was still a legal activity until the tobacco industry closed down.
Ignorant people speak.
Speculation is not science, science says secondhand smoke does not cause cancer.
This is what scientists and people who really care about the truth are familiar.
Most people hear it when they are young and are told over and over again.
Then, when they are told the truth. not believe it.
Then they don\'t believe in science because they think they are cheated by them.
In fact, it is the opposite.
None of the scientific studies suggest that used smoke can lead to cancer, while untrustworthy smoking can lead to cancer.
Not only was it considered by the US Supreme Court to be untrustworthy evidence, but it was thrown away.
People do not want to accept this fact.
I don\'t think anyone should smoke because of their health, but we lied that smoking will affect my health.
I hate the wrong message, please look into it if you don\'t believe me, or don\'t give you 2 cents because people should get the truth, not your thoughts and your guesses.
If someone has lung cancer and lives in the same house as a smoker, there is no evidence of smoking.
People suffer from lung cancer and never smoke.
In November 1995, 20 years later
In a month-long study, the Congressional Research agency released a detailed analysis of the EPA report, which is highly critical of the EPA\'s approach and conclusions.
At 1998, in a devastating 92-
Federal judge William Osteen dismissed the EPA study and declared it invalid.
He discovered a culture of arrogance, deception, and disguise --
At the agency.
Osteen noted, \"First of all, there is evidence in the record that supports EPA\'s allegation of \'picking out\' its data. . . .
To confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard notability level but reduced the confidence interval to 90%.
This allows EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding the relative risk of 1.
Although the association is very weak. . . .
EPA is unable to show statistically significant associations [SHS]
The judge added: \"EPA publicly undertakes to conclude before the study begins;
Adjust the established procedures and scientific norms to verify their conclusions;
And actively use its power to disseminate the results of the investigation to establish a de facto regulatory plan that affects public opinion.
\"In 2003, the British Journal of Medicine published an authoritative paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality.
This is the largest and most detailed study ever.
The author studied more than 35,000 California
Smokers over 39 years old
During the year, no statistically significant correlation was found between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.
\"There is no scientific connection between self-spreading high temperature synthesis and cancer! Period!
\"Secondhand smoke can also lead to non-lung cancer, heart disease and lung cancer. smokers. This is a bald man.
Faced with lies-proven wrong again and again-Brawley did so largely because of his vested interests as chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. YOU are a bald-faced LIE!
Now, illegal tobacco use is prohibited!
Those who are also going to be prosecuted for tobacco smuggling!
Tobacco is terrorism!
I stayed in a house with a smoker for 3 months.
She smokes in the garage and elsewhere.
Her clothes smell like smoke.
Do you think it will hurt my health if it only lasts 3 months?
Yes, you\'re going to die soon.
All the cows, all the lies, if so, all the baby boomers will die, go, get out of here.
How about all the mummies with heart disease, they found that your expert didn\'t have tobacco at the time, but there was wine, by the way, the expert killed the wine and hurt the wine, there are more diseases in the world than any other legal substance. In the United States alone, smoking is less than $270 billion a year. .
If your post is an example of how tobacco affects the brain, I\'ll avoid it.
Luckily I stumbled upon your website and I was shocked why the accident did not happen in advance!
I bookmarked it. Wonderful beat!
I want to be an apprentice when you modify your website, how can I subscribe to the blog website?
This account helped me to make an acceptable deal.
I know a little bit about your broadcast and it provides a shiny and clear concept. Why don\'t people get tired of publishing lies about a topic?
No matter how many studies actually reveal the relationship between used smoke and cancer.
Known as doctors and scientists, their agenda is in the heart state.
The public leads like sheep because they think people are glorious in their analysis.
Of course not-
Combustion materials inhaled can cause problems.
So while I agree that there is an agenda to control the use of intimidation strategies and massive fear, whatever the topic is, it is certainly unhealthy to suck in bad garbage.
Moreover, the internal changes that I experienced with the people who smoked were clear and true.
You know, all the rubbish is coming in and a lot of stuff is not coming out?
But the effects of damn fear
Deliberately control the basic control of the population by using intimidation strategies and health threats. .
Over the past few years, I have had a hard time working out in the yard, and then in 2015, breathing was getting harder and harder.
After multiple examinations, I had a chronic lung obstruction, swelling and scars in my lungs.
I quit smoking eight years ago, but it has done harm.
I got to the point where I couldn\'t breathe and coughed so badly that I thought my head would fall off and nothing really helped my condition.
Finally, I purchased the slow lung disease herbal formula from the NewLife herbal clinic, and I read a lot of positive reviews from other patients who used the slow lung disease herbal treatment.
I used the herb for 7 weeks and its effect on the slow lung arrest is amazing, all my symptoms are fading away and I\'m breathing more freely now! (Visit www.
Newlifeherbalclinic. com )
I recommend this herbal formula for chronic lung obstruction for all patients with chronic lung/edema in New Jersey, USA.
10 off sale: enter the promotion \"train10 OFF\" at checkout, only the tobacco promoters of crime and a few of their \"friends\" continue to question that tobacco drugs are illegal (
Yes, no matter how slow you are doing, it\'s still illegal to poison the dead)
Smoking must be banned anywhere!
Sue Tobacco criminals!
Tobacco is terrorism!
Illegal tobacco use resulted in the death of 14,000 drug users and the death of another 1,800 innocent people.
People exposed to toxic tobacco smoke)
Every day around the world!
At the age of 60, I noticed that my handwriting was getting smaller and faster.
I also noticed a little tremor in my right hand.
The doctor checked my different symptoms and he suspected that I had either a stroke or that Parkinson\'s had started.
After finding a neurologist and some tests, I was diagnosed with the primary stage of Parkinson\'s disease.
That was four years ago.
I take Sinimet four times a day to control my symptoms, including falls, imbalances, gait problems, difficulty swallowing and ambiguous speech, December 2017, our family doctor prescribed me a Parkinson\'s disease herbal mixture at the mbecky herbal clinic and after 5 weeks of treatment I was significantly improved.
At the end of the whole treatment process, the disease was completely controlled.
There were no cases of dementia, hallucination, weakness, muscle pain or tremor.
Visit w ww, the official website of the mbecky herbal clinic.
I am strong again and can go to the daily activities.
This herbal recipe is incredible! !
As long as you comply with the rules of conduct set out in our terms of service, CNN welcomes a heated and courteous discussion.
Comments are not in advance
They were screened before they were released.
Watch the latest report by CNN chief medical reporter Dr.
Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and CNN Medical Producer Sanjay Gupta.
They will share news and views on health and medical trends
Help you take better care of yourself and the information of the person you love.