Passive smoking

[Al-Hashmi]

dose the passive smoking harm our body?

[zalaskit]

If you are refering to second-hand smoking then yes. Although most of the 'smoke' is inhaled and absorbed by the smoker, many chemicals are still exhaled and are then readily available for non-smokers to inhale. Even though second-hand smoke is much less concentrated, it can still do harm to our bodies, but at a much slower rate because of the decreased concentration. Hope that answers your question.

--Taylor

[atypical10]

Yes!, just as much as being a smoker. Your lungs become black (not the normal pink) because of lack of air. Second-hand smoke is more harmful for people who suffer from asthma. You could possibly get emphysema or lung cancer, which is diagnosed during the latter stages, most of the time. Carcinogens found in smoke; if inhaled it you could develop lung cancer.

[victor]

yupz....
carcinogenic agent = Benzo[a]pyrene. And I think that being a passive smoker will stuck plaques inside your lung pipes...and you can guess what will happen nest..

[Frankysmokes]

Absolutely YES!Passive smoking involves those in your surrounding to inhale certain toxic gases which in turn could harm more than "natural smoking"

Smoking the cigarette you are getting the filtered smoke, but secondhand smoke you are getting the "sidestream" and "mainstream" smoke. this means you are breathing in what the smoker is exhaling out, and what is burning off the cigarette.

40% of lung cancer patients who have died are second hand smokers. Done
___________________

[Darby]

Very few real studies have been done, and the results are nowhere near as conclusive as folks would want you to believe. It's ironic that the anti camp is now the one distorting the evidence.

Is the smoke harmful? Probably, almost certainly. Is there credible evidence and reliable knowledge of effects? Not much.

[devnty06]

Passive smoking is very harmful when compared to first hand smoking....
It is why smoking in public places have been banned in many countries.

[Julie5]

Nearly everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker (whether active or passive). Hardly anyone who is not a smoker gets lung cancer.

There is a famous anecdote from about 1912 of an oncologist (I can check references for you!) conducting the autopsy of a victim of lung cancer, telling his students to watch and learn, as they were highly unlikely ever to see another patient who had died of lung cancer....

If you are personally worried about passive smoking, insist on the right not to have to work or live with smokers. Whilst in the USA and the UK, and possibly Scandanavian and some other few countries, there is strong anti-smoking legislation and culture, the rest of the world is not so fortunate. In the UK, we only have to cross twenty miles of the Channel to France to see smoking all over the place still - it's really shocking compared with what has been achieved in the UK.

Anyone who is young and takes up smoking is an idiot. No excuses. Just don't smoke. Don't start, then you won't have to give up.

[kolean]

Why is there not much scientific evidence that smoking causes all sorts of cancers/diseases? Who is going to pay for that? And I wonder how much political pull the smoking lobby has, as we still have cigarettes/cigars/tobacco products for sale to the public with just a surgeon's warning on the package?

[goofysensitive13]

That's good info, thanks I always thought this could hurt me!

[brylle28]

There are many negative effects of active smoking. Cancer of different body organs is largely associated with smoking. The affected organ may be lungs, esophagus, liver, kidney, cervix, pharynx, larynx, throat, bladder, or even bone marrow. Other biological effects include various complications during pregnancy, damage of digestive system, respiratory system, cardiovascular system etc.

[JackBean]

so? The question was about passive smoking.