Passive smoking

Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:19 pm

Passive smoking

Post by Al-Hashmi » Tue May 16, 2006 6:52 pm

dose the passive smoking harm our body? :roll:

User avatar
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 3:21 am
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Post by zalaskit » Tue May 16, 2006 8:35 pm

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.


Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:45 pm

passive smoking

Post by atypical10 » Wed May 17, 2006 11:17 pm

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.

User avatar
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Yogyakarta, Indonesia..

Post by victor » Thu May 18, 2006 10:54 am

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..:wink:
Q: Why are chemists great for solving problems?
A: They have all the solutions.

Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:25 am

Re: Passive smoking

Post by Frankysmokes » Thu May 06, 2010 5:37 am

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 ;)
Last edited by JackBean on Thu May 06, 2010 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: spam removed

Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Darby » Fri May 07, 2010 1:57 am

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.

Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:53 am

Post by devnty06 » Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:04 am

Passive smoking is very harmful when compared to first hand smoking....
It is why smoking in public places have been banned in many countries.
Last edited by JackBean on Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: spam removed, user banned

Death Adder
Death Adder
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:55 am

Post by Julie5 » Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:58 pm

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.

Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:15 am

Post by kolean » Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:14 pm

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?

Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Passive smoking

Post by goofysensitive13 » Thu Oct 20, 2011 9:16 pm

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

Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:22 am

Post by brylle28 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:24 am

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.

User avatar
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 5694
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Post by JackBean » Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:35 am

so? The question was about passive smoking.

Cis or trans? That's what matters.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests