Unless its pot smoke......
Wasn’t the entire second hand smoke thing recently debunked? These people are hysterical.
Second Hand Liberalism is harmful to Children and all other living things.
I’ve been cleaning amplifiers, computers, various electronics, all suffering from “emphysema” for 40 years now. A sound man in smoke filled bars since I was 14. No cancer yet. Bunch of pu**ies.
“May”.
We better act right now and elect more democrats and give the UN more power and become communist so we can have a better chance of fighting “may” ;/
One word:
BUNK.
And I’m a former smoker, now strongly opposed to smoking.
This is a ridiculous PR trick. Nothing more.
. . . and you can pick up the clap from door knobs and handling somebody else’s panties or underwear . . .
I seem to recall Steve Jobs was ahead of this game. IIRC, Apple computer warranty was void in a smoker’s habitat. Something about not wanting service techs exposed to the residue.
Not actually supported by the detailed text in the article.
What they presumably meant to say is that prolonged exposure results in increased risk due to an increased dose. Dose = exposure x time.
Given the astonishing scientific and statistical irregularities in the original EPA studies of second-hand smoke, I find the results of this study really, really unlikely.
For the results of the EPA 2nd-hand smoke study to be accurate, second-hand smoke would have to be much more toxic than 1st-hand smoke. Which doesn't seem probable.
These studies invariably give the impression that there's something uniquely hazardous about smoke from the tobacco plant. This is of course untrue, since the carcinogenic components (tars) of tobacco smoke are similar to smoke from wood or other plants.
The only reason cigarettes are so hazardous is that we don't normally intentionally deeply inhale the smoke of other plants in such quantity. Nicotine, the drug that induces people to smoke in such quantity, is actually pretty innocuous and even beneficial in the doses a smoker is exposed to. Although it is incredibly toxic at higher doses.
Just cigarette smoke then? Why not other kinds of smoke? Will there be a huge lawsuit and settlement for firefighters who handle smokey clothes all day? Hell, I’ve got an old smoker out back I routinely use to saturate food WITH smoke, if I get cancer can I sue Webber corp?
I call BS, too.
This isn’t about safety. It’s about revenue generation.
I cannot understand how smokers survive at all. In addition to first-hand smoke they get constant second-hand smoke (deadly) and now even deadly third-hand.
What about if you just think about cigarette smoke? :-)
These studies are pure BS. For this to be true the toxins in cigarette smoke would have to be as easily transmitted as the norovirus. In 1999, after one gentleman vomited in a concert hall and nearby bathroom in Wales, more than 300 people inhaled enough airborne norovirus to become ill. I doubt cigarette smoke toxins are that easily transmitted.
Sometimes, I think I should just go request a government grant to study the effects of global warming on the dangers of smoking.
Say...? What? $7MM? $8MM??
I’ll produce a VERY nice report.
Bull Obamastuff.
Oh, forgot, it’s coming from one of Mexifornia’s disgraced “centers of higher learning”.
So, Bull Obamastuff raised to the Nth power...where N is a very large number.
Shove it up your collective Obamaholes, California.
We scarcely give a sh.....
I remember when I was much younger we had to clean the yellow gunk off the inside of the windshield.
Later I was on a submarine and I had to clean the gunk off the air cleaners.
Gunk in the air from smokers is REAL.
Oh brother. Here we go again. Once again the “I think I’ll just sit here and come up with another load of crap” club is alive and well in Kalifornia. God help us!
For example... Mary gets cancer at age 67. She never smoked, but did meet a guy in a bar for a drink once when she was 25. The bar had allowed smoking in their facility until 2 years prior to her 45 minute visit, but hadn't completely scrubbed the walls/ceilings after their smoking ban went into effect.
Since Mary contracted cancer later in life... they can now count her case as "smoking related" since she entered that bar which likely still had some residue laying around.
The more they stretch the facts, the higher the numbers get... which in turn allows them to count even more cancer cases as "smoking related"... which again helps them count even more people in the results.