Secondhand smoke poses heart attack risk [junk science alert]

MSNBC.com ^ | April 23, 2004 | Marc Kaufman

[CSM]

I must admit that Judith Anne's posts have opened my eyes to legitimate health issues that could be irritated by SHS. So, I apologize for the harshness of my original post.

I am somewhat skeptical that your issues are only irritated by SHS. Aren't they also affected by BBQ smoke, car exhaust, candles, fireplaces, etc?

[cinFLA]

I am somewhat skeptical that your issues are only irritated by SHS. Aren't they also affected by BBQ smoke, car exhaust, candles, fireplaces, etc?

BBQ smoke has a different effect, not at all irritating unless I stick my head in the grill.

Car exhaust is generally not an issue except in heavy traffic or behind one of those diesel smog machines.

Candles - I have had to tell my wife to put out some of the scented ones. Only some scent; some are quite pleasant.

Fireplaces. Definitely.

[SheLion]

Well, once again, I'm not going to change your mind and your SURELY not going to change mine.

Have fun playing with yourself and your pictures.

[-YYZ-]

I won't argue about whether SHS has some effect on you or not. I've already conceded the battle over smoking in most public places, and I don't really mind. I can shop or eat a meal with smoking.

Having said that, it doesn't seem like too much to ask that there should still be places where smokers and those who don't mind SHS can gather socially to drink, ie bars. Those bars that will allow smoking should have information to that effect clearly posted outside. I'd suggest that you, and anyone else with real or imagined reactions to SHS, stay out of such places.

[cinFLA]

Chronic Bronchitis

This very black lung is not from a coal miner. It is from a smoker who developed severe airflow obstruction similar to the man whose case was summarized. There is no emphysema. However, small airways showed severe damage (see below) and mucous plugs were prominent in the larger airways.

The inactivation of the cilia and a narrowing of small airways by cigarette smoke decreased removal of dust inhaled from city air. However, this lung breathed air in Chicago before the early 60's when coal burning accounted for heavy dust burdens in the air. Nevertheless, in comparison, non-smokers from the same era had very little black pigment in their lungs.

http://pathhsw5m54.ucsf.edu/tobacco/emphysema4.html

[cinFLA]

[Agnes Heep]

I am somewhat skeptical that your issues are only irritated by SHS. Aren't they also affected by BBQ smoke, car exhaust, candles, fireplaces, etc?

Most definitely. But only tobacco smoke has a marked effect on my heart. The others give me asthma and nasal/pharangeal irritation. I have to say, though, that since the advent of the latest generation of asthma medications I'm almost never asthmatic.

[Judith Anne]

Sounds like a serious allergy, Agnes. Unfortunately, you cannot force the world to adapt to your genetic problem.

I also have a severe allergy to latex. Nevertheless, I work around it, carry an epipen, and take my allergy meds.

Still, I think a lot of people are showing up with latex allergies the last few years. They can be life-threatening, and never get milder, only worse. Interestingly, the more people are exposed to medical care, the more likely they are to develop the allergy.

It actually sounds a lot like what I think is a real allergy to some of the components of tobacco smoke, on your part. No offense, but you have to watch out for yourself, you can't expect society to accommodate you.

[Agnes Heep]

Sounds like a serious allergy, Agnes. Unfortunately, you cannot force the world to adapt to your genetic problem.

Nowhere have I ever stated that I expect the world to adapt to my problem. I would certainly be a hypocrite if I did, for I've always maintained exactly the opposite. When I see government mandating wheelchair ramps on private buildings I can't help but think that it would be better for everyone involved if this kind of interference didn't happen, cruel as that may sound.

The smoking "debate" has two completely separate components, one being whether smoking is good for you, and one being whether smoking should be banned. I liken these issues to those presented by the practice of sodomy, which many people view as a vile and dirty practice, leading to disease and premature death, but one for which a regard for individual liberty tends to promote a certain degree of tolerance among conservatives. There are sodomites--probably not a few of them--who view any rational attempt to expose the health risks of sodomy as an assault on their right to practice the habit, with the result that they end up actively promoting something that no truly reasonable person would ever want to promote.

[Judith Anne]

Now you've lost me, Agnes. Any comparison of sodomy to cigarette smoking is offensive and inaccurate. You can, currently, smoke in public fully clothed in any number of places, but sodomy, a filthy, disgusting mostly homosexual habit, is not quite at that level yet.

I mean it, that's just really offensive.

I've tried to be courteous to you, but you've just lost any regard I had for you at all.

It's people like you that show us smokers that you really have no rational argument here at all.

[Agnes Heep]

Now you've lost me, Agnes. Any comparison of sodomy to cigarette smoking is offensive and inaccurate. You can, currently, smoke in public fully clothed in any number of places, but sodomy, a filthy, disgusting mostly homosexual habit, is not quite at that level yet.

The principles involved are exactly the same. Two central, yet distinct questions are involved:

(1) Are they dirty and disgusting and cause disease and death?

(2) Should they be outlawed?

To admit (1) is not necessarily to promote (2). That's the point I'm trying to convey. I'm all about (1) when it comes to the issue of smoking. And the fact that (2) might be incorrect from a human freedom perspective does not negate the reality of (1).

The exact same thing is true of sodomy. We suffer consenting adults to practice it because we respect their right to do what they wish with their own bodies. But that does not (or should not) dignify the practice, nor does it render it any less odious or harmful to the health.

If we were to see liberals promoting sodomy as a positive good, simply because some conservatives wish to ban it, we'd have a situation analogous to what conservatives do when they promote smoking as a positive good simply because liberals want it banned.

[Judith Anne]

Whatever your sick agenda is, leave me out of it and post to someone else.

[Agnes Heep]

Touched a nerve, I think.

[SheLion]

I've tried to be courteous to you, but you've just lost any regard I had for you at all.

It gets pretty tiring, Judith Anne, to have "certain" anti-smokers throw us into the most ludicrous catagory's just because we are smokers.

Any time they can lump us in with groups that aren't carrying out life in the "norm" they do it. I could never judge anyone like this. I like the saying "Live and Let Live." But apparently, these anti's just can't get enough dirty digs into us. I just consider the source anymore.

If they can talk dirty trash in here, can you imagine just what kind of person they must be to live by and with? I surely can't!

And I always believe that "they have habits that "I" would find disgusting." And they can't deny this. No one is perfect.

[wideminded]

Considering my health and that I only smoke a pack or a pack and a half a day, I was NEVER advised to quit smoking. Not then and not now.

I take it you have never been pregnant.

I think you're living in a self-delusional dream world. Even if your family genetics somehow render you immune to lung cancer and emphysema, that does not mean that smoking does not affect every organ in your body including your skin. A pack a day is a lot.

[SheLion]

I take it you have never been pregnant.

Oh for crying out loud. How old are you?

I gave birth to an 8lb 12oz baby girl who topped 10 on the ApGAR scale right at birth. Meaning, she was born perfect.

She is now grown with a beautiful baby boy of her own, who is also healthy as a line backer. And he is just going on two years old.

I was born into a family of smokers, and I started smoking at age 16 (from peer pressure, nothing else), and I started dance classes when I was 8. I turned professional when I was 16 and danced until I married at age 26. I was always in top physical condition. Smoking never once slowed me down or caused any sick days when I became a Travel Agent.

I can't understand why a lot of you think that smokers die early deaths. I can't understand where you get this stuff. I think your a victim of the highly paid anti-smoking propaganda that so many of the general public believe. A pack a day is NOT a lot! I'd rather smoke a pack a day then indulge in two Big Macs and a large fry day-after-day.

Do you realize that tobacco products and cigarettes are still a legal commodity? Smoking isn't for everyone, but for a lot of us, we truly enjoy it. It sure beats alcohol and prescription drugs for relaxation.

[wideminded]

Oh for crying out loud. How old are you?

Old enough that my oldest and youngest children are 22 years apart.

I gave birth to an 8lb 12oz baby girl who topped 10 on the ApGAR scale right at birth. Meaning, she was born perfect.

That's great. But you claimed earlier that doctors have never advised you to quit smoking. This advice is given universally to pregnant women. If your own doctors did not know you were a smoker, you must have at least seen some printed material about this written by doctors.

I was born into a family of smokers, and I started smoking at age 16 (from peer pressure, nothing else), and I started dance classes when I was 8. I turned professional when I was 16 and danced until I married at age 26. I was always in top physical condition. Smoking never once slowed me down or caused any sick days when I became a Travel Agent.

Perhaps you are a genetic anomaly. Maybe something useful could be learned from you that would help other people who are not so lucky. In any case, general advice to people has to be based on statistical evidence, not the particular experience of isolated individuals.

I can't understand why a lot of you think that smokers die early deaths.

Evidentally the evidence is good enough for life insurance companies.

[uglybiker]

Evidently it's a good excuse for life insurance companies to raise their rates.

[SheLion]

Evidently it's a good excuse for life insurance companies to raise their rates.

Well, everyone wants their hands in our pockets. You know it and I know it. But I have good insurance and my rates have remained the same over many years. I'm not complaining.

[Agnes Heep]

Evidently it's a good excuse for life insurance companies to raise their rates.

I once worked with a 19-year-old woman who decided she had to have a sports car. She was all excited about it; bragging about how fast the thing was and how much she was paying for it, until she learned what the insurance bill was going to be. Needless to say, she went around for a day or so accusing the insurance company of highway robbery.

Finally I could stand it no longer. "My dear," I said, "the reason your insurance is so high is that the insurance company has a lot of experience behind its rates. They are betting that a 19-year-old girl doesn't buy an incredibly fast sports car simply to drive 55 miles per hour down the highway on Sunday while on her way to church. In short, they're betting that you're going to get into an accident and they're going to have to foot the bill."

About ten days later she reported to work and announced, "Well, I totalled my car."