ToveWrite a message
- What is my age:
- Sexual identity:
- I like man
- What is my Sign of the zodiac:
- My favourite drink:
- Mulled wine
- I like:
- Driving a car
- Body piercings:
Hi there! Share Alamy images with your team and customers. Current lightbox. Live chat. Narrow your search:.
S he calls it the "grand gesture of smoking. To a real smoker, there is no glamour. It's just a thing. It's like eating and drinking water. It's just there. It's time to go have a cigarette. I don't like the furniture, and the drapes, and the carpet and the clothes smelling like smoke.
The only smoking at my house is on the front porch and the back porch. If it blows into the house and she can smell it at the other end of the house, she gets irritated, she says. As the city winds shift, she moves from one side of me to the other. She is a downwind smoker. They can't even smell it, so what is their problem?
The wind is, like, 20 miles an hour the other way. I find things like that amusing. T he nonsmoking section was full by the time the woman got a seat on the plane. In the s, before U. She reed herself to what she knew would be several hours of discomfort and buckled herself into her seat.
Blowing smoke: are alternatives to cigarettes safer?
As she noticed cigarette packs bulging the shirt pockets of the men seated around her, she thought back to her childhood, when her father's boss would occasionally come over to spend the day at their house. He would chain-smoke, filling their small home with an odor that her mother would spend days trying to air out of the draperies and carpets.
They had never dared ask him not to smoke, because he was the boss. And she thought back to the job she had left two years earlier, where she had worked only a few feet away from a chain-smoker, eight hours a day.
She had developed asthma and, on her doctor's advice, had quit that job to take another. Ever since then, the smell of cigarette smoke had made her queasy. It also made her cough. She would rather have been sentenced to cleaning latrines than to spending the afternoon in the smoking section of an airplane. She mentally chided herself for not reserving a seat in the nonsmoking section. Once the flight was airborne, the man next to her pulled out his pack of cigarettes and tapped one free.
This small encounter, now anachronistic in many social settings, typifies the war that erupts repeatedly over involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. Smokers claim a right to use their tobacco, sometimes without seeming to be aware of just how noxious others might find their smoking to be. Those on the other side want to avoid exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at almost any cost. Compromise can be difficult to achieve.
Evidence supporting this belief is not without controversy, but at this time, the fact that environmental smoke poses health risks is generally accepted in the scientific community. It can result in nausea, coughing, watery eyes, smelly hair, stinky clothing, and stale-smelling household furnishings. Many nonsmokers do not like to be in settings where smoking is allowed. If a nonsmoking friend comes to a social gathering where smoking is allowed, the host should consider the nonsmoker's presence to be a great compliment.
These included airline flight attendants, waiters and waitresses, hospital employees, passengers on mass transit, and, in some cases, spouses of smoking partners. A lot of nonsmokers, as it turned out, have not liked tobacco smoke for a long time.
The terminology associated with this phenomenon can be confusing. The most descriptive overall term is environmental tobacco smoke or ETSwhich includes sidestream smoke that comes from the burning cigarette for example, between puffs and mainstream smoke that is exhaled by a smoker. The term passive smoking refers to inhalation of tobacco smoke in the air, and is synonymous with secondhand smoking. Most environmental tobacco smoke consists of sidestream smoke. Although mainstream and sidestream smoke differ, "active and passive smokers inhale the same toxins and are thus likely to suffer from the same health effects," according to German tobacco expert Friedrich J.
As with any area of scientific inquiry, the perfect study remains yet to be done; some epidemiological studies, in particular, are vulnerable to criticism because of inadequate methods and analyses. Despite these acknowledged limitations, Wiebel concluded, "In the final analysis, it is the total weight of the toxicological and epidemiological evidence which gives confidence to the conclusion that ETS is a human lung carcinogen.
The use of tobacco entails considerable health risk. Many volumes have been written to document this assertion; in fact, no book can be current about the subject, because new announcements of tobacco's health risks are published continually in medical journals. The risks, detailed in literally thousands of scientific articles covering a broad range of disciplines, have been enumerated for decades and continue to be explored.
Chris brown insults flight attendant, blows pot smoke on her face
The general public is probably best acquainted with the risk of cancer, since the earliest public declarations about tobacco's effects focused on lung cancer. However, tobacco-related cardiovascular disease is an even greater cause of death and disease than tobacco-related cancer. Even so, more than 12 years ago the U.
Since the publication of that report, the U. It explained that determinations of the potential associations between environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer use a "weight-of-evidence" analytic approach, in accordance with U. This approach takes into animal studies and measurements of the human uptake of tobacco smoke components, in conjunction with human data.
It "allows a hazard identification to be made with a high degree of certainty," the report concluded.
In fact, it added, the total public health impact from environmental tobacco smoke could be greater than the report indicated. Inthe California Environmental Protection Agency released what Business Week blow called "the most devastating report yet" on the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke. The Her report indicated that environmental exposure caused as many as 62, deaths from heart disease, 2, cases of sudden infant death, and 2, new cases of asthma each year.
It declared that secondhand smoke increased the risk of cervical cancer and spontaneous abortions. It identified more than 50 tobacco compounds as carcinogens, with 6 also listed as sources of reproductive or developmental problems. Business Week writers Paul Raeburn and Gail DeGeorge commented, "[T]he powerful smoke in the new reports damning secondhand smoke suggests that, outside the courtroom, there is nothing left to debate.
A comprehensive book on the health consequences of smoking Cigarettes: What the Warning Label Doesn't Tell You had no sooner been published than scientists announced several newly documented hazards associated with smoking. For example, a September report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute stated that even those who had quit smoking were at increased risk of some cancers as much as 30 years later. Researchers Marilie D. Gammon and faces of the Columbia School of Public Health in New York found that as many as 40 percent of cancers of the esophagus and stomach could be tied to cigarette smoking.
Their study of more than 1, subjects, of them cancer patients, indicated that both current and former smokers more than doubled their risk of adenocarcinoma, a type of esophageal or stomach cancer. Former smokers' risk was decreased only if they had stopped smoking more than 30 years before.
The authors stated that the recent increase in adenocarcinoma among older persons could be due to the increase in cigarette smoking earlier her the century. Scientists and physicians feared that the might discourage smokers from quitting, since they might assume that the damage had already been done. They emphasized the necessity of continuing to reduce risk by quitting smoking. Also, since tobacco was not responsible for all such cancers, other elements such as diet, medications, and other medical conditions also present an established risk.
Similar reports emerged in the blow research literature relating not only to the risks of smoking itself, but to involuntary exposure. A sobering announcement came in Januarywhen biostatistician George Howard and associates at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reported that not only did smoking result in heightened risk of atherosclerosis among smokers, but the risk was also increased ificantly for nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke.
The investigators, whose findings were published in The Journal of the American Medical Associationwrote: "These data represent the first report, to our face, from a large population-based study of the impact of active smoke and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke on the progression of atherosclerosis. A Harvard University research team led by Ichiro Kawachi found in a year study of 32, nurses that those with regular exposure to environmental smoke had a 91 percent greater chance of developing heart disease. Also published in was a report from the Australian federal government aimed at reducing the risks from passive smoking.
Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council had urged governments and employers to reduce the health risks caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, citing "compelling evidence" that such smoke is hazardous. The report followed a legal struggle between the tobacco industry and the NHMRC the year, in which legal technicalities forced the council to drop formal recommendations for new health regulations.
Instead, the council issued the report, which reviewed more than studies from around the world. Scientific findings about the risks of environmental tobacco smoke were questioned in a report from the Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress. Economists C. Stephen Redhead and Richard E. Rowberg concluded that the statistics from environmental tobacco studies did not support the conclusion that passive smoking involved substantial health effects.
They stated, "[E]ven when overall risk is considered, it is very small risk and is not statistically ificant. They charged that epidemiological studies were plagued with "misclassification and recall bias.