Passive smoke and crossing a street

[sanctus]

Please no philosophical debate about this here, I'll start one when I got the answer I seek.

 

The question is: is passive smoke worse than crossing a street in a big city (ie the smog)?

Your answer: Yes/no because...

[Biochemist]

...is passive smoke worse than crossing a street in a big city (ie the smog)?

...

I believe the answer is unknown. The effects of second hand smoke are probably significantly exaggerated. The effects of high levels of sulfer aod nitrogen oxides are known as well, but the comparison is reasonably difficult to make with any sort of quality.

 

As air pollution has significantly improved in US cities over the last 30 years, the incidence of respiratory disorders thought to be secondary to pollution have fallen as well.

 

The epidemiological effects of second hand smoke are a little suspect, with the exception of the adverse effects on folks that are asthmatic, and are predisposed to bronchoconstriction anyway.

[Turtle]

___I would say no because you likely have less control over breathing the smog than the passive smoke. Moving out of the city is no assurance of escaping the smog, whereas you can remove yourself from the second hand smoke or have the smoker remove themself. Moreover, smokers vary widely in the amount, time, & place they smoke, whereas the smog is fairly consistant in its source. That just said, I submit weather has a considerable effect on the smog. Hope this is of some help. ;)

[bumab]

I'm going to say smog is worse for the same reasons as Turtle. Smog is a 24 hour thing for city dwellers, smoke is not (unless you live with a smoker).

 

Neither is good for ya.

[Fishteacher73]

It is usually thought that indoor air quality is often much worse than that outdoors. Every solvent, petroleum product, or chemical you use indoors esstially will produce some sort of off-gassing. This builds up indoors and is much worse than that of the average outdoor air.

[karlfreak]

well now i am from the country and i can't say what smog does to me but i do know that while loving with both my parents who are smokers i have discoverd it harder to breath after running unless i've been away for a day or 2

[sanctus]

Thanks I'll start a thread now in the philosophy section

[tarak]

It depends on where the passive inhaler is;and alos the days climate,relative humidity in the atmosphere,etc..??????////

In general I feel passive smoke is more dangerous than the smog on the street as it is more concentrated and unadulterated poison.whereas smog is more heterogenous and more diffused I suppose.(Some study revealed nearly 3000 different chemicals including several carcinogens in cigarette smoke).

[sanctus]

Yes, I think you're right tarak passive smoke is worse (unless you're in Rome,mexicocity or something like that). But smog is everywhere while passive smoke isn't so combatting smog is more important to me

[bartock]

Please no philosophical debate about this here, I'll start one when I got the answer I seek.

 

The question is: is passive smoke worse than crossing a street in a big city (ie the smog)?

Your answer: Yes/no because...

r u talking about lab conditions or an ordinary walk in street and smoke on top of it

[bartock]

I believe the answer is unknown. The effects of second hand smoke are probably significantly exaggerated. The effects of high levels of sulfer aod nitrogen oxides are known as well, but the comparison is reasonably difficult to make with any sort of quality.

 

As air pollution has significantly improved in US cities over the last 30 years, the incidence of respiratory disorders thought to be secondary to pollution have fallen as well.

 

The epidemiological effects of second hand smoke are a little suspect, with the exception of the adverse effects on folks that are asthmatic, and are predisposed to bronchoconstriction anyway.

do u work 4 cigret company

[bartock]

I'm going to say smog is worse for the same reasons as Turtle. Smog is a 24 hour thing for city dwellers, smoke is not (unless you live with a smoker).

 

Neither is good for ya.

yes smog is worst of the 2 evils.

[bartock]

Thanks I'll start a thread now in the philosophy section

is this how u do ur research

[jasonchild]

 

As air pollution has significantly improved in US cities over the last 30 years, the incidence of respiratory disorders thought to be secondary to pollution have fallen as well.

 

 

 

Can you site some reference to back this up? I happen to know someone in the health care field, cardiopulmonary field to be specific, and she told me very recently that respiratory disorders (athsma in particular) have been on the rise for some time and incidence of childhoold respiratory disorders being much higher than say 20 or 30 years ago...

 

I agree that smog is a huge problem. Take skin cancer (such as melanoma, etc). It is on the rise. Sun screen was only invented what, in the 1950s or 1960s? Its not like people spend more time out doors now than they did say 500 years ago. I am of the opinion that there are more environmental agents contributing to the rise in skin cancers.

 

my 3.14 cents

 

 

note:

 

I just spoke to my resident respiratory expert about this topic. She told me that respiratory dieases is the fastest growing disorder surpassing heart disease in recent years....

[Biochemist]

Can you site some reference to back this up?

Here is a graphic that shows the trends with most major pollutants. This graphic only goes through 1990, but there were further improvements since then:

 

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter17/trends.html

...respiratory disorders (athsma in particular) have been on the rise for some time and incidence of childhoold respiratory disorders being much higher than say 20 or 30 years ago...

On respiratory diesase, the results are more complicated. In the attached link,

 

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:30DMAvDlvCgJ:aspe.hhs.gov/sp/asthma/appxg.pdf+respiratory+disease+longitudinal&hl=en&client=firefox-a

 

statistics show that asthma increased about 100% in the 14 years from 1980 through 1994. COPD increased 30%. The increase in COPD was probably mostly due to aging of the population since the majority of COPD occurs after age 65 and is secondary to smoking. The causative factors for the dramatic increase in asthma prevalence is unknown, per:

 

http://www.phpab.org/asthma%20report/asthma%20web%20version1.htm

 

but you will note that no one is investigating air pollution as a causative agent. They are looking for environmental factors, but not general air polliution.

 

Ergo, the evidence supports that air-pollution-related respiratory disease has declined. The cause for the rising incidence of asthma is unknown but troubling.

 

l

[Biochemist]

do u work 4 cigret company

Heavens. no. But the data on second hand smoke is certainly plagued by political interpretation.

 

Cigarette smoking has a dose response. That is, the degree of damage is related to the quantity of smoke inhaled. This has been demonstreated repetitively over decades of research.

 

When folks suggest (as they have) that second hand smoke is as dangerous as smoking, this suggests that they themselves have been smoking something besides ciragettes.

 

Second had smoke is an irritant. It is certianly an irritant to those folks with bronchospastic disease, and the incidence of that disease is rising. The rise in incidence is not likely related to second hand smoke, but the frequency of exacerbations will increase as the prevalence of the underlying disease incresaes. It is fair to suggest that second hand smoke exacerbates asthma. It is ludicrous to suggest that is causes cancer, emphysema or chronic bronchitis based on current evidence.

[jasonchild]

 

Ergo, the evidence supports that air-pollution-related respiratory disease has declined. The cause for the rising incidence of asthma is unknown but troubling.

 

l

I dont follow your logic, nor how you are getting to this point. If asthma is on the rise then how is respiratory disease on the decline if asthma is indeed a respiratory disease? Or or you stating only that respiratory disease attributed explicitly to air pollution is on the decline? Sorry if I am missing the obvious here...

 

Regardless, thanks for the links/resources so I can read more on the topic

 

jCc