For a loooong time, my hubby would scoff whenever I held my breath around a person smoking a cigarette. I told him it's because second-hand smoke kills too and he would laugh and tell me there's no real evidence of that. I don't remember any of the articles I read that expounded on the dangers of second-hand smoke, nor do I remember reading any of the studies that the articles were based on. I just know that from reading articles in my past, I've come to the conclusion that there is no safe amount of cigarettes, even if I'm not the one smoking.
So of course I couldn't prove and back up my claims to my hubby. I never thought I had to file away what I read to prove what many now consider to be common knowledge. Still, he may scoff at me all he wants. I still hold true to my conclusions.
What is fortuitous today is my stumbling across this article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/surgeon-general-cigarette-smoke-ravages-organ/story?id=12355628&page=1
Finally, I have some ammo to fire back at his scoffing! Although he'll probably say something like, I couldn't find the link to the study so the report and study could be flawed, blah blah blah. Irritating... but I will not compromise on my attitude towards smoking!
--------update--------
So as predicted, hubby scoffed at me again. He replied saying that the "theory" is based on nothing and again says that all these conclusions are from the study done in 1986. I didn't read anything about these conclusions being based on a study from 1986 so I dunno where he got that idea unless it was an assumption. He continued to explain why the 1986 study was flawed in its conclusions despite the fact that I don't see that study cited anywhere and so hence never thought the study relevant to the article I forwarded him. He ends his reply by saying that air is also harmful and second-hand smoke is only marginally worse.
When I ask him how he would respond if some dude blew cigarette smoke in our baby's face, he said he'd punch the guy. Why would you hit someone if they're not really harming your kid much more than regular air? Hmmm... something's not adding up, right? I told him that but he doesn't see my point.
I think we'll just have to continue to agree to disagree.
3 comments:
baby? what baby? hmmmm.... ;)
Nuray
LOL! Our baby in the future!
:-D
The gentleman referred to as Hubby represents this differently. He merely thinks it a bit silly to cough and carry on if someone in the streets of NYC happens to walk by while smoking. The fact that you smell a cigarette does not mean it's killing you.
There still isn't evidence about second-hand smoke. The only study the Surgeon General mentioned that studied it specifically was from 1986, and it concluded that second-hand exposure was worse than smoking, so the gentleman takes that with quite a few grains of salt. The other studies mentioned in the report did not find trace amounts of all those chemicals on those exposed to second-hand smoke; they just derived results from what they found in samples from smokers. In fact they found no detectable amounts of those chemicals in people exposed only to second-hand smoke.
The gentleman grants that this is difficult to study, but that the Surgeon General is now implying that one puff of a cigarette, or breathing one breath second-hand, can give a person a heart attack, sounds to the gentleman much like claims made in the 1980's about a certain "gateway" drug that could supposedly addict or kill you via just one puff. Those lies led to a generation that rarely believes anything the government tells it.
The secondary scoffing mentioned in the update is likewise differently represented by the gentleman. He formed his retort (a respectful one, he insists; scoff-free even...) by reading the evidence section of the Surgeon General's new report, where he found that the only study that actually directly dealt with second-hand smoke was from 1986. This was not mentioned in news reports, but is nonetheless true. Many studies were mentioned in the Surgeon Generals report, and none were mentioned in the news about it.
This Hubby gentleman also retorted that the air, due to automobile emissions, is quite harmful in itself, especially in urban zones with many cars. He never denied that second hand smoke is harmful. Quite to the contrary, he believes that it certainly is, just as any smoke is harmful. But he still believes that secondary exposure on the street is not harmful enough that smokers should be turned into pariahs and sent to some ghetto where the rest of us need never encounter them. We've kicked them out of doors into the cold. Is that not enough? If not, prove it, don't fluff up old studies, and use scare-mongering (the gentleman opposes all forms of mongering).
He also stated that if someone blew smoke at his child that he would respond with great hostility, even violence. He averred that if someone threw a football at his baby that that would also lead him to violence, but that he still would not believe that football should be made illegal or taboo.
Emphatically, the gentleman points out that he never ever claimed that second hand smoke is not harmful. He does indeed believe it is harmful. He merely wishes that the government act based only on peer-reviewed science, instead of scare tactics.
Post a Comment