Originally Posted by
Puzzlesocks
Extremely dangerous you say? Let's make sure we use fancy words like pyrolysis as well, we need to make sure we scare people with fancy language and propaganda "science". Should we look at real data since you brought it up?
According to the results of the UK’s Million Women Study, women (and likely men for the most part) can smoke 100,000 or so cigarettes between their teen years and 30 years or so of age and yet incur only about 3% of the health damage that are regularly incurred by those who smoke throughout their entire lives.
millionwomenstudy.org/study_progress/
Lung cancer in never smokers
Smoking is much the most important cause of lung cancer in the UK, but a small proportion of lung cancers develop in people who have never smoked. The Million Women Study has the advantage of very large numbers of women who have never smoked (about half of the women in the study) and so is well placed to study these uncommon cancers. We looked at 34 possible risk factors in over 600,000 never smokers and found that 3 factors were associated with risk of lung cancer- height (taller women at higher risk), ethnicity (non-White women at higher risk), and asthma (higher risk in women with asthma requiring treatment) (Pirie et al, 2016). No link was seen with diet, hormone replacement therapy, or with secondhand smoking. The increased risks associated with the 3 identified factors are small (1 to 2 –fold) compared with the risk of lung cancer associated with smoking (20-fold).
The risks of smoking- and the benefits of giving up
We have known for many years that smoking affects health, increasing the risk of early death and disability from lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung disease, heart attack, and many other conditions. Much of what we know has come from research in men, such as the well-known British Doctors’ Study set up in the 1950s by Sir Richard Doll, and until recently it has not been possible to assess the full impact of long-term smoking on women’s health. In the UK, and in many countries, women did not begin smoking in large numbers until the 1940s and 50s, while many men started smoking earlier in the century.
The Million Women Study is the largest, and one of the first, research studies to be able to look at the effects on women’s health in late middle and old age of smoking throughout adult life. Smokers in our study – about half of the women in the study- had started smoking, on average, around the age of 19 years ; those who were still smoking when they joined the study had been smoking then for some 36 years, and those who are still smoking have now smoked for about 50 years. Our paper ‘The 21st century hazards of smoking and benefits of stopping: a prospective study of one million women in the UK’ was published in the Lancet in October 2012 (Pirie et al, 2012) We found that women who had smoked throughout their adult life were three times as likely as never smokers to die prematurely, losing on average 11 years of life. The effects of long-term smoking on risk of death, and risk of the main smoking-related diseases, such as lung cancer, heart attack and chronic lung disease, were similar to (at least as high as) those seen in men with equivalent smoking histories.
The good news is that much of the long-term extra risk can be avoided by stopping smoking- even if a woman does not stop smoking until middle age. A woman who starts smoking at 19 and carries on until she is 60 is three times as likely to die by the age of 80 as a woman who has never smoked; but one who gives up smoking at age 30 avoids almost all (97%) of the extra risk in older age, one who gives up at age 40 will avoid 90% of the extra risk, and even a woman who smokes for 30 years and gives up at age 50 will avoid two-thirds of the extra risk of death that she would have had in her 60s and 70s, had she continued smoking.
The important thing to note is that we are looking at being 3 times more likely to die at the age of 80 after 60 years of heavy smoking. As it so happens, 80 is the average life expectancy in the UK anyways. Another important thing to note is that minimal exposure of 10 years of heavy smoking has minimal long term damage. If you were to instead dilute the smoke into the air for secondhand smoke, and make it extreme, say you sit next to a smoker constantly in an enclosed environment where you inhale 20% of their smoke... you would have to sit next to that person for 50 years to see any real effect.
Meanwhile we can look at the science you are quoting, such as SmokeFree Campuses’ 2009 push to ban college smoking, where U. of Georgia researchers released findings that people walking by outdoor smokers might be exposed to nicotine levels 162% greater than control subjects. The control subjects were standing in an open field, with the comparison being at a bar smoking pit on a Friday night.
It seems to me that 162% of my smoke exposure in an open field is still going to be pretty close to 0. Without breathing my smoke directly into your lungs, just how much smoke do you think you are inhaling off my puffs? And just how dangerous do you think smoking is when it takes upwards of 60 years of use to kill someone?