Secondhand smoke is NOT worse than Firsthand smoke
Posted: 6/29/2006 9:43:20 AM
By: Comfortably Anonymous
Times Read: 2,204
0 Dislikes: 0
Topic: Urban Legends
Uh, you are aware, aren't you, that second hand smoke has been found to be far less harmful than the highly publicized reports of a few years ago that were trying to say that secondhand smoke is far more dangerous than firsthand smoke? Those reports were bullshit.

Tell ya what, I'll back your cause when you can tell me where I can go to avoid Diesel exhaust, highly carcingenic smoke from people's outdoor grills, and most of all, where to go camping where I do not have to be exposed to extremely dangerous campfire smoke. (Yes, campfire smoke is some of the worst stuff out there.) Almost sounds comical, doesn't it? But it's true.

While I'm not all that worried about it, I do find myself far more concerned with the effect of hundreds of city buses each burning a couple hundred gallons of diesel each day, or an entire log of burning vegetable material, than I am of a couple grams of burning tobacco. Or the absolute millions of tons of mildly radioactive coal being burnt each year, that's probably the most scary and major cause of lung cancer in this country.

While, yes, smoking is bad, and very harmful to the smoker, the whole secondhand smoke thing is a giant red herring. Check the funding, most of the money comes from the coal burning energy companies, trying to keep our eyes of the real source of increasing cancer rates in this country - the megatons of coal burnt each year and the levels of cancerous, radioactive soot we breathe in with each breath.

And hell, I don't see ANYONE out there defending the park rangers who have to breathe campfire smoke every day. They are in more danger than some whiner who occasionally has to walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke.

Quit being a pussy. If your body can't handle a little bit of smoke, then you need to be removed from the gene pool. Evolution in action.
Rating: (You must be logged in to vote)