how long does it take for second hand smoke to effect you?

[Chris]

I have been around a smoker for about 3-4 years and was wondering if this can have an affect on me already?

[Dave B.]

I think the effects of seconhand smoke are greatly exaggerated. That said, it's definitely not doing you any good, so less is of course better. Any smoker should have the decency to not smoke around a nonsmoker in a way that would expose them to undue amounts of smoke. Your smoker should be going outside, or at least to another well-ventilated room.

As to whether or not you're about to develop cancer, the answer is probably not. There are countless things that you do that invite carcinogens into your body every day, and being around a smoker doesn't deserve any special attention. Do you drive a car? Do you go outside? Do you eat or drink things that haven't been screened at a molecular level?

Your strategy for being around a smoker should be the same strategy for not being around a smoker: take care of your health. Stay away from carcinogens when you can, and keep regular with checkups.

[Y]

Around 1970, just under 50% of adults smoked. They did it in their cars, in their homes, at work, in restaurants, in bars, pretty much in and around everything and everybody, including school. Today, just under 20% of adults smoke, it is hidden, criminals have to hide their smoking from the world. The rates of respiratory illness, especially in kids, has grown ten fold during this time where the air is now much cleaner and they are not living in a world full of smoke. The second hand smoke stats that we hear about, were from studies where they pumped smoke into those rat cages 24/7. The chance that second hand smoke that you have experienced over the last four years has impacted you in any noticeable way is almost none. But it does exist,

[tgit23]

It doesn't in all common senses of the word. Otherwise how does it make any sense that millions of smokers are in their 90s age and the oldest living person ever recorded was a smoker?

------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
“No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.”

“Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms ‘illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.’". (Wikipedia)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...=pmcentrez

------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen
http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html
“There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA ‘cherry picked’ its data” … “EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines” (p. 72)

-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that’s NOT hazardous
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp....p_id=24602
“Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”

Study about health & Smoking Bans – The National Bureau of Economic Research
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790
“Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases.”

-------- Secondhand smoke is as safe as dust
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...
“Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk”(p. 5)
“Our results support the concept that exposure to exhaust fumes and or soot/smoke (***from non-tobacco
sources***) is a source of carcinogenic exposure.” (p. 7)
“ETS exposure was not found to significantly increase risk among never smokers in this study”(p.7)

Showtime television, "How the EPA, CDC, Lung Association, and etc." support their claims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGApkbcaZK4

-------- PURPOSELY misleading the public with MEDIA STRATEGIES -------
The Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health was enacted by Congress in 1984 which is a collection of Health and Human Services, American Heart and Lung Association, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization, CDC and many other government funded health organizations. (eliminating any independent sources of information).

Below are direct quotes from those meeting notes:
“Social (Un)acceptability of smoking will be decisive TOOL an the road to a smoke-free society.” Using “four mechanisms: - passive smoking, - social cost, - ELIMINATE ALL INFLUENCES in society which could reflect favorably on smoking, - educational campaigns for children (App.II) “

“although passive smokers may suffer considerable subjective discomfort, a lasting adverse health effect is probably not likely to result in otherwise healthy, grown-up individuals . “

““Lindahl concluded that it is difficult to demonstrate harmful effects of passive smoking on healthy nonsmokers ; there is little proven in this area”

“He admitted that he couldn't explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt “

“We're moving out of the horse and cart era, we're not yet in the jet age of MEDIA STRATEGIES, but we're getting there “

Review of Notes and all contents: http://rampant-antismoking.com/
Actual meeting notes: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/efp57a00/pdf