Question about Cigarette ODOR

[Snowflake]

So 90% of smokers don't get lung cancer....odds are pretty high that if you smoke, you won't have need to join this site...

I'm wondering if it's primary smoke in the other 10% or possibly the secondhand smoke they have been exposed to. For example, some studies show that secondhand smoke is more hazardous than what the smoker inhales. If a smoker is taking smoke breaks, the smoker is also exposed to secondhand smoke by their fellow breaksters.

Now, this would be 10% of smokers having some genetic whatever that makes them more susceptible to lung cancer than the 90% that never has to worry about being here...a PRIMARY case, first time through. I have never seen statistics about recurrence and what may cause that and the odds of a recurrence being higher by smoking or secondhand smoking. Anyone with lung cancer is advised to quit smoking and avoid cigarette smoke, other pulmonary irritants and a myriad list of other carcinogens. On what basis, though? Is the thought simply that it was exposure to some sort of cigarette smoke in the first place being the trigger?

I am sure there are other causes, that cigarette smoking ain't the be all and do all cause of lung cancer, but it has been proven to be a contributing factor. We all know of how statistics can be written to skew "evidence" - here's another wrinkle... IS the actual "10% of smokers get lung cancer" statistic a skewed statistic?

Quite honestly, I can say that I would be here if I were a smoker. Heck, if I'm here as a non-smoker, it must be some kind of genetic malfunction - so how many smokers are here not as a result of smoking but as a result of genetics? Does anyone doing research really care? Or, is it just easier to write down smoking as the cause?

It may be secondhand smoke, it may be air pollution, radon, a zillion other possibilities - cosmic rays, even. I don't think enough research has been done to list all the possibilities because, well - obviously, the common link is cigarettes, isn't it? (Uh, yeah...)

BUT, I do know that cigarette smoke has me hacking upon exposure - be it the local bar or the clothing of a smoker. My lungs are extremely sensitive to anything in the air now, including campfire smoke and paint fumes... I have a work restriction, stays in my file wherever I'm assigned - I am to avoid smoke and pulmonary irritants. No business meetings for me at the local watering hole - I can schedule 'em, but I can't attend (no real loss, but still).

I'm not anti-smoker, but I don't feel that I should be exposed to something that truly does make me hack up my remaining lung material. It's a tight rope on personal rights and whose rights are more important to not infringe upon. For example, my right to swing my arm ends at roughly someone else's nose - then I'm infringing on their personal rights. I guess more research is needed on the other effects of smoking on the general population - but until then, it is my personal duty to avoid hazards to my health. Smoking and secondhand smoke were listed as a hazard by my oncologist, so I will be avoiding places where that is prevalent and continuing to LIVE life to the fullest...

...and Heather, my friend, I don't think you need therapy.

Editted to fix grammatical error.

[BoBennett]

I find it unbelievable and disappointing that on a lung cancer posting board people will actually defend smoking and talk as if it may not be the cause of LC or ill health. On the off chance that it is the contributing factor that has been shown and accepted by most wouldn’t it be prudent to leave this talk for a more appropriate setting. This does a great disservice to those who are newly diagnosed and are looking for ways to better their health, their lungs and lung cancer prognosis. Justifying this habit/addiction aids a newly diagnosed person comfort that they in fact can not stop. Millions of people do stop smoking regardless of habit/addiction or if, when, because they get LC.

A section titled “The smoking issue” could be added so the newcomers can understand and balance the information.

Hebbie, I thought your post was informative, although ruined, and in the realm of what should be happening on this board, legitimate questions looking for legitimate solution. Unfortunately the only solution I see would obviously hurt the little smoking neighbors feelings. Sometimes the truth has to be told in order to solve a problem and their isn’t a way to sugarcoat it. Smokers stink and IMO put an unhealthy odor in the air.

Bo

[-Cheryl-]

I never said it may not cause LC or "ill health"

I said, IMO, to say it's the main cause and be satisfied w/ that, slows progress to curing the disease. I never condoned smoking, in fact I said it was a proven fact cigs were bad for your health for many reasons.

Jack

[Addie]

I don't think anyone is defending cigarette smoking here. But it IS a personal choice....just as wearing too much perfume or NOT wearing enough deodorant is a personal choice. In both those latter cases....the "scent" can also be offensive and perhaps harmful to those breathing in the vicinity of said scents.

People do a lot of things that aren't good for their health....but it's not OUR place here to judge....is it?

I was a smoker for a long time. I tried to be a considerate smoker around those who don't smoke or who seem bothered by it. That was "bothered by it"....not "allergic to it". If someone were truly allergic or reactive....I would not have smoked in their presence but would also have expected them to avoid ME as much as I would have tried to put some distance between myself and them.

There seems to be little doubt that cigarette smoking is a hazard to one's health. Just how much of a hazard second hand smoke can be, is perhaps not AS clear...but still seems to be a reasonable concern. I see nothing wrong with discussing the fact that there ARE other contributing factors to why SOME people - whether they smoke or not - get lung cancer! In no way, does such a discussion - in my view - lend support for anyone to continue smoking, even IF it is said that smoking is not the ONLY cause of lung cancer!

When I was dx'd....I said to everyone I know who smokes, just ONCE, that they should take a page from my book and try to quit. I know of only one person who actually did quit. Wait...two people. I also nagged my hubby to quit too! He got more than the one time comment!

But it's not my place to judge others OR harrass them about their smoking. I don't seek out smokers to hang out with...but neither do I avoid them. I have a couple of good friends who still smoke. They do not smoke in my house...and one of them will actually leave a room or go outside in order NOT to smoke around me. The others light right up...but try to hold the cigarette so it doesn't waft towards me.

I'm a big girl. I can get up and walk out if it bothers me...but it also matters to me NOT to get preachy with my friends over an issue that THEY are big enough to know might harm them too!

I think Heather asked a provocative question. My instincts tell me that while smelling smoke on someone's clothing or hair isn't terribly pleasant...it's also probably not terribly harmful either....but then I'm no scientist, so what do I know? Still...it would seem that the harmful compounds one might inhale off a smoker's clothing would be in very, very small doses, compared to what one inhales if one is a smoker!

It's my feeling that there are a lot of things we breathe in every day that probably do us as much harm...that we can do little about. But I'll say it once again....to discuss the fact that smoking is not the ONLY cause of lung cancer is hardly a disservice. I say it's trying to get at the fuller truth behind what causes l.c. And I also say it might just help to remove a bit of the stigma that goes with smoking....because as Elaine pointed out...society is a lot more sympathetic to alcoholism and obesity than it is to smoking.

[Addie]

duplicate

[-Cheryl-]

Well said Addie!

Jack

[Elaine]

After reading over the posts, all of them--I see no one defending smoking nor denying that it is the cause of most lung cancers.

I will speak again to my post. What I am defending is empathy and support for people with addicitions.

However, my humanity is going to disallow me empathy for your attitude Bo. I hope I can overcome it, not for you, but for myself. I truly understand where Heather is coming from, as my original post attests.

I have trouble having understanding or empathy for your attitude.

Your attitude promotes stigma and probably causes a lot of radical smokers as I and Justakid once were. Not the sole cause, however, since I do know that my own denial and stubborness and weakness and addictive personality played a tremendous role.

I am sorry that this is probably going to cause another disappearing thread because I do agree with you on one thing. The issue of smoking and smokers and addiction is an important subject.

I don't think any post prior to yours did anything to diminish Heather's original question.

I hoped my post promoted understanding of all people including a deep understanding of Heather's concerns.

I want her to live a long and healthy life, free of as much fear as possible. But fear IS inevitable, especially for one Dxed with cancer.

I want that life for Heather's workmate, who may well be addicted beyond the addiction you had, Bo.

If you read the literature on nicotine addicition you will see that there are several ways nicotine and smoking are addicting. The more ways a person is addicted, the harder time one has of quitting, especially if one lives with a smoker.

I wish the same long and healthy life for you, Bo.

I don't care a hoot about hurting the coworker's feelings. Smoking is hurting her more. I just don't agree with YOUR attitude toward her, Bo. That attitude won't do much to protect the smoker or Heather from the known effects of smoking.

This is surely going to anger you, but the fact remains that if no one smoked, lung cancer would still likely exist--certainly not to the level it does now, but it IS clear from research that there ARE other factors.

This will anger you more: If I purposely fed you food tainted with tiny bits of many poisons AND ADDICTIVE substances so that you would crave the very food I was killing you with, I would be a murderer.

Add to that this fact: let's suppose that I was also SELLING you the very food that was killing you and making a tidy profit from it--and I did this in a premeditive way--what degree of murder would you call it?

What culpability would anyone or any organized group have who knew of my actions, profited from my actions, and allowed it to happen when they could have prevented my actions?

From your post on this thread and on others, I see that you believe that you, the eater of the food would be the one to be solely responsible

And why? I guess because, I, the maker of the food was smart enough to put a label on it that said it was dangerous-- at the bequest of the organized group who also profited from my actions and could have prevented my actions.

I say: it's a shared responsibility. That is where we differ, Bo.

That said, I am pretty certain that I wouldn't have LC if I hadn't smoked.

My friend wouldn't have died had he not woke up one morning, gotten in his car, drove to work, and at precisely the time when someone ran a red light he arrived at that intersection, blinded a bit by the sun.

My own mother wouldn't have died in her 30s had she not had another form of cancer. People in some parts of Africa wouldn't die of starvation as children if there were more equity in the world. Etc. Etc.

I tell myself often what Fay A once posted--a long life is not a reward. And a short life is not a punishment. Millions of billions of people do not and will not live as long as I will.

elaine

[BoBennett]

Can’t a position be stated with out the personal snide and pretentious remarks? And I hate to get preachy but shouldn’t the discourse be aimed at how to healthy up the primary area of our cancer, not defend reasons why the it becomes unhealthy. You don’t have to read between to many lines to understand that many bad habits primarily smoking, are defended by those that practice them. No matter how its colored up with analogies, this a no brainer. I can’t change the food makers, I can and did change my eating habits and we absolutely differ, in many ways.

Sorry you don’t like what I have to say or how I say it.

Bo

[-Cheryl-]

Well thought out Elaine, thanks for your insight.

Jack

[Snowflake]

Bo,

I know that I am probably the number one person on your list (and some others, I might add) of people to slap down, but here goes: I think maybe your preaching would be better tolerated if maybe it were prefaced with an apology for the seventeen years you DID smoke and exposed others to all the things you now preach against - secondhand smoke, smoking odor, etc. I see no apology for your past acts, but condemnation for people who now occupy shoes you yourself once wore.

...and just so you know EXACTLY where I stand, I do NOT advocate smoking. My opinion is that if anyone truly wants to quit, they will. I don't agree with "society" footing the bill for alcoholics and heroin addicts going through detox. I don't think I should be subjected to something that is harmful for ME by someone else's choice, either...

BUT

That being said, smokers are PEOPLE. NO ONE is perfect, NO ONE. Some of the people I love are smokers, doesn't make me love them any less, just makes me worry about them more... People make bad choices, uneducated choices, illogical choices - no accounting for it, but in the end, they're still just PEOPLE.

Being confrontational doesn't help anyone, including yourself. Shouldering all that anger and hate will eventually consume you. People shouldn't smoke, that IS a "no brainer" - but people shouldn't intentionally hurt the feelings of others, either (basic rule from kindergarten).

...and with that, I KNOW I will receive a blastin', but hey, got on my asbestos underwear today!

P.S. Elaine, beautiful!

[Elaine]

I received a PM asking me if I think cigerettes should be illegal.

Yes, I do.

Recently the drug, Vioox, was taken off the market because it may have caused a couple thousand deaths and I don't know how many heart troubles it may have contributed to.

Lawsuits are gearing up, as prehaps they should, depending on the knowledge and/or premeditation of the drugmaker.

I could go on and on about other substances taken off the market because of their risks.....

I am certain there would be a black market like the black market of illegal drugs. So be it. It would save lives. It would put people in prison, a lot of people in prison, so many in fact that there would not be enough prisons and then maybe this country would rethink its "cure" of addiction and STOP putting addicted people in prison and villifying them...

Instead, we might help them and their families lead more productive and happier lives.

People who do drugs do so for this main reason: they want to feel better. And at first drugs do make them feel better. Just as cigerettes at one time made me think I felt better...

Maybe the government could tax money spent on counseling and rehab if it needs money that badly.

Perhaps, we could spend more money educating people to be compassionate human beings and less money on prisons. Maybe we could help families torn apart by whatever it is that tears them apart.

There are lots of things we could do beisdes build prisons and tax people who are likely killing themselves...

I would rather be a counselor than a prison guard. Anyone who has raised children knows or ought to know that the prison guard method of teaching kids responsibility fails, too often. Instead loving counsel and a providing a safe place for a young adult to fall, as young adults will fall from time to time often works. People do not need to be judged; they need many other things....

Maybe there could be a better world, and yes, a smoke-free one, too.

Save judgement for your God.

elaine

[cindi o'h]

Me on prednisone and my mind does not sit still.

Having said that . I will defend the smokers who did get lung cancer who sacrificed their lives in the name of addiction. Are they victims? In my mind absolutely.

I read an article early on after my diagnosis with lung cancer that at the turn of the century, lung cancer was a very rare illness. In medical terminology...that means very RARE.

Now we have all of these lung cancer diagnoses coming up 160,000+ per year. ......most of them with contributing factors of having had a previous or current history of smoking cigarettes, cigars, or doobies....who knows..

There are still the people who fall into the rare category of having had never smoked, nor been around people who have never smoked. I will sometimes read into their posts about being victims of an illness that has this "stigma" attached to it, and therefore the cancer research dollars are not there for them because of these people who smoked. Well, guess what? The way I see it, lung cancer is one of leading causes of cancer deaths. Because of all of the people who have died from lung cancer, the medical profession has worked and gained some ideas on how to help to treat lung cancers. Without the smokers, without the increase in lung cancer treatment, without the people who sacrificed their lives in the name of addiction, those suffering from lung cancer who have never smoked would still fall into that category of RARE cancer. How many think that reseach dollars would go to a rare cancer? Not too many. I think that many of those people who have never smoked and were diagnosed with a rare cancer would not be alive today had it not been for the addiction of smokers. No thanks. Just condemnation for being put into the smelly group of folks who are hopelessly addicted.

Cindi o'h

[BoBennett]

I know that I am probably the number one person on your list (and some others, I might add) of people to slap down,

Shouldering all that anger and hate will eventually consume you.

Its always personal, isn’t it Snowflake? There is no doubt about how I feel about you, although until you attacked me I didn’t talk about my feeling toward you. What Others, I might ask. Your implication is that I am confrontational toward others, that is a trouble making personal provoking remark. I wasn’t even confrontational here I just said smokers stink, they do, just as I did when I smoked. Some who found the shoe fit, and you, got their little stinky fingers and feelings hurt. Get over it.

Your confrontational challenge that I apologies for my smoking past is absurd. You didn’t want me to apologias you were just being you and clouding up the issue with personal shots. That approach is easier for you to get along with the others, I prefer to tell it like it is. Get over it.

At this point I could better serve those I infringed upon by not defending stinky smokers who I have to sit next to. It is so sad to see the young people smoking. Maybe if those who have cancer would speak out against smoking, at least not defend it or its many peripheral problems or just keep their mouth shut. Some of these younger people might not have to go through what we are going through. And maybe there would be some funding toward LC. Asking that others see the value in not defending those habits that I and we and some still do is a good thing.

Once again you have jumped in to become personal where nothing was said to you.

Talk about confrontational I stand by my last post to you.

This is a place were we all have LUNG cancer. The talk should not be defensive of our habits that contributed. This has nothing to do with perfume or the other things of life that are basically not choice related. Smoking is a contributing factor to cancer and it ruins the health of anyone who chooses to practice it.

Threads seem to gently walk or edit away from the defensive postures when some one speaks out against them.

I didn’t say anything personal toward anyone, or pull from a particular thread, (Jack). The defending of cancer contributing factors seems to be the rule on this board. And smoking seems to be the biggest factor. Someone has to say that prevention or maybe the cure lies in cleaning up our bad habits at least its a start and helpful. Nobody survives because they had their hand held. Although that is a sweet and nice get along approach, I’m dying as are many and its time to face facts, your empathy and shared responsibility Elaine will only kill me, Keep it. Your pretentious personal remarks actually and literally raise my blood pressure, and compel me to post post like this. But I will take the responsibility for that and make adjustments even if it was your and Snowflakes fault for pissing me off.

We have a duty to help the up and coming, its not just about us. Counseling isn’t working, maybe the truth will. Sometimes tough love is the key, or to put it my way smoking is a disgusting unhealthy cancer contributing habit practice by the undisciplined. Quit smoking and your health will improve. But a few people had to twist around my initial lightweight post and what I said and come back with an argument that is aimed at me personally and is provoking in nature.

Any flaming PM’s will be duly posted.

Bo

Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings Cindy o’h. But if you are hopelessly addicted, know that you can quit and you certainly must know that your cloths do smell and there is an element of possible health related problems to those around you. And if you do manage to quit I guarantee that you will, health wise, cancer wise, money wise and in many areas of general life have an improvement, but I do understand that many don’t see that reward as worth the effort. That is a fact and for those of you who don’t like the way I presented it, get over it.

[RAY A]

Heather you are right for feeling the way you do.

I have the same problem but have a can of "OUST" at my desk and I spray it when I smell It. I also Argee this site is been going down down down. I was member 24 when this site first started and it was the best thing that could of happened to me for support. But now I read some of these posts that just grrrrrrr make me so mad. Enough said. Thats why you guys havent seen me a lot on line lately. Instead of this site being a support group like it used to be, its turned into a chat room. God I pissed. Im outta here C YA.

[Donna G]

In our fight to survive lung cancer we go through lots and lots of things. Lung cancer is not only a physical disease. It is a disease that has a lot of stress that leads to lots of emotional feelings. In dealing with emotions we use a lot of defense mechanisms, some more healthy than others but any will at least help us through the stuff we can not cope with at the moment .

http://www.rider.edu/~suler/defenses.html

Please forgive us, we are peddling as fast as we can against the current.

Donna G

[Fay A.]

Here is my take on the subject:

Nictotine is a poison. Please note I wrote poison and not highly addictive carcinogen. I am dealing with Hebbie's post in the spirit-I believe-in which it was written. A very small amount of nicotine in solid form can be fatal if ingested by a small child. Nicotine is absorbable through the skin. Nicotine can be absorbed by inhalation. The delivery system does not change the fact that Nicotine is a poison.

The yellow film left on the walls, curtains, soft furnishings, hard furnishings, floors, carpets, etc. in a room or car [where smoking is allowed] is the result of both sidestream smoke and exhaled smoke, and it will solidify over time. This includes that which is left as residue on the clothes of a smoker. Over time this nicotine will break down into microscopic particles and when disturbed become airborne, and then be inhaled by anyone breathing in this room or car (unless the film is removed by laundering.) This affect is more pronounced-whether the nicotine is gaseous or microscopic particulate-when it occurs in a hyper humid environment.

When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, then exhales, the lungs are not cleared entirely of all of the smoke. That means that when Hebbie's coworker returns to her cubicle after a smoke break she may be releasing secondhand smoke into the air through breathing for a period of time after her last puff. And though this is not as dangerous as smoking directly or side stream smoke, it is conceivable that there is potential for some negative exposure to others (ie Hebbie and her other coworker).

Hebbie's concerns have nothing to do with the stigma from smoking and everything to do with the very real concern about her exposure to a poison in light of her diminished lung capacity. And if my personal experiences with close but brief exposure to the exhaled residual smoke of others, and coming in contact with the residual smoke left on walls, cars, clothing is any indicator, Hebbie's concerns are valid. Period. I can no longer enter a room where people have smoked...even if there is no one in there actively smoking. It sets off a coughing spasm that doesn't end easily. I have a dear friend who smokes. We both now know that she must wait about 30 minutes after having smoked before she can stand within 6 feet of me. The residual smoke she exhales just after having smoked a cigarette is toxic to me. I experience all of the symptoms of mild Nicotine poisoning if she comes to my side too soon after smoking.

If you are still smoking try this at home. Smoke your cigarette as you always do. When you have finished, go into an area where you did not smoke the cigarette, that has a beam of sunlight coming in through a window. Stand so that you can see the area where you will exhale is in that beam of light. Now exhale as deeply as you can. Really force the air trapped in the bottom of your lungs to be expelled. See how much smoke is still coming out of your body? And this smoke still has Nicotine in it.

Nicotine is a poison.

[Snowflake]

You're right, Fay, it is a poison:

nic-o-tine n. A poisonous alkaloid, C5H4NC4H7NCH3, derived from the tobacco plant and used in medicine and as an insecticide.

al-ka-loid n. Any of various physiologically active, nitrogen-containing organic bases derived from plants, including nicotine, quanine, cocaine, atropine, and morphine.

...and the rest, is purely science. Thank you.

Editted for grammar error.

[Elaine]

Thank you Fay.

It is also an addictive substance. It is my understanding that it is not the nicotine that really causes lc, but the other chemicals used to process the tobacco and to turn it into cigerettes, that and the fact that a person is inhaling a burning substance--like many other heated substances are not good to inhale.

Nicotine is a poison when it is ingested or absorbed through the skin in a huge dose at one time. Small doses do not "poison" as it is a substance with a very short "life."--ironically.

I am not arguing here, and I am not defending smokers. The science of cigerettes is complex. Nicotine is produced naturally in several forms and is in all growing plants. The tobacco plant is unique in the way it "stores" nicotine.

It is a fact that cigerette companies consiously added more and more nicotine to their product in order to keep sales high. But a cigerette with very little nicotine would be just as deadly to smoke or to inhale in great quantities.

I am not a chemical scientist and thus don't really understand the whole molecular stuff, but I do not doubt that being around a person who has just smoked a cigerette can cause what Fay describes. Why else would she report this?

I still agree with everything else I wrote. It is cigerettes and addiction that is the enemy--not the smoker.

There are many people on this board, patients and caregivers, who still smoke. I assume this board supports them, but most of them are "closeted", just as most lc patients and families are.

If you want them to come to rallies and give dollars, they first need to come out of the closet. Beating them over the head with their behavior is not going to help, nor is talking about how easy it is to quit, or how harmful it is, or how much it hurts others.

I truly don't know what will "help"-- but I do know that most people respond to positive and supporting environments and people.

I guess I continue to misread the mission statement posted on this board--that talks about many other things about lc and the stigma and the lack of compassion and the lack of research funds etc. etc.

If we as people effected by lc can't come to peace about this subject that DOES cause stigma and DOES cause lc patients to be labeled and in many ways MIS-treated, then how can the stigma be erased?

The only way to come to peace about it is to discuss it. No one has to read it that doesn't want to.

I don't know why people stating their opinions is considered arguing. I don't know why some people take it personal if someone disagrees or perhaps misreads a post. I did not attack Bo, I talked about the attitude that he and others share.

Snowflake and I disagree about many things. On this thread, we disagree with who should pay to help smokers kick the habit. I, in no way, take offense at our disagreement. I doubt she does either.

Many people share BO's position about smokers and addiction. No biggie. I just disagree. For most people it is more than just the nicotine that is addictive--

Perhaps I misunderstood what Heather meant when she said that she will not be in a room with a smoker if she can help it--and maybe she meant to write a person who is actively smoking a cig--or who has recently done so.

Perhaps, I am guilty of intellecualizing as I read in the link that Donna posted. There are many levels of denial, I agree. I don't doubt that I am not unlike every other human being.

So, again I will sign off, pretentiously.

There's a whole thread or two on difficult patients--and I would say that much of why we are labeled is because of the stigma--that we caused it and now we want someone to help us.

elaine

[Rick]

The question that was posed by Hebbie is one that I have often pondered. Does the smell of the smoke actually cause damage? I still have no difinitive answer and just make sure I avoid heavy smoke filled places, however, being subjected to it at work where you have to be is a different matter. I would have to approach the person with grace and tell them basically they smell bad and see where that leads. We have done this in the past with non-deoderant using co-workers and body odor isnt known or thought to be harmful to others health as is cigarette smoke.

This is a perfectly legitimate question to pose and actually a good one.

People smoke, people are addicted and it is of course our nature to feel compassion, however, compassion cannot override your own health and safety. I used to be one of those people that was always angry that I had to smoke outside and felt that not being able to smoke in city buildings was basically taxation without representation as the Government sells and profits from the taxes but wont let me smoke in the buildings and so on. I HAVE CHANGED, I see people smoking now and wish I had the guts to tell them the possible outcome of their addiction. I definitely have not anger or animosity towards them.

And as Elaine stated, we are not an Anti-Smoking organization, we are a Lung Cancer Support Community and smoke or not, that is not our business and we are here for individuals with Lung Cancer , Caregivers, family members and so on. Cigarette smoking, religion and politics are areas that I personally dont venture into and definitely this site does not either.

On another note, I did not take the Hebbie post as a bash against smokers.

Back to the posed question, does the odor have any health issues related? I cant imagine it would but if there are studies showing differently, I am not going to take any chances..

Anyway, enough rambling...

Rick

[pecola]

When I smoked, our pediatrician told me that even if I did NOT smoke around my asthmatic son, the "fumes" coming off of me were potentially toxic and put my son at risk. That is what finally made me quit.

[-Cheryl-]

Smoking is bad, no doubt. For those that want to entertain the idea that residual effects of smokers (smell) is dangerous to others, fine. The FACT that billions of pounds of cancer causing particles flow from our industries everyday, seems a little more worrisome to me. States like Texas, Ohio, Cal, La and Penn are huge contributors and distribute these particles directly into our water and food supply. These are known facts that somehow are brushed aside when it comes to lung cancer. Have any of you been asked if you live in one of theses states when you tell them you have LC? I doubt it, they Probably refer back to the stigma question, "Did you smoke"? I would venture to say that to get exposed from the residue of someone that had previously smoked a cigarrette, is possible, if you stood by this induvudual your whole life. Does it stink? Yes. Breathing cigarrette smoke and the polluted air from our industries is more believable to me. Also, how much asbestos still remains in our buildings? That is the first question our doctor asked Cheryl after discovering the spot on her lung. "Have you been working around Asbestos?"

There is obviously another key to the puzzle of LC... I seriously doubt residue from a smoker would rank very high. We are preaching to the choir when it comes to smoking, we all know its bad. Being satisfied that it's the only cause is unacceptable to me.

Jack

[-Cheryl-]

The word "Support" means more than simply "comfort"... It also associates with the words, advocate, uphold, corroborate, maintain, and back among others. To debate something that involves discussion concerning cancer and it's causes IS "supportive" in it's own nature. Sometimes debates get heated... that's the nature of debates. I can hardly see where it devaluates anything. I don't agree with name calling, but let people talk...we don't learn unless we listen. Like Elaine said, if it is something you'r not interested in reading, don't. I don't read any posts in the forum, "Just for Laughs,"... Frankly, I'm not interested in that. There are posts in here I don't read because of who wrote them... I don't read them and then complain about it! Yes, it's good to find a place like this site for "comfort" for folks with this disease, but is also good to support them in many other ways. Debating concerns over their disease should hardly be dis-comforting, but more along the lines of educational.

Jack