Which is worse?

1. 80

   ptosisposted 12 years ago

   A single diesel engine bus that spews out 70,000 tons of smog a year or a person smoking a cigarette?
   
   Second hand smoke is illegal to protect the children and non-smokers. The evil of smoking is not argued here: What I find is crazy is that I can't smoke and kill myself slowly outdoors withing 20 feet of an entrance - yet as public transportation buses passes by me, I have to close my eyes so that the particles of smog don't make my eyes feel as if they have gravel on them.
   
   This is many years ago but: at one time living in NYC was the same as smoking 1.5 packs of cigarettes a day. Maybe the gov't wants you to believe it's your own "poor life choices" that made you sick instead of just living in a city full of smog.
   
   I am not advocating smoking. Please don't pounce on me. It's a disgusting and dirty habit. I would just like to see more buses that are hybrid or electric even though they cost more to buy. Anybody who had to sit next to a busy street breathing in the worst air possible even though outdoors knows what I'm talking about.
   
   Also: What about firefighters? Don't they breathe in a lot of smoke when putting out a wildfire? Is wood smoke less harmful than a burning sofa with chemical fumes? If that why they only wear the Scot-Air Packs in the city - or is this a money issue? Do firefighters get special medical care from job exposure?
   
   Just wondering what is the worst overall.

   replyreport
2. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   Well, let's see.
   
   Let's start with secondhand smoke. Not sure if this is the most recent or not, but 2005 is close.
   http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/r … ummary.pdf
   
   Second-hand smoke killed approximately 50,000 people in 2005. Second-hand smoke has over 50 carcinogens.
   
   
   
   Diesel exhaust
   http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts.html
   
   40 toxic air contaminants.
   
   70% of cancer caused in California by air toxins comes from diesel exhaust. Over a 70-year time period, among a population of 1 million people, this could create some 540 'extra' cancers.
   
   If you extrapolate 540/million to the population, you get about 170,000 cases of cancer, over a 70 year period(assuming nationwide smog levels like in California). So that would max out at 21,000 cases per year.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      WOW! where did you get those numbers - this is great! 70% of CA from diesel?  Was wondering about the 70 year period. Besides not the entire state of CA is smoggy like San Diego.
      
      (worldwide)"Second-hand smoke causes more than 600 000 premature deaths" - [1]
      (USA)"49000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke" - [2]
      
      [1]www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/index.html
      [2]www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/
      
      I guess that during an autopsy they measure "determining dose of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in blood plasma" as part of statistics gathering.
      
      Thanks for your GREAT answer. But I still think the propaganda that smog is getter better and SH smoking is demonic is for political purposes. It just doesn't make sense that hundreds and thousand of cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, factories, coal burning, forest fires, dust storms, and wood burning stoves put together are somehow less dangerous than a single 3 gram cigarette burning out of the lips of a suicidal smoker. Only 20%  of US people smoke and they are not all 3 pack a day.
      
      BTW: looked into E-cigs: Do NOT try!!!!!! They are way more addictive than regular cigarettes and are not to be used to quit smoking regular cigarettes!
      
      I think the best way to quit a bad habit is not just to 'quit' but to use/do a thing to replace it. Such as exercising but THE best way to quit is to have a non-smoking honey who refuses to kiss you even though you took a shower & brushed your teeth. (or have a little kid say: "You stink grandpa!")

      replyreport
3. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   I can remember having to smoke in the street, with buses and trucks spewing thousands of times more toxins than my cig. And notice they
   have nothing against alcohol, although the death toll there may be as or more than cigarettes. That's because they want to drink but don't smoke
   and that is as deep as their morality goes.

   replyreport
4. 78

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   Laws and current public uproar over second hand smoke isn't to protect children or anyone else.
   
   While it is certainly true that second hand smoke in a crowded bar or other contained place will have  a negative effect on people there is virtually no chance that a cigarette in open air, even as close as 3' away, is going to cause enough harm to be noticeable. 
   
   Rather, those laws and the continued program against second hand smoke is the continued effort by do-gooders to force other people to conform to what is considered a "healthy" lifestyle - it is all about protecting the stupid smokers from themselves.  It has nothing to do with bystanders.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      +100

      replyreport
5. 59

   JSChamsposted 12 years ago

   You take more harm from cattle farts.

   replyreport