YOU post the link to back up a point you knew nothing about, without even checking it's validity... then go onto to try and discredit it.

My question wasn't actually directed at you but err... thanks anyway.

I meant passive smoking on any level.

You, sir, are most welcome.

Just to clarify to those whinging about smoking at train stations and the like, you have trumpeted the studies that show that around 600,000 people are killed every year from passive smoking related illnesses. These deaths are caused by being in an indoor environment surrounded by smoke:

Writing in the Lancet, Dr Heather Wipfli of the University of Southern California and colleagues, said: "There are well acknowledged uncertainties in estimates of disease burden.

"However, there can be no question that the 1.2bn smokers in the world are exposing billions of non-smokers to second-hand smoke, a disease-causing indoor air pollutant."

Ourdoors, in the fresh air, you are fine. So, as I said, use that mean spirit to whinge about something else, as I guess you will as there has to be something, right?

Please see 07:00.

Err... that's "m'lady" to you.

If you'd read the rest of the thread you will know that I think the health effects of ciggy smoke in the open air are negligible.

My point (which was directed at JordanBarrWotsit's comments before you hijacked it) was to find out if he thinks that there is no danger from passive smoking on any level.

But carry on - perhaps he likes having you as his mouthpiece...

I really am not trying to be inflammatory here, but....

Are you suggesting that nobody smokes outside because a tiny percentage of people are allergic to cigarette smoke???

Hijacked.... I am new here, but not to internet forums, if you want a personal chat, I'm sure there is a PM function here.

That way you won't have to worry about me "hijacking" your personal Questions.

Oh... apologies for the gender mishap.... m'lady.

It is complex, there are many factors to consider, both in the way the statistics were gathered, and the topic of this thread, and whether there are other things out there whether it be other pollutions or incidents that kill (i.e. road accidents) that have a higher toll on the death of the population.

Do I believe there is absolutely no danger? I don’t think that is the right question. The right question is, is the effects of passive smoking significant enough to be a real threat to non-smokers? No! There is proof that passive smoke does allow for supposed cancer causing chemicals to enter a non-smokers body. The levels of which these traces can be found are miniscule and would take longer than the human body lives for you to even have the potential damage a smoker causes on themselves in a year . The studies have shown no hardcore proof. Some studies have found links, most have found no link, some have found a protective element. There have been approx 140 studies.

The tests conducted were in levels of extreme concentration, levels of which you wont experience today and would hardly have experienced in a pub for example, due to the very fact doors, windows open and close, air con units and fans exist i.e. the movement of air, and not 100% of the pub was smoking.

So in the context of passive smoke at a railway station, where the area is not confined, the area has moving air, and not 100% of the people at the railway station are smoking, then no, there is absolutely no danger.

Can you clarify what you mean?

Cardiovascular diseases was the no.1 killer, based on your link to prove no.1 killer, and your trusted wiki details what i posted as causes.

You talk about studies. Who conducted these studies? Where did the funding come from? Usually studies with findings such as what you described are paid for and/or conducted by tobacco companies.

Further, I find it preposterous that you'd suggest there is "no danger". That's a gross generalization. Cigarette smoke is clearly a danger, merely by the fact that it is an irritant.

And since this is a forum and not a PhD dissertation defense, I'm not going to dig very deep, but I thought you'd get a kick out of this:

PASSIVE SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER

Abstract

Non-smokers married to heavy smokers had an increased risk of lung cancer.

__________________
I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies. - Pietro Aretino

No, you have me confused, I am not like an anti smoker, therefore I am not looking for one sided arguments, I am looking at the full picture.

The 140 studies I mention, are ALL the official studies that have been had into the issue. Not pro tobacco, I am referring to WHO studies, various universities, various independent as well as the tobacco industry who also conducted their own studies, naturally. Its well documented there have been 140 odd official studies.

Thus, I do not need to even click your link.

Passive smoking in a car, train, pub probably does affect your health but I really can't belive that smoke on a railway station does nothing more than annnoy a non smoker. The fumes that the non smoker breathes from passing cars will have a far greater effect on their lungs. And yes I have seen breathing EXHAUST FUMES as a cause of death!!

Huge percentage ? Less than in most of Southern France, Italy or Greece, comparable to Paris, Northern France and London. And I by this refer to CH-natives and not to foreigners. In the 1950ies, more than 50% of adult men and up to 30% of women did smoke. Interstingly the share of smokers among men had gone down to below 30% while the share among adult women has risen to maybe 35%.

Zürich has a predominantly Swiss population.

What is your definition of "expats" ? If you regard all foreigners as "expats" than the Canton of Solothurn may be slightly ahead of the Canton of Zürich, if you however only regard the English speakers (numbers-wise an irrelevant minority) as "expats" than Zürich may be ahead

I have been on visit in Britain enough to have seen that a very huge percentage of Brits are smokers. And whomever tells me anything different is not taken seriously !

So it's considered gauche to put smokers in the same room in which they will invariably kill eachother but if they are out smoking and adversely impacting the health of innocent nonsmokers it's simply 'their right'...Got it

Here I thought a right was just that so long as you didn't intrude on the rights of others...Smoke, smoke to your lungs delight...but do it in an enclosed area with other smokers...If you live, congratulations

Take this seriously then!

From cancerresearch.org

In Britain in 1948, when surveys of smoking began, smoking was extremely prevalent among men: 82% smoked some form of tobacco and 65% were cigarette smokers. By 1970, the percentage of cigarette smokers had fallen to 55%. From the 1970s onwards, smoking prevalence fell rapidly until the mid-1990s. Since then the rate has continued to fall slowly and in 2007 around a fifth (22%) of men (aged 16 and over) were reported as cigarette smokers. Since 2007, the rate has remained stable ( Figure 6.1). By 2007, the percentage of women who smoke decreased to 20%. In 2008, it increased to 21%, and the difference in smoking prevalence between men and women in Britain was not significant. Female smoking prevalence fell to 20% in 2009, slightly lower than male prevalence in that year

From www.swissinfo.ch
According to the study commissioned by the Federal Health Office, 27 per cent of the Swiss population aged 14-65 were smokers in 2009, the same percentage as in 2008, and a slight drop from the 33 per cent in 2001.

“The tendency to smoke is going down, so we are very glad about this because smoking is one of the main risk factors for a number of chronic diseases and premature death,” Ruth Hagen, spokeswoman for Addiction Info Switzerland, told swissinfo.ch.

However, the number of 20 to 24-year-olds who smoke on a daily basis is on the rise; it went up three per cent from 2008 to 2009.

In that age group, 28 per cent smoke daily, with another 11 per cent lighting up regularly – meaning that 39 per cent of Swiss people in their early 20s smoke.

So 28% of the Swiss population compared 21.5% of the British seems to back my point up. My exposure in Switzerland through bar managing for 11 years had me thinking the percentage was even higher (Percentage of people smoking in üsgang is of course higher) however those facts still confirm my views.

Frankly, even if passive smoking was totally and absolutely without danger for my health, I would still have a problem with smokers at the railway stations and tram stops:
- smoke => I can't breath
- I can't breath => I suffocate
ergo: Others' smoking suffocates me

I really don't see how I could happily accept to suffocate in any circumstances. It is good that the smokers can smoke freely, but freedom of the ones ends where freedom of others start. If I do not have the right to breath, please inform the media, that's a rule the whole population should know about.

In other words: In any situation where nobody suffocates, please smoke as much as you want. NOTE: There is NO health argument in this present message. I trust people to do with their body as they please.

EDIT: And no, I can't just go ten meters away, as somebody else is smoking there and I don't see why smokers should always end up entering the tram/train first because all non smokers had to stay 50 m away in order to find air to breath in the first place.

__________________
Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.

While on the bus today, the driver got out at last stop to smoke and stepped back in the bus with a lit cigarette. He stepped out again, but blew all his smoke back in the bus. I was like, thanks for trying. I used to smoke so I know how hard it is to quit. He smelled up the whole bus! It was disgusting!

I am very sad that you are amused by the fact that your smoking causes me very real pain in throat tissue irritation and respiratory distress as well as to many other people in the world around you. Just because you don't mind doesn't mean that I and other do.

The narcissism that you display in your response when you mock the suffering of others is quite shocking to a person like myself. You may not realise it, as you are inflicting your "right" on those of us who are very sensitive to smoke, but many of the people who suffer due to your habit are nonetheless champions of your right to smoke any where and any time you like. Just so long as you don't do it anywhere that sensitive people are exposed to it.

Obviously, this attitude isn't reciprocated. You may feel that we are hard on you but it really is painful when we are exposed to smoke. It feels like an actual, physical assault. I would rather have someone slap me in the face than smoke in my presence when I can't control my exposure to said smoke.

Based on your posts you would rather see the sensitives continue to be assaulted in this fashion and you derive pleasure from the act. I find it sad that I am sympathetic to the plight of smokers who want/need a smoke and can't find space to have one and yet many smokers seem to have no concern for those who suffer due to any exposure to the specific organic compounds that are unique to cigarette smoke. Truly, sad.

Good luck and enjoy the world that you are shaping. Because, no matter what I say, your right to smoke, as you currently know it, will probably go away, in time. I am happy to let you do what ever drug you want, because, I would like to keep doing the drugs that I want, ie. caffeine and alcohol.

__________________
Many men, of course, became extremely rich, but this was perfectly natural, and nothing to be ashamed of, because no one was really poor -- at least no one worth speaking of. - Douglas Adams