Proof

[China Doll]

Hi All,

There's a question in news regarding actual proof of certain things/events.

I'm not too worried about the in's and out's of the questions but I am interested on one aspect.

Is there a way of proving that someone died of passive smoking?

Cheers
China

[China Doll]

Yes, sorry. That was badly phrased. I wasn't referring to just lung cancer.

But if you had lung cancer and they had an autopsy, then wouldn't that just show diseased tissue and organs as opposed to evidence of tar etc... that would proove it was linked to smoking.

Simarly, illnesses like emphysema, thety can be caused by smoking right? So how would you know if someone had emphysema got it as a result of passive smoking?

Does that make any sense at all?

[wildwood]

I am not even sure that there is a way of undisputedly proving that a smoker died from smoking, let alone a passive smoker. There are so many variables, and smokers mostly die from secondary ailments. Tar is present in all smokers' lungs and is no proof that is what they died of. Passive smokers do not get tar in their lungs from the smoke, the tar comes out of the suckers' (in more ways than one) end. The passive smoke contains different chemicals some which are more toxic than what the smoker gets, but in minute proportions.

[jake-the-peg]

Interesting one this - Roy Castle's case is often held up because despite being a non-smoker he died of a lung cancer strongly associated with smokers.

The claim therefore was that he must has contracted it from second hand smoke.

However this is certainly not proof, it's an assumption based on available evidence.

I've seen figures bandied about that 99% of these cases contracted it from smoking - does that mean that 1% got it another way or via passive smoking? - I don't think anybody really knows.

It's a case of statistics and increased risk getting from that to a causal link is pretty tough - especially when the tobacco industry are trying their best to muddy the waters see here:

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/ health_news/270503smoke.html

[China Doll]

From what I've understood on here and by speaking to my manager it seems to be based on probability.

I actually don't see how it can be argued that it's not a serious health risk. There used to be a portacabin here that was used as a smoking room, it was covered in stains, dirt and ash. If you're in that kind of enviroment every day then I can only imagine that's kind of what your lungs must resemble. (Obviously I think mine look even worse than that!)

Just 10Clarions question got me thinking is all.

[Panic Button]

Statistics could show trends, but proving an individual case mst be impossible.

[BillyBB]

But. It is indisputable that tobacco smoke contains all sorts of toxins. If you are breathing smokey air you are breathing toxins from other's cigarettes. So I'd rather not thanks.