Is this really true? I'm no smoker, but this sounds like

>>156887794
What's the source for this stuff:

>5.3-43ng of highly carcinogenic dimethylnitrosamine in firsthand smoke
>680-823ng in secondhand smoke
>quinoline concentration 11 times higher in secondhand smoke, ~18000ng

because that makes it seem like there are more dangerous chemicals in secondhand smoke.

>>156887794
Where are you from OP?
Asking, because this is literally elementary school tier healthcare education 101.

Smokers inhale their shit through filters, as flimsy as they might be in reality. Second hand victims get it all raw.

>>156887947
But they get what smokers exhale, which they inhaled through filters in the first place.

>>156887941
These are from the lines of dialogue that Nov 11 speaks right after the one in the screenshot.

>>156887947
So you're saying you classify secondhand smoke as that which is ejected from the burning tip?

Because as I've always understood the term "secondhand smoke", I thought it was what the smoker was exhaling from their lungs, thus it's already been through the filter.

>>156887794
Why did you make a thread instead of looking up the definition of secondhand smoke?

>>156888059
I've always thought secondhand smoke was what smokers exhaled too, but maybe that's wrong. Maybe it is what smoke comes out of the tip of a lit cigarette. If that's the case, then yeah, it probably does have more dangerous chemicals.

However, let's take a step back. I smoke, and the amount of smoke that comes out of the tip of a lit cigarette is tiny. I mean, it's usually just a thin little trail, and it's way less than what I exhale when smoking. If secondhand smoke is what comes out of the tip, while it may be more dangerous than inhaled smoke, there's really not a lot of it being released per cigarette. I guess it is more dangerous to people around you, but in the long term, sitting by one guy smoking for 10 minutes isn't going to kill you. If you sat next to a smoker several times a day, every day for 40 years, yeah you might have a problem. Consider who even gets cancer from smoking, it's all people who have smoked packs a day for decades. It's not like you smoke 1 cig and then immediately get cancer. It take a lot of exposure.

>>156888026
>But they get what smokers exhale, which they inhaled through filters in the first place.
Yeah the tip of those cigarettes doesn't produce any smoke right?

>>156887794
Any smoke is fucking poison, firsthand or secondhand. Stop smoking altogether, don'be a douchenozzle.

>>156888388
2nd hand includes both the toxics created by burning materials at the tip, AND the shit the smoker exhales, which also includes lots of carbon dioxide AND plenty of tar, charcoal and other shit that floats off their intoxicated lungs.

>>156887794
probably

I mean the fact that the smoker's exhaling it means that they aren't really keeping 100% of the stuff from the smoke in their bodies, right?
It seems like secondhand smokers who are just breathing normally and simply taking in that air would get more of the bad shit.

>>156887941
secondhand smoke is worse