Lungs: Healthy Vs Smokers [Pic]

Submitted by: gchimmel 3 years ago in Weird

Makes me want to quit and I don"t even smoke. *cough cough*
There are 27 comments:
Female 543
I mean, without context this is kinda useless. For all we know, the smoker smoked 2 packs a day and the other set of lungs was a smoker too, except that person only smoked 5 a day.
0
Reply
Male 820
If I was running that experiment, I would be afraid that`s turn the pressure up to high and pop them.
0
Reply
Female 4,039
If you`re hooked on drugs or you`re fat or you drink too much or you get caught having sex with someone you shouldn`t be having sex with, you can go to rehab and get help. There should be smoking rehab centers. Ka-CHING. hmmmmm.....
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Angilion

*farts near you*

Assault!
0
Reply
Male 5,626
"Both sets of lungs seem to have come from dead people."
One of those people had a very long, slow, sh*tty time before he went.
The other probably went while doing something exciting and was like "OH, SHI-!!!"

Which would you rather have been?
0
Reply
Male 253
Both sets of lungs seem to have come from dead people.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]actually, since the lungs remove the toxins, it is the rate at which it can no longer remove these particles. Meaning long exposures at high concentrations. Like Years.[/quote]

That would be true if all of the hazardous substances carried no risk unless they were inside you for years. Which isn`t the case.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I absolutely think my comment illustrated the intelligence level of your comment. Mine was stupid. I think most people got the comparison.[/quote]

I think most people get the comparison, but only those who want to believe it`s valid will do so. It`s a rationalisation, not a valid comparison.

You`re comparing something essential for modern civilisation with deliberately choosing to harm other people for no reason. It`s a stupid comparison.
0
Reply
Female 4,403
yummy.
0
Reply
Male 3,231
While cigarette smoke is not an obvious source of radiation exposure,
it contains small amounts of radioactive materials which smokers bring
into their lungs as they inhale. The radioactive particles lodge in lung tissue
and over time contribute a huge radiation dose. Radioactivity may be one of the
key factors in lung cancer among smokers.
--source #1


Smoking one 20-cigarette pack would result in an effective dose, E, of about 1 microsievert, or 0.1 mrem
--
source #2


Your annual dose From air (radon) 228 mrem.
--
source #3


0
Reply
Male 3,231
actually, since the lungs remove the toxins, it is the rate at which it can no longer remove these particles. Meaning long exposures at high concentrations. Like Years.
0
Reply
Male 39,877

Angilion, {can I call you Angie?} I absolutely think my comment illustrated the intelligence level of your comment. Mine was stupid. I think most people got the comparison.

You put forth that a person issuing harmful fumes was committing assault. Whether smoking or driving the person is still responsible.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
liabach:

Length of exposure affects *degree* of risk, not whether or not there is a risk.

Tobacco smoke is not dust. It contains various toxic, carcinogenic and radioactive substances. Referring to it as dust just shows your lack of knowledge or honesty.

You`re trying to defend the indefensible, so you`re rather limited in your options.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Are you guilty of a serious assault when you start your car?[/quote]

I know you`re not dumb enough to think that`s a fair comparison. See my reply a few posts back.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion, what`s happened to you? You used to be so calm and measured on here.[/quote]

Some things still annoy me. People choosing to harm others for no reason is one of them. And it is for no reason. Since there are a choice of other ways for people to take nicotine, smokers don`t even have the excuse of drug addiction.
0
Reply
Female 8,043
I smoked like a chimney for 35 years, I finally gave up, and very pleased to have done so. It got boring- always wanting, even when I had a fag on the go, I wanted another. BUT it wasn`t easy to quit and at some level I still miss it, and gifs such as this did nothing to stop me- I knew what it was doing and did not really care that much. I am glad you cannot smoke in pubs and confined spaces now- it makes staying off them easier, and I am not keen on the smell- am I assaulted- no. My partner smokes more than I ever did- and despite that my lungs are clear and I don`t cough any more.
0
Reply
Male 39,877

[quote]"I think smoking within range of anyone else should be classified as assault, and a serious level of assault"[/quote] That is one of the most idiotic statements ever made at IAB. Are you guilty of a serious assault when you start your car?
0
Reply
Male 3,231
actually i can, Any science in controlled environments measuring effects of second hand smoke require partical concentrations and length of exposure. I assure you, someone walking by with a cigarette in there mouth dosnt harm you in the least as your lungs are built to remove any particals such as dust. Your argument is based on the fact that you find it stinky.

Had you been locked in a confined area with chain smoker over long periods of time your point may be valid. Check your own science first.

Furthermore, some people are highly alergic to concentrations of cosmetic products, highly alergic, would you consider that essential.
0
Reply
Male 3,231
I dont think they want sympathy. I think they just want to live there lives they want to.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Angilion: Angilion, what`s happened to you? You used to be so calm and measured on here.
0
Reply
Male 177
Self-inflicted. No sympathy here.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
The bad ones look a bit like my x-rays...that`s through chemotherapy and radiotherapy damage though.

nevertheless...same poo result and same oxygen bottle to carry around with me.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I think that everytime you get in your car[/quote]

No, you don`t. You`re lying in an attempt to make a point that`s very stupid anyway.

You can`t be ignorant and stupid enough to compare cars, which are essential to the survival of modern civilisation and which are used exclusively outdoors in the open and seperate from pedestrians, with the deliberate and knowing poisoning of nearby people as part of choosing the most harmful way to take a recreational drug that could be taken in a variety of harmless ways.

Nobody is really that stupid and ignorant.
0
Reply
Male 3,231
I think that everytime you get in your car
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I think smoking within range of anyone else should be classified as assault, and a serious level of assault. Deliberately inflicting a roostertail of toxic, carcinogenic and radioactive chemicals on someone else is clearly a serious assault. It might condemn them to a nasty death.

There are plenty of ways to take nicotine. Choosing to do it in the most harmful way is a choice. It`s not just about being a drug addict. It`s about knowingly choosing to harm others when you don`t even have your drug addiction as an excuse (because you could take the drug in various other ways).
0
Reply
Male 3,231
yah, but which one fits in a small box easier
0
Reply
Female 667
Link: Lungs: Healthy Vs Smokers [Pic] [Rate Link] - Makes me want to quit and I don`t even smoke. *cough cough*
0
Reply