As many smokers claim that the risks related to smoking are nothing
more than those of car traffic (exhaust gases),
I would like to see a comparison between the two of them.
It would be very interesting to know:


* representative (average) values of pollutants contained and released
by a cigarette and a car should be clear
 - what pollutants, in what quantity, with effects depending on quantity and
   time of exposure
 - possible tolerance limits for those pollutants

* representative cases (e.g. X cigarettes per day vs. living in Hong
Kong - the city with the most polluted air as far as I know) with
quantitative comparison

* concentration of pollutants for a cigarette in a normally sized room
vs. standing all the day in a crowded road

* possible (historical is better) data of illness / deaths traceable
to smoking and exhaust gases of cars


Please note:

! Alway cite your sources. These topic is subject to real misinformation.
  Widely recognized authorities/association (like WHO) are best.

! Objective opinions! That is, do not quote Malboro's site or similar.


Finally, these is the concept but it doesn't necessarily be like
mentioned aboce, so any contribution is welcome. The point is that I
want to know the truth about smoke and this comparison often comes out
and is gripping me.

As an incentive, consider that you are contributing to the search for
truth. I like the idea.
Thank you,

Stefano

apples v oranges

Actually that's what I feared and one reason why there's no argument
to lean on when they tell you something like that..
I just wondered if there was a group of studies that together make a
comparison possible, at least from the point of view of the pollutants
contained.
E.g. a cigarette produces xx mg of pollutant xyz. A car engine
produces yy mg per hour of it. So..

Anyway, thank you for your time.

Stefano

Its clear that one is terrible and the other is awful, but which is
worse? See what I mean? It would seem that smoking is worse if I
(personally) had to choose simply because smoking IS the leading cause
of preventable illness in America - in other words, we're dying from
it BY CHOICE. For example, a guy might decide he just has way too much
polution in his life so he moves to the mountains of Colorado where
the air is cleaner and he can sit on his front porch in the clear
mountain air and enjoy a fine cigar in peace.

That's like taking your sand to the beach. Doesn't make much sense
does it? But we do it - all the time. By the millions people choke and
cough in the traffic and break their necks trying to get home out of
the motor fumes just to sit down in their recliner and light up a
smoke. It isn't a clinical study but if logic prevails, pollution is
bad, but smoking is just plain stupid (so smoking wins easily in my
book).

tutuzdad-ga

As you noted, the importance we give to such problems depends on one's
scale of values, that is people's irrationality.
Yours is the sober and unbiased opinion that everyone should express.
Even those who smoke by choice should be able to recognize what they
are doing to themselved and those near them.

Yet, what I am looking this time is a quantitative comparison between
two sources of pollution and causes of disease.
Anyway, I surely appreciate your words.

Stefano

I'm afraid I don't want to have to smell enough cigarette smoke to
experiment about this myself... but I was curious. I found this
article online:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=12481
It claims that cigarettes produce 10 times the pollution that a diesel engine does.

Personally, I'd be very interested in knowing how many "greenhouse
gas" emmissions a cigarette puts out, specifically. Maybe smoking can
be made illegal through the kyoto treaty.