Smokers fare better in a fire? There’s a study for that

Today’s question: Has there ever been a study to see if people who smoke have a better survival rate in fires than non-smokers because they are used to breathing smoke? You know, every now and then when I read the emails from you people and listen to the voice mails, I think, “This is it. They’ve finally run out of things to wonder about. My work here is done.”

And then I get a question like this.

I don’t know which is weirder: This question itself or the fact that I actually found an answer to it.

Mt first thought was that a nonsmoker whose lungs were undamaged by smoking would be better off fighting smoke inhalation than someone who had already rotted their lungs out with cigarettes.

Naturally, that was wrong.

It seems that after a terrible nightclub fire in 2003, researchers at Rhode Island Hospital studied lungs of 21 survivors for signs of damage from smoke inhalation.

According to an article posted April 13, 2007, at sciencedaily.com:

“While the overall results showed variability in the chronic effects ... the most severely impacted were non-smokers. This finding may have useful implications for future victims of smoke inhalation as early treatment efforts could be tailored to their cigarette smoking history. The study is the first to see the variability of the chronic impact of smoke inhalation between smokers and non-smokers.’’

Maybe that doesn’t means smokers would have a better survival rate in a fire than others. It just says they apparently have less damage.

Next please?