Second Hand Smoke: The Danger Is Real

[Backstop]

As kids, both of our parents smoked.

We HATED the smoke - red itchy eyes, occasional sore throat, the smell, etc. I had a numerous instances of bronchitis and croup as a young child - anyone remember the 'croup tents?' I do - from the inside.

Our concerns all fell on the deaf ears of our parents.

What do kids know, anyway?

Apparently, everything.

And to this day, none of us kids smoke. Never have.

SanAntonioExpressNews

Surgeon general: Only smoke-free places fully protect nonsmokers

Web Posted: 06/27/2006 06:55 PM CDT
Lauran Neergaard


Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Steer clear of smokers and any of their drifting fumes. That's the advice of the surgeon general, who on Tuesday declared the debate about the dangers of secondhand smoke over.

"The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard," said Richard Carmona.

There is no safe level of secondhand smoke _ even a few minutes inhaling someone else's smoke harms nonsmokers, he found. And separate smoking sections, even the best ventilated ones, don't protect enough. Carmona called for completely smoke-free buildings and public places to lessen what he termed "involuntary smoking."

More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to someone else's tobacco smoke, and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.

The report is sure to fuel efforts by states and cities to ban smoking in workplaces and other public spaces. Seventeen states and more than 400 towns, cities and counties have passed strong no-smoking laws.

But public smoking bans don't reach inside private homes, where just over one in five children breathes their parents' smoke _ and youngsters' still developing bodies are especially vulnerable. Secondhand smoke puts children at risk of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, as well as bronchitis, pneumonia, worsening asthma attacks, poor lung growth and ear infections, the report found.

Carmona implored parents who can't kick the habit to smoke outdoors, never in a house or a car with a child. Opening a window to let the smoke out won't protect them.

"Stay away from smokers," he urged everyone else.

Repeatedly questioned about how the Bush administration would implement his findings, Carmona would only pledge to publicize the report in hopes of encouraging anti-smoking advocacy. Passing anti-smoking laws is up to Congress and state and local governments, he said.

"My job is to make sure we keep a light on this thing," he said.

Still, public health advocates said the report should accelerate an already growing movement toward more smoke-free workplaces.

"This could be the most influential surgeon general's report in 15 years," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The message to governments is: The only way to protect your citizens is comprehensive smoke-free laws."

The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke done since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer that kills 3,000 nonsmokers a year.

Since then, scientists have proved that even more illnesses are triggered or worsened by secondhand smoke. Topping that list: More than 35,000 nonsmokers a year die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke.

Regular exposure to someone else's smoke increases by up to 30 percent the risk of a nonsmoker getting heart disease or lung cancer, Carmona found.

Some tobacco companies acknowledge the risks. But R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which has fought some of the smoking bans, challenges the new report's call for complete smoke-free zones and insists the danger is overblown.

"Bottom line, we believe adults should be able to patronize establishments that permit smoking if they choose to do so," said RJR spokesman David Howard.

And a key argument of some business owners' legal challenges to smoking bans is that smoking customers will go elsewhere, cutting their profits.

But the surgeon general's report concludes that's not the case. It cites a list of studies that found no negative economic impact from city and state smoking bans _ including evidence that New York City restaurants and bars increased business by almost 9 percent after going smoke-free.

To help make the point, Carmona's office videotaped mayors of smoke-free cities and executives of smoke-free companies, including the founder of the Applebee's restaurant chain, saying that business got better when the haze cleared.

In addition to the scientific report, Carmona issued advice for consumers and employers Tuesday:


Choose smoke-free restaurants and other businesses, and thank them for going smoke-free.

Don't let anyone smoke near your child. Don't take your child to restaurants or other indoor places that allow smoking.

Smokers should never smoke around a sick relative.

Employers should make all indoor workspace smoke-free and not allow smoking near entrances, to protect the health of both customers and workers, and offer programs to help employees kick the habit.

AmericanLungAssociation

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet
March 2006

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke, is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.¹



Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).²

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000-62,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.³

A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.⁴

Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.⁵

Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.⁶ Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.⁷

As of 2005, 9 smoke-free states prohibit smoking in almost all workplaces, including restaurants and bars (CA, CT, DE, ME, MA, NY, RI, VT and WA).⁸

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.⁹

Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 700,000 to 1.6 million physician office visits per year. Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.¹⁰

In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.¹¹ Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the
breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.¹²

New research indicates that secret research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.¹³



For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

Sources:
1. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. September 1997.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. December 1992.
3. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. September 1997.
4. He, J.; Vupputuri, S.; Allen, K.; et al. Passive Smoking and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease-A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiologic Studies. New England Journal of Medicine 1999; 340: 920-6.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition 2002. National Toxicology Program.
6. Shopland, D. Smoke-Free Workplace Coverage. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2001; 43(8): 680-686.
7. Halpern, M.T.; Shikiar, R.; Rentz, A.M.; Khan, Z.M. Impact of Smoking Status on Workplace Absenteeism and Productivity. Tobacco Control 2001; 10: 233-238.
8. American Lung Association, State of Tobacco Control: 2005.
9. California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. September 1997.
10. Ibid.
11. Schuster, MA, Franke T, Pham CB. Smoking Patterns of Household Members and Visitors in Homes with Children in United States. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. Vol. 156, 2002: 1094-1100.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses. Second Edition. February 2003
13. Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M. The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? The Research Philip Morris Did Not Want You to See. Lancet. Vol. 364 No. 9446, 2004
*Racial and ethnic minority terminology reflects those terms used by the Centers For Disease Control.

The full Report: The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General
June 27, 2006

[Aplomb]

Don, I have the highest regard for you. I also have never disagreed with you about anything. I think you are a very good man. I'm glad that you posted so much about this so that I can look into it at length while on my upcoming vacation. As far as I'm concerned, yes, smoke cannot possibly be physically good for people, but I have no doubts the figures are dramatized and very inflated to say the least. There is a war being waged against people who smoke, and that is just one item in a list of the things that liberals champion. I'm not buying it. It's bull.

When I had one of my babies, the lactation nurse went over some things with me. Then she got on her soapbox about "...and if you are a smoker, you may as well not even bother to nurse your baby because that smoke goes directly into her milk." I nursed her anyway. I'm going to tell the whole world something here today, and I mean this: Drinking hurts people, drugs hurt people, porn hurts people, physical abuse hurts people, emotional abuse hurts people, sexual abuse hurts people. In my life experience, these things have hurt me or others that I love more than smoking by anybody ever has. People I don't even know have gotten upset with me because I smoke. Today people actually think they have the right and the liberty to jump all over you if you smoke. This report is only going to make that worse. I had a doctor try to tell me that one of my daughters had a cold because I smoke. I asked him, "are you telling me that this cold, which is going around at the school, was caused by my smoking?" No, of course he could NOT tell me that for a fact. I've heard all kinds of crap but you know I haven't heard everything...

I have never heard anybody ever tell me, "you know, I really care about you, and I wish you wouldn't smoke because it's not good for you."

[samizdat]

Here's an example of inflated figures.

Secondhand smoke causes 1,900 to 2,700 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually

Invented. I agree that second hand smoke stats are largely hysteria, partly heresy. Nevertheless- it's annoying. Smokers should be polite- use a fan, outdoors and avoid pregnant women, etc. I did the croup bit- but it's a virus. A huge water bottle I imagined as an elephant with steam pouring out of the trunk. 104 F delusions. I doubt it was Mom's chesterfields. Tasty suckers. Used to pilch a few when I grew big lungs and was out of rets.

[Aplomb]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070209/...cancer_lung_dc

Many lung cancer cases in nonsmokers: study


By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Fri Feb 9, 2:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Up to 20 percent of women who develop lung cancer have never smoked, U.S. researchers found in a study that suggests secondhand smoke may be to blame.




A survey of a million people in the United States and Sweden shows that just 8 percent of men who get lung cancer are nonsmokers.


"I have a lot of patients who have never smoked," said Dr. Heather Wakelee of Stanford University in California, who led the study.


"And because of the stigma, people are embarrassed to speak out about their disease. They feel like as soon as they say they have lung cancer, everyone judges them."


She said it is not clear why women may be more likely to get lung cancer even if they have never smoked.


"There is a lot of controversy over whether women are more susceptible to smoking at all, whether direct or secondhand smoke," Wakelee said in a telephone interview.


Writing in Friday's issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Wakelee and epidemiologist Ellen Chang said they tracked the incidence of lung cancer in more than 1 million people aged 40 to 79. All had taken part in various studies of diet, lifestyle and disease, some going back into the early 1970s.


Some groups were mostly white women, such as an ongoing nurse's study, while others included ethnically diverse groups, Wakelee said.


Among women who never smoked, the lung cancer incidence rate ranged from 14.4 per 100,000 women per year to 20.8 cases per 100,000. In men, it ranged from 4.8 to 13.7 per 100,000. Rates were about 10 to 30 times

higher in smokers.


This would translate to about 20 percent of female lung cancer patients having been nonsmokers and 8 percent of males, they said. That compares with

News | News Photos | Images | Web

" type="hidden">

American Cancer Society estimates of about 10 percent to 15 percent for all lung cancer patients.


"That estimate has been thrown about without any hard data to support it. This data sort of supports it," Wakelee said.


Chang said that because more men smoke than women, women may be more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke, even when they are classified as never-smokers.


"We know that secondhand smoke does increase the risk of lung cancer so it's likely that a lot of these cases we observe are attributable to that," she said in a statement.


Smoking is by far the leading cause of lung cancer, but radon, asbestos, chromium and arsenic are also associated with lung cancer.


The American Cancer Society projects that lung cancer will be diagnosed in 213,000 Americans in 2007 and kill 160,000.


Weill Cornell Medical College last week said it was starting a lung cancer study of 5,000 people working in industries with a high degree of secondhand smoke exposure, such as flight attendants, restaurant workers and entertainers.

[American Patriot]

Hmmm

Those who smoke, defend it.

It's a bad thing to do, it kills people. Killed my mother eventually.

I'm not gonna tell people that they should stop, that's up to them. But, you shouldn't do it. Youmake the final choice and you live with... or die from the results.