PDA

View Full Version : secondhand smoke still = bad



mrowl
6/27/2006, 09:34 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/involuntary.smoking.ap/index.html

Surgeon General: No safe level of secondhand smoke

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Separate smoking sections don't cut it: Only smoke-free buildings and public places truly protect nonsmokers from the hazards of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke, says a long-awaited surgeon general's report.

Some 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke, what U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona repeatedly calls "involuntary smoking" that puts people at increased risk of death from lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

Moreover, there is no risk-free level of exposure to someone else's drifting smoke, declares the report issued Tuesday -- a conclusion sure to fuel already growing efforts at public smoking bans nationwide. Fourteen states have passed what are considered comprehensive smoke-free workplace laws, those that include restaurants and bars.

But the surgeon general is especially concerned about young children who can't escape their parents' addiction in search of cleaner air: Just over one in five children is exposed to secondhand smoke at home, where workplace bans don't reach. Those children are at increased risk of SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome; lung infections such as pneumonia; ear infections; and more severe asthma. (Full story)

"Exposure to secondhand smoke remains an alarming public health hazard," Carmona said. "Nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces" -- and by smokers voluntarily not puffing around children.

The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke, the most comprehensive federal probe since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Since then, numerous other health agencies have linked to secondhand smoke to heart disease and other illnesses. Earlier this year, California health officials estimated that secondhand smoke kills about 3,400 nonsmoking Americans annually from lung cancer, 46,000 from heart disease, and 430 from SIDS.

The new surgeon general's report doesn't retally the deaths, but it cites that toll.

The tobacco industry and some businesses, particularly restaurant and bar owners concerned about loss of smoking customers, have challenged some of the broadest public smoking bans in cities and states.

The new report gives new scientific ammunition against those challenges, said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"There is no longer a scientific controversy that secondhand smoke is a killer," he said. The report "eliminates any excuse from any state or city for taking halfway measures to restrict smoking, or permitting smoking in any indoor workplace."

Among other findings:

* Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air and ventilation systems don't eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke.

* There is good evidence that comprehensive smoking bans, such as those in New York City and Boston, don't economically hurt the hospitality industry.

* Workplace smoking restrictions not only reduce secondhand smoke but also discourage active smoking by employees.

* Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease. Don't ever smoke around a sick relative, Carmona advised

* Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent.

* There isn't proof that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, although the evidence is suggestive. California earlier this year cited that link in becoming the first state to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant.

* On the plus side, blood measurements of a nicotine byproduct show that exposure to secondhand smoke has decreased. Levels dropped by 75 percent in adults and 68 percent in children between the early 1990s and 2002. However, not only has children's exposure declined less rapidly, but levels of that byproduct among children are more than twice as high as in nonsmoking adults.

Hoosier Dynasty
6/27/2006, 10:22 AM
MAN LANDS ON MOON!!!!!!

Boomer.....
6/27/2006, 10:23 AM
I'll be damned! :rolleyes:

1stTimeCaller
6/27/2006, 10:28 AM
Homey-nip

IronSooner
6/27/2006, 10:32 AM
Smoking will kill you. If a bus or your wife doesn't first. The end.

NormanPride
6/27/2006, 11:05 AM
Homey-nip

heh.

MamaMia
6/27/2006, 11:08 AM
Granted, I cant think of anything worse in the "secondhand" catagory that is worse for you than secondhand cigarette smoke, but there are alot of secondhand things that are bad for you. Take shoes for instance.

Okla-homey
6/27/2006, 11:20 AM
I'm not convinced.

Show me the peer-reviewed papers which categorically link brief or occasional exposure to passive tobacco smoke in healthy adults to increased incidence of disease and I'll STFU. Not pronouncements, not announcements, not PSA's. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis only please.

That said, no one should smoke around the sick or little kids, whether it hurts them or not. Its just wrong.

Mjcpr
6/27/2006, 11:22 AM
Are you saying second-hand smoke is healthier than brussel sprouts?

I can't believe my eyes.

OhU1
6/27/2006, 12:14 PM
I think I saw this story on the cover of "Duh" magazine the "medical journal" of the obvious that Norm McDonald used to show on Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live.

Stoop Dawg
6/27/2006, 01:04 PM
I'm not convinced.

Of course not.

In other news, it has been claimed that the world is NOT flat!! We're still working to determine exactly what shape it may be.

Pricetag
6/27/2006, 01:51 PM
I don't think possible health ramifications should even matter. Breathing smoke sucks, and if you have a shred of common decency, you'll take that crap outside. Unless I'm in your home, I shouldn't have to inhale it.

SoonerInKCMO
6/27/2006, 02:29 PM
Show me the peer-reviewed papers which categorically link brief or occasional exposure to passive tobacco smoke in healthy adults to increased incidence of disease and I'll STFU. Not pronouncements, not announcements, not PSA's. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis only please.


NIH Names Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) "known human carcinogen":
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/may2000/niehs-15.htm

EPA's public and peer-reviewed study of respiratory health effects of passive smoking:
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's report on the effects of exposure to ETS:
http://www.oehha.org/air/environmental_tobacco/finalets.html

WHO's report on ETS:
http://www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/8_1ets.pdf

See here for definitions of some of the WHO's terminology:
http://www.euro.who.int/document/aiq/2criteriaaqg.pdf

National Cancer Institute report that has several studies not mentioned above as footnotes:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Stoop Dawg
6/27/2006, 02:42 PM
EPA's public and peer-reviewed study of respiratory health effects of passive smoking:
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html


For you lazy bastards. From the link (emphasis added):


Public and Scientific Reviews

A draft of this assessment was released for public review in June 1990. In December 1990, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), a committee of independent scientists, conducted a review of the draft report and submitted its comments to the EPA Administrator in April 1991. In its comments, the SAB's Indoor Air Quality/Total Human Exposure Committee concurred with the primary findings of the report, but made a number of recommendations for strengthening it.

Incorporating these recommendations, the Agency again transmitted a new draft to the SAB in May of 1992 for a second review. Following a July 1992 meeting, the SAB panel endorsed the major conclusions of the report, including its unanimous endorsement of the classification of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a Group A (known human) carcinogen.


What's a "Group A carcinogen"? I wondered too...



Standard EPA classification categorization descriptions

Group A: "Human Carcinogen"


"This group is used only when there is sufficient evidence from epidemiologic studies to support a cusal association between exposure to the agents and cancer."


http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/toolboxes/epa-cancer-classification.htm#1

In case you didn't catch the dates, this was 15 years ago.

And as Pricetag mentioned, it's also disgusting.

GrapevineSooner
6/27/2006, 02:47 PM
Sounds like a future Morgan Spurlock documentary topic. ;)

Okla-homey
6/27/2006, 04:08 PM
For you lazy bastards. From the link (emphasis added):



What's a "Group A carcinogen"? I wondered too...



http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/toolboxes/epa-cancer-classification.htm#1

In case you didn't catch the dates, this was 15 years ago.

And as Pricetag mentioned, it's also disgusting.

Show me the peer-reviewed papers which categorically link brief or occasional exposure to passive tobacco smoke in healthy adults to increased incidence of disease and I'll STFU. Not pronouncements, not announcements, not PSA's. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis only please.

I'm waiting patiently.:D

SoonerInKCMO
6/27/2006, 04:17 PM
You'll have to 1) Give a precise definition of 'brief or occasional'; 2) Explain why you're only concerned with said 'brief or occasional' exposure given that many people are currently subjected to 'lengthy and frequent' exposure; and 3) Explain why you're only concerned with healthy adults when children and unhealthy adults have the same legal and moral rights as healthy adults.

lefty
6/27/2006, 04:45 PM
Here's a link to a database of scientific, peer reviewed studies concerning ETS and negative health outcomes. Let it be said at the outset, these folks fall on Homey's side of the argument. This database also includes studies that have looked at long term exposure to ETS by non-smokers both in the home and the workplace. Please read their discussion of this database especially concerning the inclusion of studies that support their position and refute their position. Additionally, many of the studies are available for download. Enjoy

http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm

Okla-homey
6/27/2006, 04:49 PM
You'll have to 1) Give a precise definition of 'brief or occasional'; 2) Explain why you're only concerned with said 'brief or occasional' exposure given that many people are currently subjected to 'lengthy and frequent' exposure; and 3) Explain why you're only concerned with healthy adults when children and unhealthy adults have the same legal and moral rights as healthy adults.

Because they are trying to whip people up into a frenzy to believe just walking through a little ciggy smoke as you pass by is deathly dangerous. I think that's a stretch as I have said before many times. If you look at the above cited papers, they address people habitually exposed to passive smoke. That said, the NIH study above states 3000 people per year die from such exposure. There are almost 300 million in this country now. Do the math. I bet you could cite 3000 people who die from being habitually exposed to second hand Twinkies too. sheesh.

Pricetag
6/27/2006, 05:18 PM
That said, the NIH study above states 3000 people per year die from such exposure. There are almost 300 million in this country now. Do the math.
Yeah, it's a small price for us all to pay for people to feed their habit, I think.

C&CDean
6/27/2006, 05:24 PM
For the life of me, I can't figure out why Homey is so protective of his right to suck in other people's smoke - and their right to spew their offensive ****ing habit all over us.

There's something much darker/deeper than what brother Homey is sharing I'm thinking - because I know the boy is at least semi-educated, and in his heart-of-hearts, knows better.

Stoop Dawg
6/27/2006, 05:29 PM
Because they are trying to whip people up into a frenzy to believe just walking through a little ciggy smoke as you pass by is deathly dangerous. I think that's a stretch as I have said before many times. If you look at the above cited papers, they address people habitually exposed to passive smoke.

Go to Europe and see if relaxed smoking laws forces one to be habitually exposed to passive smoke.

slickdawg
6/27/2006, 05:29 PM
I hate cigarettes, I hate cigarette smoke. I don't want to breathe that ****,
nor do I want to smell like it.

It is a nasty-azzed habit.

Okla-homey
6/28/2006, 05:33 AM
For the life of me, I can't figure out why Homey is so protective of his right to suck in other people's smoke - and their right to spew their offensive ****ing habit all over us.

There's something much darker/deeper than what brother Homey is sharing I'm thinking - because I know the boy is at least semi-educated, and in his heart-of-hearts, knows better.

Not at all. Let me say this up front. I'm merely advancing the notion there was and is a deliberate attempt by anti-smoking advocates to make the public fear the effects of environmental tobacco smoke completely out of proportion to the actual risk (if any) it poses to those only occasionally exposed.

The part about this that has always bugged me is the fact anti-smoking organizations decided at least two decades ago the most effective way to check smoking among the American public was by making non-smokers believe occasional exposure to smoke was dangerous to them notwithstanding the fact there simply aren't any conclusive data which indicate it actually is.

I'm not a scientist but I do fancy myself as slightly educated. I don't appreciate my government's perhaps well-intentioned deliberate attempts to mislead me by trying to make me and my fellow citizens fear something of which we needn't be afraid.

Especially this sort of thing from the news release at the top of the thread:


There isn't proof that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, although the evidence is suggestive. WTF does that really mean? I think it means "no one can disprove exposure to environmental tobacco smoke causes breast cancer, so we'll add that one too."

Look, there are people who attend OU games at the Fock who will someday get sick with really serious diseases. Does that mean attending OU games is dangerous to your health? I don't think so and its absurd to believe that. Good science normally doesn't deal in vague inferences drawn from statistically insignificant anecdotal evidence. Good science usually deals in reproducible experimentation using sound scientific principles and it shouldn't be influenced by social or political agendas.

This sort of thing is intellectually and scientifically dishonest, and that in my mind is reprehensible. It has been a very effective campaign as evidenced by the sheer number of us now who simply accept this notion as fact.

Harry Beanbag
6/28/2006, 07:04 AM
Not at all. Let me say this up front. I'm merely advancing the notion there was and is a deliberate attempt by anti-smoking advocates to make the public fear the effects of environmental tobacco smoke completely out of proportion to the actual risk (if any) it poses to those only occasionally exposed.

The part about this that has always bugged me is the fact anti-smoking organizations decided at least two decades ago the most effective way to check smoking among the American public was by making non-smokers believe occasional exposure to smoke was dangerous to them notwithstanding the fact there simply aren't any conclusive data which indicate it actually is.

I'm not a scientist but I do fancy myself as slightly educated. I don't appreciate my government's perhaps well-intentioned deliberate attempts to mislead me by trying to make me and my fellow citizens fear something of which we needn't be afraid.

Especially this sort of thing from the news release at the top of the thread:

WTF does that really mean? I think it means "no one can disprove exposure to environmental tobacco smoke causes breast cancer, so we'll add that one too."

Look, there are people who attend OU games at the Fock who will someday get sick with really serious diseases. Does that mean attending OU games is dangerous to your health? I don't think so and its absurd to believe that. Good science normally doesn't deal in vague inferences drawn from statistically insignificant anecdotal evidence. Good science usually deals in reproducible experimentation using sound scientific principles and it shouldn't be influenced by social or political agendas.

This sort of thing is intellectually and scientifically dishonest, and that in my mind is reprehensible. It has been a very effective campaign as evidenced by the sheer number of us now who simply accept this notion as fact.


Homey is exactly right in every regard. I don't believe he's said smoking isn't a disgusting habit, and that for their own health, people should quit. It's not mustard gas, it's cigarette smoke. If it was really that bad, then we wouldn't exist because all of our grandparents would have been killed by secondhand smoke 60 years ago.

Okla-homey
6/28/2006, 08:06 AM
Homey is exactly right in every regard. I don't believe he's said smoking isn't a disgusting habit, and that for their own health, people should quit. It's not mustard gas, it's cigarette smoke. If it was really that bad, then we wouldn't exist because all of our grandparents would have been killed by secondhand smoke 60 years ago.

Thank-you. You have captured my long-winded (pardon the pun) sentiments well.

Stoop Dawg
6/28/2006, 08:16 AM
If it was really that bad, then we wouldn't exist because all of our grandparents would have been killed by secondhand smoke 60 years ago.

Given that cancer is one of the leading causes of death, how do you know they weren't. I'm going to need scientific peer-reviewed proof.

Okla-homey
6/28/2006, 08:24 AM
Given that cancer is one of the leading causes of death, how do you know they weren't. I'm going to need scientific peer-reviewed proof.

:les: DON'T MAKE ME COME OVER THERE!

Stoop Dawg
6/28/2006, 08:26 AM
notwithstanding the fact there simply aren't any conclusive data which indicate it actually is.

That you agree with. However, you use vague terms like "occasional" and "habitual" to disregard any evidence presented to you. If you'll go ahead and define "occasional" and "habitual" (as requested several posts ago) maybe we can make a little more headway here.

Okla-homey
6/28/2006, 08:37 AM
That you agree with. However, you use vague terms like "occasional" and "habitual" to disregard any evidence presented to you. If you'll go ahead and define "occasional" and "habitual" (as requested several posts ago) maybe we can make a little more headway here.

My definitions:

Habitual: Dwelling with a smoker who smokes continuously in your presence every day for a period of several years. Note: I concede there are probably risks associated with this level of exposure.

Occasional exposure: Not being confined or exposed in a room (bar, office, party, home, etc.) amid people smoking cigarettes more than a total of 8 hours per week.

Very occasional exposure: Just catching a whiff of ciggy smoke as it wafts your way while entering a building or something.

Pricetag
6/28/2006, 08:42 AM
I can understand Homey's point. As long as there are two sides with so much money fighting this thing out, we'll probably never know the real truth about second hand smoke.

In the end, I don't think it will come down to that. Smoking is a habit that had thrived for hundreds of years on ignorance. Only in the past few decades have we realized the hazards of smoking to the smoker, which I think no one will deny.

Smoking in public is something that has been accepted up until just recently because, due to our own ignorance on the side effects, the majority of people did it.

I don't know what the breakdown is now, but if it isn't already the case, I believe that soon non-smokers will be the majority. The bottom line is that cigarette smoke smells like crap. Whether it will give you a terminal disease or not, it sucks to breathe it. And people don't want to be around it just because someone else wants to indulge.

In the end, that is what will make public smoking a thing of the past.

Mjcpr
6/28/2006, 08:44 AM
I'm pretty sure non-smokers have been the majority for some time now haven't they?

etouffee
6/28/2006, 09:01 AM
yes

Pricetag
6/28/2006, 09:11 AM
That's what I thought, but I wanted to cover my rear just in case.

Hoosier Dynasty
6/28/2006, 10:04 AM
I hate cigarettes, I hate cigarette smoke. I don't want to breathe that ****,
nor do I want to smell like it.

It is a nasty-azzed habit.

Well said. That's the only excuse non-smokers need . . . otherwise, it's a form of assault (non-consensual touching and violation of one's body)

lefty
6/28/2006, 10:10 AM
Here's a link to a database of scientific, peer reviewed studies concerning ETS and negative health outcomes. Let it be said at the outset, these folks fall on Homey's side of the argument. This database also includes studies that have looked at long term exposure to ETS by non-smokers both in the home and the workplace. Please read their discussion of this database. Additionally, many of the studies are available for download. Enjoy

http://www.forces.org/evidence/index.htm


One more time. Click the linky thing.

Mjcpr
6/28/2006, 10:14 AM
Well said. That's the only excuse non-smokers need . . . otherwise, it's a form of assault (non-consensual touching and violation of one's body)

*****.

:D

slickdawg
6/28/2006, 10:27 AM
Dana Reeves?