This debate is a result of another topic here at America's Debate: Smoking Ban, Unconstitutional? Much of the justification for the smoking bans seemed to stem from the perceived dangers of second hand smoke on the multitude of non-smokers in our society.

But how dangerous is second hand smoke?

In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency released a report declaring second hand smoke "presents a serious and substantial public health risk." It was subsequently labeled a Group A Carcinogen alongside arsenic, asbestos, benzene and radon.

I had heard criticisms about the EPA report on second hand smoke, so I thought I would look for any basis for such criticism. What I first found was a rather simplistic fact sheet attempting to deconstruct the validity of the EPA report. From there I was directed to what is identified as a Congressional Research Service review of the EPA report.

I also found a report from the Cato Institute:
Second Hand Smoke Charade

The EPA is essentially accused of manipulating data in an unscientific manner to reach a preconceived conclusion. It would appear from this information that the jury is still very much out on the effects of second hand smoke.

Do you feel second hand smoke poses a significant health risk in public places (excluding home and vehicles)?

Please take the presented information into account and explain your position. Feel free to present any additional information and to venture into the other debate topic mentioned at the start of this topic to address the issue of public smoking bans.

On the basis of my research, I don't even believe that second-hand smoke poses a significant health risk in the home either (I haven't actually seen any research yet on small enclosed vehicles) - and wonder why that has been excluded from the debate. Is it just that you wish to keep this in a legal context or do you believe there are distinctions?

I'll get back to this with a bit more data when I have a little time (hopefully including a link to the controversial WHO study, as well). Right now, I must have a final cigarette before retiring for the night.

I excluded home and vehicles because I was encouraged to start this topic based on arguments from the thread on smoking bans. Also, the EPA attempted to pass off the dangers of second hand smoke as "a serious and substantial public health risk," which led my interest to lie more in the public domain such as restaurants and other venues.

In the spirit of this being Health and Medicine forum, feel free to extend beyond the public to include the home or vehicle. For those who do so, please be careful not to mistake data taken from such studies to be representative of data applicable to more public locales. This seems to have been but one of the EPA's mistakes in compiling their report.

*The amount of second hand smoke inhaled regularly in a home or vehicle would be considerably more than in a restaurant, work place or other public facility (not to mention open air forums)

Ah, if only we had a smoker emoticon...

Since I have worked in hospitals, and actually been a victim of it, second hand smoke is certainly dangerous. I have seen the spouse of a smoker die from lung cancer, with no other variable than being around a smoker. I have seen kids with respitory and athsma that clears up everytime they leave the custodial parents house. I was given a nice dose of aversion therapy by my dad smoking in the car on trips and causing me to have athsma. He quite smoking. I was able to breath. Cause and effect stuff. The only poeple that really try to deny this are the tobaco addicts and the cigarette companies.

Mom smoked while she was pregnant with me. Mom and Dad smoked from before the time I was born until Dad quit in 1968 and until Mom had to take an early retirement from her job due to emphysema.

When I was born I was 5 lb. 1 oz., borderline in the 50's for incubator care. At age 4 I had suffered countless sore throats, earaches, and headcolds. Cigarette smoke was the only substance that could be attributed to the failure of my tonsils to function properly. They started releasing the poisons into my system. I was underweight and sickly and nearly died. It was a general practitioner and not a pediatrician who identifed the problem as being my tonsils. If they hadn't removed my tonsils at Children's Hospital in Detroit, I would have died from sepsis.

That's all the study I needed. After the tonsils were gone, I recovered and became a normal-sized kid. But Mom and Dad still smoked. I still had more headcolds than a lot of my classmates, and when I had them, they were more severe.

It really very simple. Smoke does not belong indoors. Would you barbeque indoors? Would you breath in your car's exhaust. Cigarettes smoke has more carcinogens than barbequeing. Cigarette smoke also has carbon monoxide it in. This is the same compound from the exhaust from your car.

Carbon monoxide competes with oxygen. A vital substance for life. People, who smoke are addicted to Nicotine, not the 4000 chemicals within its smoke. If a smoker wants to get his/her fix in a bar. Tell them to buy a nicotine patch or nicotine gum. We have enough pollution outdoors, we don't need to make more indoors. You don't need science or research to prove or disprove that smoke does not belong indoors. This is common sense. The ban not only helps people, who are allergic to cigarette smoke, it also allows people with Asthma to enjoy a drink without getting an attack from the cigarette smoke. The ban also allows pregnant women, to enjoy their friends in a lounge or club wheras before the ban, a pregrant women, would have to think twice before entering a club or lounge with her husband. Not all people, who go to bars/lounges, etc-- drink. Some go to dance.

Take the seat belt law. This law is a law set up to protect the driver. Sometimes, we need laws in place for those, who just don't have good common sense.

How do we know that second-hand smoke is potentially dangerous.
Cotinine is a breakdown product of nicotine after it enters the body. Levels of cotinine in the body track the amount of exposure a person has to tobacco smoke. For a nonsmoker, cotinine tracks exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. CDC measured cotinine in nonsmokers in the U.S. population as part of a previous survey, and the Report presents new cotinine data for 1999. 

Also, in urine samples collected from newborn infants of mothers who smoked during pregnancy, and samples from nonsmokers at a smoky bar researchers at the University of Minnesota Cancer Center in Minneapolis detected compounds that the body produces in breaking down nicotine-derived nitrosaminoketone (NNK). That chemical, found only in tobacco, induces a variety of cancer and is know as a serious carcinogen.

I was also born premature due to my mother working in a bar that she own because of second-hand smoke. Her doctor warned her, but she did not listen. Nicotine is like any other drug. It is known as a selfish drug. Where nicotine users, have this "don't car" attitude and seem to be in denial.

I don't doubt that second-hand smoke is unhealthy, but it does seem a bit of a stretch to focus so much attention on it, while the Clean Air Act is being gutted before our eyes. There are far worse things being released into the air than cigarette smoke.

There is a billboard making the rounds, claiming that some 40,000 people die every year from second-hand smoke. I have found absolutely nothing to back this up. As my wife is a medical practitioner, we get a lot of medical journals - and I've not seen anything which would corroborate this statistic.

I don't care if second hand smoke kills millions a year, the government has no right to ban smoking in the homes, or businesses, of private individuals.

I would agree with you on private places- because your "right" to smoke does not infringe on my right to breath in that area. I do not have any true reason to come to your home, but public places are another matter.

Cigarettes are no different than any other drug, and no one has a right to sit in a resteraunt and shoot up herion or coke, and those are much more safe to the second hand person, for that matter, smoking marijuana or hash in that same resteraunt is less likely to kill someone.

I also do not have a right to drive up the steps of your business, killing a few poeple in the process, just to be more comfortable for the walk in. The car just kills quicker. So I don't care if a million poeple die just so I can park in the lobby of your building!

A restaurant is a "private" business. The owner of this private business should be the one deciding if smoking is allowed or not. You have the right not to patronize that business if your irrational fear of second hand smoke is strong enough.

If I own a business I would not allow people to park in the lobby of my building.

Abs clearly stated that he wanted this debate to focus on the health issues of second hand smoke, NOT GOVERNMENT BANS. We have a thread for that already. Please join us there if that is the aspect of the debate you would like to pursue. Thanks.

So are you saying that a private business owner in the United State is not regulated by OSHEA guidelines? This is insane. Just because you have a private practice does not give you the right to do as you please. This is America. We have laws, health guidelines and we protect our citizen against owners, who don't give a damn. So, what you are saying is that if you own a business, you can leave the Asbestos up, have toxic chemicals in the air, have an unsafe environment, have rats, roaches, whatever you want. NO, I think not. Our government makes sure that businesses in the United States that give service to its patron, must comply with the Health and Safety laws of our city. If not business owner, could do as the please, no matter how it effects the people they serve.

You don't have to believe that Second-hand smoke is dangerous for it to affect your health. Some people choose to ignore health guidelines and do as they please. If you live alone fine, smoke all you want.

If I was a child and I developed asthma or cigarette-related cancer from my parents smoking in the car or in the house around me--as an innocent child, as an Adult--I would sue them for robbing me of my health.

No parent has the right to abuse my health because they are addicted to a substance. There is so much evidence of children with cigarettes-related carcinogen found in the blood and urine of infants. But, I guess people, who are addicted to substances don't think clearly; they want what they want and they don't care what it takes to get it or who they hurt in the process.

Nicotine is just like Cocaine or any other drug. It effects your brain physiology. It works on the same pathway as cocaine and crack. In fact, tobacco companies add, Ammonia to tobacco, so Nicotien can be in its free-based form, to absorb faster to the brain. It effects the dopamine levels and the acetylcholine.

Smoking effects the blood of nonsmokers. The tar along in cigarettes is enough to ban in public places, such as bar, lounges or clubs. Who needs extra pollution, just because someone needs a fix. This makes no sense.

I have many friends, who don't drink alcohol because of religious reasons or because they are on antibiotics. They still go to clubs and bars and have a good time without drinking. I can drink around them and my alcohol never enters their blood and they are not effected by my drinking. UNLESS I get into a car with them and they drink and drive--then I increase my chances of getting killed.

But when people smoke around others, it affects their oxyen uptake and puts unwanted substances into their lungs. Not only does it effects the nonsmoker. Cigarette smokes gets into clothings and it smells. It increases my dry cleaning bill. Can't enter a room filled with cigarette smoke and wear a suit without without dry cleaning it before I can wear it again.

Our body and lungs are not designed to handled all the toxins within cigarette smoke. This is why it gives people cancer. I don't care about the research. I was a reasearcher for 6 years; most scientist know that you can prove or disprove anything with research. So the stats mean nothing to me. It is logical that business owneers do not have the right to have potentially unsafe environment, just because they own property. Business owner must provide a safe environment for their workers and their patrons regardless on it the business is private. I am sure developing countries don't have the governmental protection that we ensure our citizens. OSHEA and the FDA protects, they do not take away the rights of the people.

I've already covered a lot of this in the Smoking Ban thread, but will reiterate some of it here...

The 1993 study done by the EPA was a meta-analysis of previous research. This can be a valuable way to statistically assess data, but, in the case of the EPA, the analysis has since been thoroughly discredited. The first six chapters of the study were ruled either false or exaggerated in their findings and methods by a Federal Court - which ruled that, in essence, the EPA had deliberately skewed their results to match their hypothesis and eliminated all the evidence which contradicted their presumptions.

Judge William Osteen vacated the study, declaring it null and void. From his ruling:
That is the study which the anti-smoking lobby has continued to cite as their primary source for the effects of environmental tobacco smoke.

A more recent study was conducted by the World Health Organization, which actually conducted its own research. The purpose of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of risk and to discover any differences between different sources of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), and the effect of ETS exposure on different types of lung cancer. The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years and involved over 2000 subjects.

Contrary to their expectations, their study found that the effects of ETS are statistically negligible and, in some cases (especially among children), may even be protective. The WHO itself initially refused to release their findings and when, after much lobbying by the British press, they did release the results, there was a virtual media blackout of their findings.

As reported in The Daily Telegraph (one of the few publications to cover the story) at the time:
The WHO study found a Relative Risk (RR) factor in the workplace of 1.17 with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .94 - 1.45. For spousal exposure, the RR for ETS was 1.16 with a CI of .93 - 1.44. The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14, with a CI of .88 - 1.47. An RR of 1.0 is considered no risk. Anything below that is considered a reduced risk. While an RR of less than 2.0 is considered statistically insignificant, the findings of this study seem to indicate that the greater the exposure, the less the risk! Even more interestingly, the RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This was the only group among which the CI didn't even include a 1.0 "no risk" - all subjects experienced a decreased risk!

The Journal of the National Cancer Institute confirmed the findings of the WHO study and said that they were "in agreement with available evidence and, in particular, with large studies from the United States" (citing Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer mortality in the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study II, for example), which also found that the effects of ETS are statistically negligible.

If those consciously setting out to find a link between ETS and health risks can't find such a link, that seems to close the case - at least for now.

I appreciate some of the anecdotal evidence presented here and have no doubt that second-hand smoke can be irritating. I have a similar reaction (as I mentioned in the previous thread) to people wearing excessive amounts of perfume and cologne. I am not, however, about to start lobbying for legislation to ban the wearing of scents in public places. When I encounter such people, I simply move away from them.

Any time a study is done, it helps to know who sponsored it, or who paid for it.
There was a time when even the AMA said they knew of no ill effects of smoking on the human body, even claimed that it had a beneficial effect for some conditions. They have since changed their position and find no good in cigarettes.
Any study that claims beneficial effects of any kind of smoke that is allowed to enter the lungs is highly suspect. Look at how the lungs are built, and what their function is, and it makes sense that you don't want to introduce any unhealthy substances into them. There is a biological half life used to determine how long substances remain in the body, including radioactive material. If you eat or drink a radioactively contaminated substance, it is only a matter of hours that most of it leaves the body. If you breathe it, that half life is much, much longer. Lungs are like big, wet sponges, and any dirty air that goes in tends to leave a lot of bad stuff behind.

Smoke travels and builds up to annoying levels in enclosed areas. My favorite steak house puts all the smokers in one end and non-smokers in the other, but some days there are enough smokers that it doesn't matter where you sit. Enjoying a tasty meal in a cloud of smoke is not possible.
One place I worked, the building had poor ventilation and a lot of smokers. I had strep throat 3 or 4 times a year for the 4 years I was there. Never had it before or since leaving that place.
Cigarette smoke is an irratant produced by selfish people who insist on their right to be obnoxious in a public place.

I found this possible answer here.

Another link to data on second-hand smoke effects. This one is from a group called "Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada". It has special emphasis on the effects on children but covers the subject well with multiple sources cited.

I looked at your links, Wertz. It should be clear the study you cite showing no relationship of ETS to health addresses lung cancer specifically.
To reach this conclusion based solely on the study you have shown is scientific illiteracy. A single lung cancer study is not a sound basis to reach a conclusion on all health risks associated with ETS.

If the restaurant owner let his customers know that a high level of toxic chemicals were in the air, that rats and roaches had access to the food and he had asbestos insulation he would soon be out of business. Government does have an obligation to protect individuals from concealed risks. In the case of smoking it is quite clear that most Americans correctly view the risk of cancer from second hand smoke as negligible at best. If the health risks of second hand smoke was high restaurants and bars would be voluntarily imposing no smoking on their clientele. Of course people being free of coercion goes against the "slightly liberal" mindset.

The fact that, in the abscence of coercion, most bars and restaurants allow smoking, is clear evidence the American people have not been fooled by the EPA.
If you spend so much time in bars that second hand smoke is a concern, fear not, cirhossis of the liver will get you first.

And any study that claims that the injection of a pathogen into the human body might create immunity to a disease is clearly nuts. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio - like vaccines...

For the record, though - while it's interesting to speculate that the exposure to second-hand smoke could, in the young, create some sort of tolerance of or resistance to lung disease - the reduced risk in that portion of the sample was as statistically insignificant as the increased risk in the rest of the sample. In general, the study indicated no change in risk to anyone.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Yet that is exactly what the anti-smoking campaign has done in relation to the discredited EPA "study" for years. And, as mentioned in my posting, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute confirmed the WHO report and claimed that the results were supported by at least two additional large studies done in the states - so we're not talking about a "single study" (as I already made clear).

Anybody who has ever smoked: think back to the first time you took a drag off of a cigarette. You didn't like it, it made you cough, you felt queasy. That was my experience, anyway. Smoking is a self-destructive habit. However, I, personally, have nothing against smokers - to each his own. Just don't let your smoke travel into someone else's lungs - that's an imposition and it's not fair.

Welcome to the site, doomed planet.

This particular debate is to discuss the possible health risks which may or may not be associated with second hand smoke (ETS). We have a separate topic referenced in the opening post about smoking bans, if you'd like to expand upon your argument of imposition. If you would like to start another topic about the fairness of smoke affecting non-smokers, feel free to begin one. This one, however, will maintain a focus on the possible health risks of ETS.

You truly can't believe that it is okay to breath in smoke. Did you know the judge worked for the tobacco industry and was paid by them?

I was a bartender throughout college and every three months I was in the infirmary with an upper respiratory infection. I only worked on Friday and Saturday nights, but I had to breath in smoke for more than 8 hours. Not just from one smoker, but from sixty people smoking nonstop. You can't tell me that this is benifically to my health. Now much older, I don't even get colds or upper respiratory infections. I use to also be treated for Asthma because of all the smoke.

As I said you can prove or disprove anything with research. Research statistic means very little. Sometimes we just have to use common sense. No amount of smoke that has carbon monoxide can be good for you. Workers should not be exposed to such garbage just to pay their bills. Just as chemists working in the laboratory should not be exposed to unecessary toxic chemicals, just because they have choosen the field of study, SO there are laws and rules set by the FDA and OSHEA to regulate the amount of exposure to environmental toxic chemicals in the workplace.

I also don't want any extra smoke in my lungs just to enjoy a beer at lounge or club. There is no reason to expose anyone with extra toxin. I don't care about research. I have enough sense to know that is harmful. Just by knowning how the lungs work. You don't need a degree in biology or physiology to know this. Just as it is common sense that if you eat unhealthy and don't eat fresh fruits, vegetables and exercise you risk the chaance of my diet related health diseases. It's very basic. What you put into your body effects your body. Smoking or smoke from ANY source is not good for you. I as a consumer don't want to be forced to smoke or breath in unhealthy junk while indoors. I have no control over outside pollution, but indoor pollution must be controlled.

And perfume does not enter the lungs or affects the lungs as smoke does. Perfume does not have carcinogens and is not found in my blood or urine when I am around others, who wear it. It may come on my clothing or skin, but it is not absorbed via my bloodstream. Tobacco smoke and all the heavy metals, toxins, carcinogens, carbon monoxide and others linger and enters by lungs and cause damage at the cell level. Second-hand smoke also effects circulation and hearth rate of nonsmokers. Perfume does not and working away from the smoker does not work. Smoke travels a greater distance.

DALLAS -- May 21, 1997 -- Constant exposure to second-hand smoke -- in the workplace or at home -- nearly doubles the risk of having a heart attack, a landmark study of more than 32,000 women suggests. Results of the research appear in yesterday’s (May 20) American Heart Association journal Circulation. http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/29486.htm

My quote was directed towards your two links to the same WHO study on lung cancer risk for those exposed to second-hand smoke as a youngster. You responded with a critique of the EPA study. It reads like you are you saying the anti-smoking campaign said there are no health risk to second-hand smoke. I do not think you meant that. What two additional large studies other than the WHO one are you using to substantiate your position? What report did the Journal of the National Cancer Institute confirm? Did you mean the EPA one or the critique of the EPS one or the WHO one? Your post was confused and not clear to me.

I was pointing out your prior post was making claims and conclusions not substantiated by your links. Your reply has done nothing to change this. There is lots of verbiage but I have not found a logical thought process at its core.

Sorry - I edited my post to read "the Journal of the National Cancer Institute confirmed the WHO report". Apologies for the confusion. The other studies are mentioned in the link to the Journal (though I mention one of them in my original posting).

The point I was making was that the anti-smoking lobby is every bit as guilty of "scientific illiteracy" by citing a single, discredited study as the basis for their argument on ETS.


Which claims and conclusions are not substantiated by links? Everything I discussed arose from those links, but I'll re-source them more specifically if necessary.

Wertz, it seems that the links you posted specify that there is no risk of lung cancer, but ignores other diseases associated with ETS.



It seems more common problems with second hand smoke are sore throats and asthma, things of that sort, which arent necessarily life threatening (except asthma) but are definately some dangers of second hand smoke.

If you don't believe there are cancer causing elements in tobacco smoke go to the tobacco documents themselves.

Human Carcinogenesis Tobacco Carcinogenesis: Metabolic Studies in Humans
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2063628340-8364.html

Clean air junkies are so for a reason. Most of us were harmed by second-hand smoke or were bartenders or waiters, who had health problems due to environmental tobacco smoke. Do you believe all the known cancer elements in tobacco disappears when they hit the air?

The point should be if the tobacco company's scientist know about different cancerous elements within tobacco smoke and this compound is also found in the urine of non smokers. You call this an irritant? No it is more than an irritant. It is cancer causing.

Not only are potentially cancer causing element found in adult nonsmokers, but also in babies.

Reuters [03/02/99]
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/NewsAlert/Aug98/New...t82598/7056.htm

Researchers said on Tuesday they had found traces of a cancer-causing agent in the urine of newborn babies born to women who smoked.

Of 31 babies born to smokers, 22 had the chemical in the first sample of urine collected after birth, the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

NNK is known to cross the placenta from mother to baby, and causes cancer in animals.

Although nicotine itself is not considered to be a cancer-causing agent, some of its breakdown products are. Because of the high combustion of the chemicals within tobacoo smoke, some only present in the air for a fraction of a second, other linger around for even This breakdown is in secondhand smoke.

http://www.1stvitality.co.uk/health/cancer...ers_cancer.html

So, we can go on and on giving links about secondhand smoke--you may win some points and I may win some points-- but the point is I choose healthy lifestyles and I don't want them jeopardized because I want to go to a club and dance or socialize.

I have a right to go anywhere in American and not be exposed with POTENTIAL harmful substances that could possible be prevented.

Non smokers, don't even have the benefit of a filter when they inhale not one cigarette, but all the other people smoking around them in a club or bar.

A good article about secondhand smoke and chemical within is
http://www.tmfnet.org/PDF/smoke.pdf

Another point is that no one can say 100% that secondhand smoke will give you throat, ovarian, lungs, prostate or any other cancer or environmental-tobacco-smoke related illness. The human system varies too much to predict what relationship does secondhand smoke have on nonsmokers. Diet plays a role for the nonsmoker; does the nonsmoker exercise or take vitamins? yada yada yada. It can go on and on...

What secondhand smoke does to our system is that it creates extra free-radicals for those nonsmokers, who breathes in tobacco smoke in the body. Genes and other environmental factor also differs from individual to individual.

Our biological makeup is different from person to person and so are our lifestyles. Stress even plays a role in cancer and the immune system.

There are people, who drink alcohol like water and smoke 3 packs/ day and lived to be 90. There are others, who die from kidney failure at the age of 40 from alcohol related illnesses. Then there are those, who die of lung cancer or throat cancer at 45 years of age from smoking related illnesses.

Just as there are some people, who drink and drive and get home safe, but there are others, who kill themselves and others on the road. It is all about the potential to cause harm. As I said before, you don't have to believe that secondhand smoke causes cancer or any illness for it to happen. Just as many who drink and drive believe that they can drive okay, but ... you know the rest.

We can't predict potential in humans when our gene-makeup differs from male to female and between different ethnic groups. I could go on and on with stats how Asians, Whites and Blacks and Others relate differently to elements of absorption of secondhand smoke or cancer. But what does that mean. Not all Asians have the same gene pool and not all women have the same diet. So, we will never have sound data. You can never say show me the results to prove A causes B. Science does not work that way with humans. It works very well in laboratory animals, such as rats, but we are more complex than rats or even monkeys.

Smokers have the right to smoke. I was a smoker. I know the addiction well. Smokers just don't have the right to POTENTIALLY cause any one harm because of their habit or addiction. Simply as that.

So, Wertz you may believe that secondhand smoke is safe and maybe it is for your family and friend, so smoke as much as you want around them. You may be correct that it may only irritate them. I just hope you are not wrong.

I choose to protect my family and my friends from the potential dangers of tobacco smoke!

Please don't presume. I have never smoked in the homes of any of my immediate relatives (all of whom are non-smokers ) and rarely in the homes of non-smoking friends (unless invited to do so). When seeking housemates of my own, I have only ever considered other smokers. I only smoke in designated smoking areas in public - and even when one could smoke in restaurants or other private establishments in this state, I only did so if the smoking area was significantly separated from non-smoking areas (well, okay, except for bars, where my non-smoking would've had little impact on the already smoky environment) and if those in whose company I was were also smokers - or, very occasionally, after asking permission of non-smokers. I never requested that non-smokers sit in a smoking area. I always caution passengers that I smoke while I drive (and always crack the windows when I do).

Whether ETS poses minor health risks or is merely annoying, I tend to be overly considerate of others in this regard. I wish I could say the same for excessive scent-wearers!

In regards to this previous post:



Problems:
1) Your link to Judge Osteen does not contain the quote you attribute to it.
2) Your link to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute does not contain the quote you attribute to it.
3) Your last four links are all to the same study or a review of it instead of separate information as you seem to be indicating.

In summary, you have no information to support your statements about the EPA study. You have twice quoted material which did not contain your quotes. You were misleading about having multiple sources to support your position when there was only one. When I read the single source for support ing your position, I discover you have exaggerated its findings to claim something it did not address.

It looks like we need to outlaw cooking in restaurants also, recent studies of chinese women attributes lung cancer to the frying of meat. The fact is whatever danger second hand smoke is minimal. The evidence of toxins is not evidence of harm. When you go to a restaurant you are going to be exposed to toxins from perfumes, deoderonts and aftershaves, from toxins released in the cooking process and quite possibly from second hand smoke.

A great deal of human activity, in fact the very act of breathing, produces toxins. The fact that second hand smoke contains toxins is obvious. The evidence that the dose is high enough to cause any harm is not.

Please show me the toxins that are distributed in the air when cooking along with the fact that these toxins are found from cooking in our body. Your post is nonsense. Yes, if you are having a barbeque inside your house with charcoal and lighter fuel then it would be dangerous and it should be ban. Barbeques with charcoal does not belong indoors. Normal cooking on the stove gives off no main toxins. Cigarette smoke does have butane, tar and 40 none carcinogens.

You don't have these chemicals in cooking, but you do in environmental tobacco smoke. If you are going to debate don't post nonsense.



Here is a list of some of the well-known substances that are known to be dangerous.
1,1-DIMETHYLHYDRAZINE. This chemical is known to cause convulsions in animals. Exposure can also cause liver damage in humans from chronic (long-term exposure) to 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine. Exposure is usually from rocket fuel.
2-NITROPROPANE. is a solvent used in inks, paints, and varnish. Exposure can cause headaches, anorexia, nausea and vomiting. Known to cause severe liver and kidney damage.
4-AMINOBIPHENYL. It is no longer used in the workplace, has been used as a rubber antioxidant and a dye intermediate. Smokers were found to have higher levels of the breakdown of 4-aminobiphenyl in their blood than of non-smokers. 4-aminobiphenyl is known to cause cancer in humans. It is widely known in the scientific community as a potent bladder carcinogen. There is no known safe level of 4-aminobiphenyl. Short-term exposure to is known to produce headaches, lethargy, cyanosis, and blood in the urine.
1-AMINONAPHTHALENE- Used in dyes, rubber, and weed control. It has been shown to cause lung, liver, and leukemia in animals. Absorption occurs both by inhalation and through the skin.
2-AMINONAPHTHALENE. Banned or restricted use in industry, it is known to cause cancer in humans. There is no safe level of this substance.
4-AMINOBIPHENYL. No longer produced on a commercial scale because it is known to cause cancer in humans, especially cancer of the bladder. There is no safe level of this chemical.
ACETALDEHYDE. The main industrial uses of acetaldehyde include silvering of mirrors. Studies have shown that acetaldehyde causes cancer in animals and may cause cancer in humans. Known to irritate the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract of humans and animals. In animal studies, it was shown that acetaldehyde interfered with the exchange of nutrients from the mother to the placenta, resulting in growth retardation, malformation, delayed bone growth, and death of the fetus.
ACROLEIN. Main uses are herbicides and tear gas. Long-term effects include inflammation of the lungs, liver, and kidney. Acrolein is a strong irritant of the eyes and upper respiratory system of humans.
ACRYLONITRILE. It is used as a fumigant for tobacco. This chemical is suspected to cause cancer in humans. There is evidence to suggest that chronic exposure may result in deformation in the fetus and offspring.
BENZENE. Was used in industry to manufacture inks, rubber, lacquers, and paint remover. Known to cause cancer in humans. Prolonged exposure is likely to cause leukemia. Benzene is a highly toxic substance.
BENZO [A] PYRENE- BENZO [A] PYRENE (B [A] P is suspected to cause cancer in humans. There is a significant correlation between B [a] P exposure and skin cancer, dermatitis, respiratory disease, and emphysema.
CADMIUM. Most cadmium used in the United States today is obtained as a byproduct of the smelting of zinc, lead, or copper ores. Smokers have twice as much cadmium in their bodies than non-smokers. Long-term exposure to the substance has been linked to kidney stone formation, bronchiolitis, and emphysema.
CARBON MONOXIDE. Is a molecule that replaces oxygen in your body. It is one of the byproducts of smoking, as is the exhaust from your car. Carbon monoxide is so dangerous that without ventilation, one would die within minutes of breathing in this deadly gas. The math is quite simply. The more and longer you smoke, the higher percentage of carbon monoxide is in your blood. Resulting in less oxygen to your cells and brain. The brain thrives on Oxygen, and every cell in the body needs it to survive. Reducing oxygen by any means can only do harm.
CATECHOL. Main use in industry is rubber dye, insecticides, and photography. Catechol, when inhaled with benzo [a] pyrene (also found in tobacco smoke) is co-carcinogenic. High doses of Catechol causes increased blood pressure, upper respiratory tract irritation, kidney damage, and convulsions.
CRESOL. Mainly used in disinfectants, synthetic resins, dyes, fumigants, and explosives. Cresol is known to promote tumors in mice. Long-term exposure causes headache, nausea, vomiting, elevated blood pressure, impaired kidney function, blood-calcium imbalance, and marked tremors in humans.
FORMALDEHYDE. The main uses of formaldehyde in industry include fertilizer, dyes, disinfectants, germicides, preservatives, and embalming fluid. Formaldehyde is suspected of causing cancer in humans. It occurs naturally at 0.12 to 0.38 parts per BILLION [ppb]. Side-stream smoke increases this by 0.23 to 0.27 parts per MILLION [ppm], a 1000+ increase. Long-term exposure at levels greater than 0.1 ppm appears to be a risk for cancers of the lung, pharynx, buccal cavity, liver, bone, skin, prostate gland, bladder, kidney and eye, leukemia and Hodgkin’s disease. Formaldehyde exposure greater than 0.22 ppm is linked to respiratory symptoms such as cough, phlegm, chronic bronchitis, asthma, shortness of breath, and chest colds. Human eyes are sensitive to formaldehyde at concentrations of 0.01 ppm, and are irritated by formaldehyde at concentrations of 0.05 to 0.5 ppm.
HYDROGEN CYANIDE. The main uses of hydrogen cyanide in industry include fumigation as an insecticide. Hydrogen cyanide causes nasal irritation, confusion, headache, dizziness, weakness and nausea in humans at moderate doses. At higher doses, it causes asthenia, vertigo, weight loss and gastrointestinal problems.
HYDRAZINE. Confirmed carcinogen with neoplastigenic and tumorigenic data. Effects by ingestion: paresthesia, somnolence, nausea, or vomiting
INDENO[1,2,3-CD]PYRENE. A deadly human poison by ingestion, it causes cardiac arrhythmia, hallucinations, hypoglycemia, convulsions, and thyroid malfunction
LEAD. The main uses of lead in industry include alloys (solder, bronze, brass), paint pigments, storage batteries, glass, plastics, and ceramics. Lead is known to cause cancer in animals and may cause cancer in humans.
Lead is toxic and soluble in body fluids when inhaled, and lead poisoning effects on the brain may not be reversible. Lead exposure affects the development of fetuses. Children exposed to high levels of lead in the womb have been found to have developmental defects such as depressed intellectual development.
NICKEL. The main uses of nickel in industry include production of stainless steel, alloys, electroplating, coinage, and alkaline batteries. Nickel has been confirmed to cause cancer in humans.
NICOTINE. The main uses of nicotine in industry besides tobacco include insecticides (now mostly banned) and as tranquilizing darts for wildlife. Free-base nicotine in tobacco smoke is absorbed almost instantly by inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact. nicotine concentrates in the brain, kidney, stomach mucosa, adrenal medulla, nasal mucosa and salivary glands. Studies show that nicotine exposure can result in seizures, vomiting, depressions of the central nervous system, growth retardation, developmental toxicity in fetuses, and preterm birth with reduced body weight and brain development in animals. Mild nicotine poisoning in humans results in the following symptoms: vomiting, diarrhea, increase in respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, headache, dizziness, and neurological stimulation.
ORTHO-TOLUIDINE. Confirmed carcinogen with experimental neoplastigenic and tumorigenic data. Human systemic effects by inhalation: Urine volume increases, hematuria, and blood methemoglobinemia. Can produce headache, weakness, difficulty in breathing, air hunger, psychic disturbances, and marked irritation of the kidneys and bladder.
PHENOL. The main industrial uses of phenol include chemicals and drugs, disinfectants, and germicidal applications. Studies have shown phenol to be toxic to the respiratory, cardiovascular, hepatic, renal and neurological systems of animals. Higher doses may damage the lungs and central nervous system and induce convulsions in humans.
PYRIDINE. The main industrial uses of pyridine include solvents, pesticides and resins. Exposure to pyridine results in an increased production of blood platelets. Longer exposure causes nausea, headache, insomnia, nervousness, and abdominal discomfort in humans.
QUINOLINE. The main industrial uses of quinoline include, insecticides, herbicides, corrosion inhibitors and preservation of anatomical specimens. Quinoline causes genetic mutations and therefore may increase your risk of cancer. Repeated exposure damages the retina of the eye and affects vision. Repeated exposure may damage the liver. Quinoline is irritating to the eyes, nose, throat, and bronchial tubes and may cause sore throat, nosebleeds, cough, and phlegm. in the tissues of fish.
STYRENE. Styrene is used predominantly in the production of polystyrene and resins. It has been found to cause headaches, ocular and conjunctival irritation and diminished reaction time, fatigue, dizziness and nausea, reduced attention and manual dexterity, and reductions in color discrimination in humans.* Reproductive effects of styrene include a possible incidence of increase spontaneous abortion and number of abnormal sperm.
TOLUENE. The highest concentrations of toluene usually occur in indoor air from the use of common household products (paints, paint thinners, and adhesives) and cigarette smoke. The central nervous system is the primary target organ for toluene toxicity in both humans and animals.
Toluene is highly toxic and is a possible reproductive toxin. Inhaled, toluene appears in blood circulation within ten seconds and accumulates in body fat. Long-term low-level exposure results in headaches, lassitude, loss of appetite, disturbances in menstruation, reductions in intelligence and psychomotor skills. Higher exposure may cause encephalopathy, headache, depression, lassitude, impaired coordination, transient memory loss, impaired reaction time, dizziness, nasal discharge, drowsiness, and metallic taste in the mouth. The main uses of toluene in industry include rubbers, oils, resins, adhesives, inks, detergents, dyes, and explosives.
TOBACCO-SPECIFIC NITROSAMINES (NNN) is a carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamine (TSNA) found only in tobacco products. NNN is formed from nicotine directly and is the most abundant cancer-causing TSNA. NNN is a yellow, oily liquid that is known to cause nose, throat, lung and digestive tract cancer in animals. NNN may cause reproductive damage in humans. These is no safe level of exposure to this substance.
NNK [(4-methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone]. is a carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamine (TSNA) found only in tobacco products. NNK is a powerful lung carcinogen that induces tumors of the lung.
NAT (N-Nitrosoanatabine) is a possibly carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamine (TSNA) found only in tobacco products.
POLONIUM-210 (Radon). This material is deposited in the lungs and has been considered a major causative agent in the high incidence of lung cancer found in uranium miners.
VINYL CHLORIDE- Confirmed human carcinogen causing liver and blood tumors. Human reproduction is affected by inhalation, resulting in changes in spermatogenesis
With this list, I don’t want to mislead you and tell you that all of these chemicals exist at one time. Some do and some won’t. Some of the chemicals listed are highly unstable and exist for no longer than a millisecond, some may exist no longer than a microsecond, and others are in such low concentrations that they may have no significant effect. This is where you need to use your common sense. How can so much bad be good?

bayside - you are getting WAY off topic. That list of chemicals is irrelvant to this discussion (and quite the space eater ).

Stay on topic:

Once again it is the dose that is important, we are breathing in toxins at every breath. Unlike second hand smoke there are studies giving strong evidence that toxins produced from certain forms of cooking do contribute to lung cancer. It can be found here. Do a search at that site of "cancer chinese women cooking". There you will find 55 articles many of which document a causal relationship between certain forms of cooking and cancers. Next time you go into a restaurant don't inhale the aroma of cooking food, it contains toxins.

From baysides post::



Carbon Monoxide is a normal byproduct of human respiration. Once again people it is the DOSE that counts. That is why listing the toxins in a product is, as Jaime correctly pointed out, off topic. If you kiss your spouse you are getting the byproducts of human respiration, which includes the toxin carbon monoxide (CO) along with carbon dioxide. If you go to a gym the harder people are working out the more CO will be in the air. Similarly the air we breathe consists of 78% Nitrogen (N2) if you introduced nitrogen into an unventilated room you would also be dead within minutes.

Eating is a necessary biological function, smoking is not.....
deoderants, after shave, perfume are typically not used in quantities that would annoy others, altho I do know of one car pool that threatened to oust a lady unless she waited til after getting to work to splash on her perfume.
And just because we can't get perfectly pure air no matter what we do, that does not justify the smokers part in the pollution.

They have done studies in bars all around the world and have found high levels of carbon monoxide and at some places recorded dangerous levels.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/ab...tract/90/3/1363
http://www.smoke-free.ca/SL/COpaper.PDF

The point that I made before is the potential to cause harm. If these substance are found in the air and in the urine of nonsmokers than there is concern. The ability to get cancer depends on too many factors. As I mention before.

One study in a new york bar found more toxins in a bar than in our midtown tunnel. How can you debate that we should allow smoking in public places? Don't you care about your health? or if you smoke the potential harm you may be giving them.

A lot of these studies were done in Ireland, going to the bar to have a few drinks is commonplace in certain parts of world. So, bars do very well in places like Ireland. They found extremely high levels of carcinogens and carbon monixide levels. This is why Ireland is now smoke free.

Currently, 50 Irish bar-workers are taking legal action for ill health that they allege is due to passive smoking. According to the Vintners Federation: “If successful, these actions could have serious implications for the trade in general... but they will be very hard to prove in court”.1 Perhaps these bar workers are fortunate that they are not relying on the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) that is proposed for the UK.2 In its present form, the ACoP will permit bar workers to be exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) because it is seen more as a welfare issue to be controlled by ventilation than as a deadly risk. ETS, or “second-hand smoke”, consists of over 4,000 chemicals, of which somewhere between 40 and 60 have been identified as carcinogens. The carcinogens are released into the air by way of “mainstream” smoke from exhaled tobacco smoke and “sidestream” smoke arising from the burning end of the cigarette, cigar or pipe, or through the filter paper between puffs.3 The distribution of chemicals in sidestream and mainstream smoke can vary as a result of the type of filter on a cigarette or the weight of tobacco and paper consumed in smouldering. Most significantly, the qualitative nature of sidestream smoke varies from mainstream smoke, in that it is enriched with many of the carcinogens to be found in mainstream smoke, but that they are released at higher rates.3 The passive smoker (sitting next to a smoker) is exposed to as much benzene as the smoker gets from smoking six cigarettes and as much N-nitrosodimethylamine as the smoker derives from smoking a staggering 75 cigarettes.4

Jaime how is this off topic? These are the crux of the topic. It is the chemical within second-hand smoke and in the air that cause health risks. Some people are not aware of these chemicals found in second-hand smoke. It is not obvious. If tobacco smoke just had the addictive chemical nicotine, many would not worry. Nicotine actually is not a bad chemical. It helps parkison's desease, it reduces stress, etc. But nonsmokers are not getting the benefits of the Nicotine, but instead all the exhale smoke. How can you say that posting the topics are getting off the point?

True some of the substance are only there for a fraction of a second, some may not exist at all. We can't predict what chemicals will remain or be absorded in the body of a nonsmoker, but we can say that these chemical are the most dangerous to you when you smoke. This post is about the health risk. Not about the ban or if the government was correct banning smoking. It is about secondhand smoke and your health. Secondhand smoke = carcinogen chemicals. Carcinogen chemicals have the potential to cause health effects.

You may argue that the list is long, but this is not even a fraction of the chemicals found in secondhandsmoke.

Your logic, please Jaime, besides the point that this post may a space eater, but the text is less than 4k and the picture is pulled from my site, so the bandwidth does not effect your site.

You could have tied that together in the first place, bayside. If you want to discuss the moderation of this forum, PM me or a staff member. Do not further distract this debate with off topic commentary.

Also, don't double post. If you were the last person to post you merely need to go in and edit your last post.

TOPIC REMINDER (again ):

From bayside's post



Yes, it will be very hard to prove in court. The evidence of passive smoke causing harm is just not there.

I will refrain from listing the toxins produced by burning meat, heating cooking oils and human respiration.

More from bayside's post:



So we are assuming here that the smoker gets no sidestream smoke? Does it matter if the nonsmoker is 4 ft tall and his head is even with the ashtray? Or 7 foot tall with his head way above the ashtray? What if the ashtray is positioned next to the "victim" or farther away from him? Does air circulation in the bar play any role?

It seems to me that the smoker would, on average, get as much sidestream smoke as the poor 'victim'.

Herein lies the flaw in your argument, Bayside.

If you do not even know IF these chemicals exist (I am sure that most of them do) or for HOW LONG they exist, how can you make definitive answers about their effects on non-smokers?

How can you or BillAZ55 discard the idea that there are other environmental chemicals that may be just as harmful, such as perfume, cooking smoke, etc?

If you can ban one harmful, air-born chemical , you must ban them all.

I am a non-smoker and have never really smoked (except when intoxicated a few times...) I just don't see any overwhelming evidence that second hand smoke is a health risk. Anecdotal evidence is not enough. A thorough study is needed. Too bad when there was one done, the results did not match the predictions.

[quote=Amlord,Sep 1 2003, 05:37 PM] [QUOTE=bayside,Sep 1 2003, 12:59 PM]
How can you or BillAZ55 discard the idea that there are other environmental chemicals that may be just as harmful, such as perfume, cooking smoke, etc?

If you can ban one harmful, air-born chemical , you must ban them all.

[/quote]
MUST ban them all? What kind of logic is that? We both know that it isn't possible to ban them all, or to have perfectly clean air. But we CAN do away with some of the most noxious fumes. And I never discarded the idea that there are other harmful chemicals.
I do my part by avoiding those places that generate unhealthy fumes, but if the more militant smokers had it their way, they would be smoking everywhere, all the time, and the rest of the world would just have to suffer. That is the way it WAS a few years ago, not the way it IS now. Does anyone really think that we can go back to the way it was?
I can't think of any cooking smoke that gets into the seating area of any resturaunt that I visit, and I don't think very many cooks are inhaling it either. In this country, they use range hoods that suck the cooking fumes outside, where the smokers are.

You don't know for how long, or if at all, the chemicals are around in second hand smoke, yet you want to argue that because there is a speculative amount of carcinogenic chemicals in second hand smoke, with unpredictable effects on the passive smoker, that ETS is a definitive health risk for non-smokers?

Ultra-violet rays are a cancer causing agent. There are chemicals in aerosol cans which are cancer causing agents. Just as with cigarettes, the question is how much are you getting, and is that amount enough to pose a significant health risk? Just because the chemicals are there doesn't mean they are there with enough quantity, quality or duration to pose a threat to the health of bystanders.

It may also be good for us to consider that whatever ETS may contain as a whole, passive smokers don't typically seem to stand directly in front of a smoker, inhaling ETS in its entirety. Whatever remnants of chemicals there are in ETS, there is still only a fraction of that amount being inhaled by the passive smoker.

I'm seeing a lot about smoke as an irritant but little as a significant health risk. Trying to draw a connection between the presence of carcinogens in unknown amounts, with unknown absorption in the passive smoker, isn't going to cut it.

Also: I did look into one of the chemicals bayside made an early fuss about in regards to newborn infants and mature non-smokers alike, nitrosaminoketone (NNK). From what I've seen, bayside was correct in his statements regarding newborn infants. The danger to them, however, doesn't come from second hand smoke but rather from the chemical being metabolized and crossing over by way of the placenta. Even then, though, the amount is only one tenth that taken in by the mother (the direct smoker), and the amount measured in non-smokers is barely a third of that observed in the infants.

I am not sure how people are defining "significant". Is it only significant if mortality rates are changed by 5 years or more? Is it only significant if morbidity rates double? How about if they increase 5%?

I would say any measurable increase in morbidity rates is significant. The data does support this.

Are those saying second-hand smoke has no significant effect saying second-hand smoke has no effect on morbidity or do you have different standards for "significant"?

Another study, link can be found here

Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

Setting Adult population of California, United States.

Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

Main outcome measures Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.

Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. (end of quote)


35561 individuals examined over a nearly 40 year time period. No causal relationship between ETS and mortality showed up.

Everything has a potential of causing cancer or the potential to cause the body harm: red meat, chicken and hormones; salmon and mercury; carrots and lead; it goes on and on. The difference is the choice of eating meat or using and aerosol sprays, or deodorant with aluminum.

I go to a bar to dance, socialize, drink and not for unnecessary air pollution because someone needs to blow unnecessary pollutants in the air. It all about nicotine addition. It is not the smoke that they are addicted to but the the nicotine. Smokers can chew nicotine some gum in public or where a nicotine patch and still get their fix and they won't miss all the smoke and toxins they are blowing in the air.

Of course everything has a potential that can be either beneficial or not, to our body; this is why you as a human, with a brain, must use it to know what is good or what is bad. I choose not to eat meat, use ionizers in my home and car, drink lots of water, exercise, eat plenty of fruits and vegetable, have lots of sex--this decrease cancer, meditate and limit myself to unnecessary pollutants. I not going to live my life in a plastic bubble, but instead attempt to control the toxin in my life. This is why I worked hard for making New York smoke free. I knew I could control this and I knew there was more evidence to prove just how bad it is. You may instead choose a lifestyle with many risk, I don’t want to be 70 years old with high blood pressure, Diabetes, cancer and with Alzheimer's, so I choose preventative factors, which help me or may not.

There are many chemicals that are there for a fraction of a second as well as those that linger for three hours after no one is smoking. These are the ones that researchers have measured in the Ireland, Canadia, California, New York, etc. I don't know how well you understand how our body works and the physiology of the cells, but no amount of carbon monoxide is good for our cells. Carbon monoxide competes with oxygen. So, if we just focus on the amount of carbon monoxide, NNK and NAT from second hand smoke, this is enough for me to want to ban it. Still there are about 20 more which are know to be carcinogenic.

NNK [(4-methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone] is a carcinogenic Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamine (TSNA) found only in tobacco products.
NNK is a powerful lung carcinogen. NNK induces adenoma and AC tumors of the lung.

There is NO safe level of exposure to NAT. This is always present in the air from secondhand smoke and only from in natural from humans smoking cigarettes.


NAT (N-nitrosoanatabine) is a possibly carcinogenic Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamine (TSNA) found only in tobacco products.

Smoking is not a civil right for smokers when it has the potential to harm people(nonsmoker) without their consent. If I want to buy aerosol spray instead of pumps, salmon with mercury, Big Macs with fat and Haagen daaz or drink jack and coke all night. This is my right as a consumer, but no one has the right to expose another of potentially harmful drug against their will.

The main event at a bar is NOT a room filled with NAT, NNK and Carbon monoxide. Going to a bar for a guy is instead about sports on TV, women and alcohol. I don't go to bars to breath other people's exhaled cigarette smoke. I come to release and unwind, not to have difficulty breathing.

If you ever worked in a bar for over 8 hours every other day or every weekend, you would know and feel just how dangerous secondhand smoke is, unless you had some super lungs and super genes that secondhand smoke did not effect you. No employer has the right to let their customers harm me or any women, who is pregnant, who is a bartender by professional should be allow to work as long as she wants without that business causing harm to her innocent unborn child or fetus.

It just makes better sense to go with chance that reduces risk and that is banning smoking in all public places.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...9&dopt=Abstract


Levels of environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants are approximately 1.6 to 2.0 times higher than in office workplaces or other businesses and 1.5 times higher than in residences with at least one smoker. Levels in bars are 3.9 to 6.1 times higher than in offices and 4.4 to 4.5 times higher than in residences.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/ab...tract/90/3/1363
we can measure about 20 to 30 different chemical which affect the welfare of humans. The American Medical Society, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, and all our leading health experts all find the same results that ETS is dangerous. Why is this so hard to grasp?

One study concluded that air quality in the typical smoke-filled bar is 50 times worse than at the entrance to the Holland Tunnel.
I sat and listen to all the testimony from patrons of bars and restaurant workers, bartenders, people with asthma, pregnant women and how secondhand smoke has harmed them in the hearing at city hall for the ban. Many had serious illnesses and some deaths due to second hand smoke. One Physicians testified that 30 minutes spent breathing second-hand smoke in a bar is worse than the Holland Tunnel at rush hour, while smokers maintained it is their right to risk their health and they should the levels of carbon monoxide in the Holland tunnel and in a couple of bars in NY.

Of course the holland tunnel has state of the art and the most expensive air purifiers to filter out carbon monoxide and other exhaust, but to ask every local bar and restuarant to install air purification unit, would leave only the rich owners able to comply.

We're not discussing your personal comfort here, bayside. The discussion on the smoking ban is located in the Constitutional Debate, as we have already mentioned. Save your opinions on smoking bans for that thread.

I highlighted your comment about more evidence, because that's what we're looking for. You can tell me all about the carcinogens you want, but at what dose do they become a problem? Exactly how much danger is posed by ETS and what is there to support these claims?


No amount of carbon monoxide is good, but it's already here. Billions of cars produce carbon monoxide every day, but I don't see anyone claiming to have contracted cancer or heart disease because of the automotive industry. There are potentially harmful chemicals in most of our every day products, but I also don't see anyone attempting to exalt the dangers of common cosmetics.

Maybe it's because while these chemicals do pose a potential problem, there simply is not enough exposure or a high enough level of the chemicals present to pose the hypothetical problem(s).

My search for nitrosoanatabine turned up several sites including this one, declaring "data... inadequate to evaluate the carcinogenicity of N'-nitrosoanatabine to experimental animals" with even less to go on with humans. It's a 1985 study so I'm open to any more recent reports saying otherwise. I think it's good to note that the experimental animals were also not simply exposed to sidestream smoke but rather had subcutaneous injections. I may be taking some liberty here, but I would think there would be even less danger from amounts of NAT possibly absorbed by passive smokers than subcutaneously injected.

In regards to NNK, I addressed that in my last post, seeing little danger for the passive smoker. While it may be carcinogenic at some levels over an extended period of time -- or to the unborn fetus of a smoker whose body metabolizes and passes the chemical through the placenta -- it doesn't appear to much threaten those in the non-smoking community.

If I sat next to a smoker for the duration of his or her life sucking in every last bit of sidestream smoke they ever puffed out, maybe I would get cancer. That simply isn't how it is distributed. It may linger enough to irritate those with asthma, or to sting the eyes of sensitive passers-by, but even then nobody is inhaling the whole of second hand smoke.

In eighty years of life I'm unlikely to take in even close to the number of chemicals from second hand smoke that a smoker of five years will take in from direct smoke. It's likely that a five year veteran won't get cancer or suffer any long term effects from their smoking stint excluding other health factors. Yet the way some would portray it here, random exposure to ETS is the cause for illnesses from lung cancer to heart disease.

It appears to me there is little to no danger presented unless you're going to bottle it up or ensure that you expose yourself to it in an unventilated locale for extended periods of time. While it may not be good for you, it appears to pose little threat without extensive exposure.

Your link, bayside, discusses the inhalation of steady-state sidestream smoke, measuring carbon monoxide in bars for up to three hours in areas with heavy smoking. What they came away with was a conclusion that such exposure could be sufficient to promote "arteriosclerotic plaque development."

If I leave my car running in a garage for long enough, I guess it could pose a pretty big risk too. The thing is, we don't. As with a running car in a garage, sidestream smoke may begin to pose a danger when confined in large amounts, but in and of itself it appears to me to be of minimal concern.

Gray Seal: I resent your implications - in the extreme. While I wouldn't quite consider your posting a reportable personal attack, attempted manslaughter of the messenger rather than a critique of the message remains a rather unconscionable and entirely fallacious tactic. Especially when, as here, the attack relies on deliberate misreading of the original post as well as providing utterly false information.


Problems with your problems:

1) I attribute the quote to Judge Osteen's "ruling", not to the MEMORANDUM OPINION (to which I linked). Forgive me for supplying additional information which summarized his opinion. As you clearly went through all of my sources with a fine-toothed comb, you will know that his ruling is quoted at one of them. But you are right: I should probably have provided yet another link in this posting.

2) My link to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute does contain the quote I attribute to it: page 1449, paragraph two, lines two and three. It also contains footnotes to two other studies cited by the Journal.

3) All I was "indicating" (whatever you decided to read into my motivations) is that I am providing sources for everything which I posted. Regarding the "last four links": the first is to the NCBI which provides a prospectus on the WHO study; the second is to the Hittman Chronicle which quotes the Daily Telegraph article which, unfortunately, I could not find archived at their own site; the third, granted, also refers to The Hittman Chronicle, where the WHO results are posted; the fourth is to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute article. That would be four links, three discreet sources.

In summary, there is plenty of information to support my statements about the EPA study, both at the Hittman Chronicle and in Judge Osteen's memorandum (both of which are cited in my posting - with links). Sources for both disputed quotes are provided. I would ask what you feel has been exaggerated, but I fear it would simply prompt more "exaggeration" on your part.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are either an incautious reader or are overcome with emotion on this topic rather than that you are simply lying in an effort to smear my character.

Please do not address this further here. If you wish to make more unfounded allegations, I will consider it a personal attack - and I will report you. Thanks.

If you have a problem with the WHO study, please post it here - that might actually contribute to the debate. Otherwise, you are welcome to take it up with the World Health Organization. But don't complain to me about the conclusions reached by their study - I did not conduct their research for them.

I did make a mistake in regards to your quote from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The paper does contain the section you have quoted. Please forgive my mistake.

I stand by by the rest of my critique of your posting. It may be confusing but the Journal of the National Cancer Institute study is the WHO study. Look at the listed contributors, the size of the sample ( 650 ), the population sampled and the timeframe of the study and it is the same.

You have used one source and presented it as four once and three with this last posting.

The WHO/Journal of the National Cancer Institute study does conclude there is no link between exposure to ETS as a child and lung cancer. However, you have repeated claimed this study found there to be no link between ETS and any health problems.

I appreciate learning more of the data on the relationship between ETS and health problems. I do not appreciate misinformation. I do not usually take the time to confirm presented data and links provided. It is great when people who have taken the time to research information provide this information to the rest of us on AmericasDebate. When you had the claim of a study proving there was no connection between second-hand smoke and any health problems, I had to check it out. That would be a profound conclusion and I wanted to see how well the study was done. That is when I found out your links did not substantiate what you were saying. That made me angry. I hope I channeled that angry in a constructive manner in regards to the second-hand smoking discussion.

I thought it a good idea to let others know about the problems with your posting. Not everyone will follow the links. It is important to have correct information in this important discussion. I have learned a lot from the discussion and looking up various professional studies. The WHO study for example, though not supporting your argument, was well done and provided some good information.

(On a personal note, it seems that lung cancer is much more likely to be caused by chronic irritation than exposure to carcinogens. Certain asbestos crystals are very good irritants, for example. Lung cancer from cigarettes might be caused by the deposits made on the lining rather than the carcinogens in the fumes. It also seems that chronic irritation once stopped will no longer have a future effect.)

I was attempting manslaughter on your posting rather than upon yourself, Wertz. You were sloppy this time when researching the subject. I have found your past input on AmericasDebate to be interesting. I might take future factual statements from you with a grain of salt but I will still be reading them. I hope the errors you made to be an exception and not the rule.

My apologies. It was my understanding that the basis of this thread was the EPA study to which Abs made reference five times in his opening to this thread. I'd thought I had made it clear in my posting that it was the EPA study about which Judge Osteen had ruled. I had thought it was clear that the WHO study and the EPA study were what was being compared in the rest of my posting. I had also thought that it had been understood that the EPA study itself had focussed on lung cancer - and at the time of my posting, no links to any other studies relating to any other kind of health problems had been posted by anyone. Sorry - I though it was kinda obvious that I had been sticking to the topic.

I did not "present" my sources as anything. What you may have presumed is your own business. I presented Judge Osteen's findings regarding the EPA study, I presented a link to details on the WHO study, and I presented a link to the JNCI which I said - in my first posting - "confirmed the findings of the WHO study" and mentioned that their findings were in accord with at least two other large-scale studies, which they cited. That is a total of three studies and one court ruling referenced. It was not my intention to distort the findings of the WHO study or the Journal's confirmation of its findings; it was not, as you seem to have been implying since, my intention to mislead.

In essence, my posting simply said "The EPA study linked ETS with lung cancer and claimed it was, therefore, a health risk; the EPA study has been contradicted, lung cancer cannot be linked to ETS and is not, therefore, a health risk". You must bear in mind that the Canadian report to which you linked, for example, had not yet appeared. The "at least for now" with which I concluded my posting even implied that it was possible that there were further links to be explored.

In any event, my subsequent posts (those which have addressed your contributions) have responded to the style of your rebuttal - "scientific illiteracy" and the like - and defended the post I submitted in relation to lung cancer research. We appear to be debating at cross-purposes to an extent...

One question to all: How come smoking is not allowed in hospitals?

I guess you did not read my post. Due to there are huge difference between human, genes, nutrition, exercise, etc. There is no way to determine the effects of ETS on a population with true relevance. As I reported there is NO SAFE LEVEL of those carcinogens. Would you prefer a small amount of arsenic in your water or none. I choose the none. If I breathe in these unwanted chemical INDOORS from anothers person and it is in my urine. This makes me mad.

Yo