Posted on 01/28/2005 1:50:34 PM PST by SheLion
Just how harmful is environmental tobacco smoke?
Not as harmful as the Environmental Protection Agency or those anti-secondhand smoke commercials would have one believe, according to Roger A. Jenkins, Ph.D., consultant to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Chemical Sciences division.
Jenkins presented "Human Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Is What You See What You Get?" at ORNL this week.
"Some people wish I didn't have the findings I have," Jenkins said. "Others say, 'Gee, if this is true, why does the EPA continue to talk about this?' [The research] steps on people's toes, and that's exactly what I want it to do."
Environmental tobacco smoke is a highly diluted mixture of sidestream (70 to 90 percent) and exhaled mainstream (10 to 30 percent) of tobacco smoke.
"'Secondhand' smoke is probably misleading, since most ETS is derived from smoke which is emitted by the smoldering firecone of a cigarette," Jenkins said.
According to Jenkins, the typical smoker inhales 480 milligrams of smoke a day and 32 milligrams of nicotine per day. In a home where smoking is unrestricted, the typical non-smoker will inhale the equivalent of .45 milligrams of smoke particles and .028 milligrams of nicotine.
There are several science-related hurdles to overcome in educating the public about ETS, Jenkins said. The first is getting the public to understand the difference between personal beliefs and science.
"In a society where there are still serious debates about evolution, this can be a real challenge," he said.
The second is avoiding the "means justifying the end syndrome," which Jenkins says involves the distortion of science in the name of preventing youth from smoking.
The third major hurdle is demanding "public policy types" provide perspective for the facts they declare.
"Sure, there are 43 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) in ETS, but there are also probably about 40 carcinogens in diesel exhaust and wood smoke," Jenkins said.
Indoor air pollution is also caused by many things other than non-tobacco sources, including cleaning, cooking, consumer products like Raid and wood burning.
"As (physician) Paracelsus said in the early 1500's, 'the poison is in the dose,'" Jenkins said. "We still continue to eat lettuce and take showers despite their carcinogens. Life is risky business."
Jenkins is simply remaining true to his profession by bringing forth this politically incorrect information, he says.
"When you start tinkering with science because you want to achieve some political aim, you are no longer a scientist."
Jenkins retired in September from his position as leader of the Environmental Chemistry and Mass Spectrometry Group in the Chemical Sciences Division at ORNL. He has authored or co-authored more than 45 open literature publications in the area of field analytical chemistry and tobacco smoke characterization and human exposure. He is the lead author of "The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measurement," Second Edition.
Jenkins has also acted as an expert witness in several high-profile litigations involving environmental and mainstream tobacco smoke composition and exposure
Me: Regardless of how I couch that comment within three or four posts somebody gets upset and calls me a name (Nazi is a popular one)
You:"If it quacks like a Nazi.."
I said, in my first post, "Secondhand smoke: Not as unhealthy as some claim, but still obnoxious as hell." Please explain to me how this makes me genocidal or a socialist.
qam, qam, qam....I'm disappointed in you. How can you post a bunch of pictures of smoking celebrities and NOT include Mel Gibson???!
Tsk, tsk!
; )
Regards,
Definitely do, frannie!
Thank you!
I've been following the smoking threads for a few years and over and over again the antis say they don't like the smell. Health is occasionally the issue,but not often.
They just don't like the smell.
Christy Turlington is an anti NOW. She used to be a chain smoker.
Reformed whores, and all that...
Regards,
bump
For the 1000th time, ENC, I think you should be able to smoke all the live-long (no pun intended) day. I'd far, far rather not be around it, but I don't want to see it banned. Can everybody, please, just concede that point so that we can move on?
Let's start over and see if we can have a nice, gentle (or genteel) discussion. I think smoking smells bad and I know that it destroys a persons' body. I'm curious to know what keeps a person smoking into their 30's, 40's, 50's and beyond. Pretend that we are friends and we are having a drink, you light up and I say, "Gee, ENC, why would you do that?" What would you say?
Well, alcohol will definitely age a person, but any dermatologist will tell you that the most detrimental thing to skin is the sun.
My face has worn out three bodies, but the sun did most of it.
Yes, from what I understand, she quit smoking and launched her crusade when her father died from emphysema. It's understandable. I don't know enough about her otherwise to state if she is obnoxious about it. :)
I would say, "It's really none of your business WHY I do that."
Is that really a hard concept for you to grasp?
Just plain old age did it to me! LOL
So much for our friendly discussion.
through=throw
You missed my point entirely, because I think you're just having fun arguing. That's all well and good, but I don't feel like arguing for arguing's sake.
Let's just leave it here, all right? Have a good night.
I asked a simple question, and I'll ask it in a different way:
Is a person's private right to do as they please with their body any of your business?
They get on mine, too. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.