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
OMG..LOLOL. Wasn't my image, but that sure works!
Tell it Texas Cowboy!
Exactly. People I've known like that are sour pusses who look and act much older than they are. What a burden to live ones life as a busy-body judge/jury/executioner. I say MYOB and live and let live.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many that are willing to prostitute themselves and their abilities for the almighty dollar. It's annoying. I am not sure what is worse...someone who does something like that for the money, or someone who is blind to the facts or willing to ignore them because it doesn't fit what they feel SHOULD be true. I know I am guilty of that myself, from time to time, so I'm gonna go with the money thing, lol!
Oh! But it's ME he zero's in on. He must think I have one hellava hold over everyone. Jeez!
Not a doubt in my mind. Should be one of our more fun weekends.
I swear to Gawd, we have a hole here in FR that we are falling into at times down into DU Hell. I hope someone can seal that hole up in here. It's getting a little two-sided for my liking!
Yeah!
Like TSmith's booger picking!
:O)
Go Pats!
ooooeeeee....and his (gulp) farting. What a guy!
I wish he would grow some ah........class!
He is WAY too uncool for THIS gal! And he calls ME an obnoxious old bitch. LOL!
As a child, I would wake up to the great aroma blends of Maxwell House and Marlboro. (Perhaps that prepared me for another olfactory sense pleasure: bus fumes!)
You just know, TC, that there's a Gnatzie out there just itching to claim that a 65-year old man who doesn't smoke can clear 20 acres of timber.
This is "evidence" that smoking cuts productivity in half.
It's true. Even we non-smokers are powerless to resist.
I know. I don't mind intelligent discourse and disagreement. I do mind a name-calling and insults.
I'd love to know where they get these statistics. Seems to me that it's all anecdotal crap from people with an axe to grind. It's crap, all of it, subjective b.s. with no credible evidence. People can cite personal examples all day long, but half the time, what they're saying is just an assumption based on appearance and skewed by their personal opinion that smokers are lazy, intellecutal lightweights. Whew! Can you tell that makes me mad? LOL
Why no, no - not at all.......
You're up to 12 already----amazing!
LOL. and intellecual=intellectual. I just proved their point for them, didn't I?
:) LOL
You are an absolute disgrace!
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.