The 'truth' about tobacco smoke

oakridger.com ^ | January 28, 2005 | Ellen Rogers

[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

[roylene]

In addition the WHO (world health organization) conducted a 40 years study that showed that there is no statistical evidence that second hand smoke is harmful.
They added that there may be a few people who are sensitive to smoke as they are sensitive to other small particulates.

[Madame Dufarge]

Namely, nagging perfect strangers and shooting daggers with their eyes.

I know, they're the kind of people I've avoided my whole life.

Shallow, self-centered, boring and hostile are terms that come to mind.

They're the kind of people who've set the parameters of their life so narrowly that they miss out on the big wide show going on around them.

The smoking Jihad is the club they've been looking to join their whole lives.

[brooklin]

"Sure, there are 43 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) in ETS, but there are also probably about 40 carcinogens in diesel exhaust and wood smoke,"

I enjoyed second hand smoke at a bar.
Don't get too excited, when the smoke is compred to exhaust, it kinda' loses the glamour don't ya think?

[TomGuy]

Yeh.

Reminds me of the soda pop sweatener a couple of decades ago. All the 'health concerns' were up in arms about its dangers. But, if one read the research, it took something like 800 sodas per day for 20 years to get cancer. [Anyone drinking 800 sodas per day deserves what they get. lol]

[marty60]

I'm still glad I convinced my kids not to smoke.

[Sir Gawain]

Especially, the change in a womans skin, because she smokes, is apparent more than the woman cares to know.

Yep.

[trumandogz]

Johnny Carson regretted that he ever smoked.

[exnavychick]

Yesterday marked my 2nd year without a cig, after 40 years of puffing.

Pardon me for butting in, but...hey, that's awesome! :)

[bjcintennessee]

ping

[exnavychick]

LOL!

[Bigh4u2]

Johnny Carson died of Emphysema!

Although the tar in cigarettes might have aggravated the situation, it wasn't the main cause.

He had the same condition that I have.

It's called 'chronic breathing disorder' which is brought on in most people by 'age'.

Some people are less susceptible (George Burns comes to mind) than others, but the condition exists in everyone and the older they get, the worse they get.

People who are highly susceptible should avoid smoking.
Many 'non-smokers' also die from this condition.

[T.Smith]

Secondhand smoke: Not as unhealthy as some claim, but still obnoxious as hell.

[Bigh4u2]

Yeah!

The WHO knew about this a long time ago.

"UK Sunday Telegraph...

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official


Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.





The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.





The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."





Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."



This article was pulled almost as fast as it was reported!

[TexasCowboy]

"It's about time they hear the 'truth.'"

Why is it so difficult to accept that these organizations are driven by a political agenda?
They don't get grant money for politically incorrect ideas.

These are the same people who believed in the benefits of thalidomide and who gave us the debacle of Phen-Fen.
I don't believe their findings could ever be considered sacrosanct judging from their past history.

Back during the Clinton Administration when the EPA was trying to justify forcing newly constructed refineries at Texas City to install million dollar scrubbers for their air effluent, monitors were placed in Houston to determine the particulate matter which was being inhaled by pedestrians.
These monitors were placed at curb level.
Do you know of anyone who breathes at curb level?

We all know the ineptitude of our governmental agencies and the hundreds of false alarms which have been sounded by the medical community, yet a large portion of the population accepts their findings on second hand smoke with no question.
WHY?

Because that's what you and they WANT to believe!

[TexasCowboy]

"Johnny Carson regretted that he ever smoked."

Yeah, when my ex-FIL was diagnosed with fatal emphysema, the doctor told him, self-righteously, that it was his own fault for smoking so long.

He'd never smoked anything in his life.

[Humidston]

Congratulations! (I just passed my fourth year as well... All due to emphysema.)

Now all I inhale is my Spiriva inhaler, but I still love second hand smoke.

[qam1]

HUH? So smoking causes you to be ugly, Well lets look at some famous smokers

Russel Crow	Nicole Kidman	Ann Coulter
Aronld Schwarzenegger	Shannon Doherty	Paulina Porizkova

Now look at (in)famous Anti-smoking Gnatzies

Adolf Hitler	Stanton Glantz	Hillary Clinton
Christine Quinn	Ruth Ann Miner	Rob Reiner

Methinks it's overly stressing yourself about something as mundane as whether or not somebody is smoking on somebody elses private property is what causes you to become ugly

[TexasCowboy]

"but I still love second hand smoke."

Okay, G. Next time we have a cup of coffee together, remind me to blow some smoke in your face.

Good to see you, old time friend!

[exnavychick]

I know. I keep bringing that up, but it always seems to fall on deaf ears. Tobacco companies, special interest groups, heck, even the government...please. I am not going to buy the conclusions of any reports done by these folks or anyone else with an axe to grind. I would be very persuaded, however, if the studies they conducted ended up contradicting their premise, lol! Plus, they'd get kudos for being brave enough to publish, unlike the WHO clowns.

Independent scientists, or a study done by scientists with different schools of thought originially...that might be a study with some integrity. Nobody I know wants to make decisions based on bad or questionable science, for Pete's sake. They do everyone a disservice by promoting their agendas while ignoring or downplaying the facts.

[TexasCowboy]

"Methinks it's overly stressing yourself about something as mundane as whether or not somebody is smoking on somebody elses private property is what causes you to become ugly"

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

PERFECT, QAM1!

Even though my face looks like the surface of the moon, I don't think it had anything to do with smoking.

If you work 45 years in the sun, you ain't gonna have pretty skin!