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

[TOUGH STOUGH]

LOL!!!!!!! So often, you give me a good laugh!!!!!!!

[SheLion]

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.

Also, the following was written by Michael in his published book "Anti-Brains:"

The Helena Study is a CROCK

Thora, and anyone else who would like to rebut the Antis' media blitz today, all you need to do is go to the Helena Study Rapid Responses page of the British Medical Journal itself.   The page has been "disappeared" and hidden from general public view by the BMJ since the release of the study in its print journal on Friday, but is still accessible to anyone who knew the URL from the previous three weeks that the criticisms were published and sat there without rebuttal.  That URL is:

 

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1

 

The only "Rapid Response" now publicly available to the regular site visitors is simply a bad piece of rap poetry that actually has very little to do with the study.  (it's accessible by going to bmj.com, clicking on "Current Issue", then "Editors' Choice", then the "p.977" hotlink, and then finally "Read responses" on the right side menu).  I think you'll all agree that it's a very poor substitution for the detailed and reasoned criticisms made on the official page that had been on the web since April 5th.

 

I would ask that folks do not at this point blast the BMJ itself for the disappearence of this information.  After discussing the issue with a few email friends I've come to believe that there is at least a *possibility* that the Journal, given its fair treatment of our opposing views in the past, may not be directly responsible for the cover-up.  I should know more in the next day or two as I've emailed the Journal editors and am waiting upon a response.

 

Meanwhile however, the criticisms themselves, the URL of the page where people can go to see them, and the simple fact that the critical web page has been hidden from the general public since the formal printed release of the study on Friday should be spread far and wide for all to see.   The Helena Study is a crock, had NOTHING directly to say about secondary smoke from its own observations, and its presentation by Antismokers over the past year, and particularly the past few weeks, by the Antis and the media has been nothing less than outright public fraud.  (Note again: *please* do not jump into accusing the BMJ itself at this point... they *may* not be a direct party to the coverup of the web pointer, at least not in a conscious attempt to bury our arguments, and have not themselves editorially endorsed the study or its presentations.) 

 

Good luck and be careful in what you say: "Fraud" within the context of scientific discussion is a very serious charge: The BMJ itself has done nothing fraudulent, and even the studies themselves have not been shown to be fraudulent, although we disagree with them or have criticisms of them.  The presentation of those studies to the public is a different story.  That presentation needs to be STRONGLY and PUBLICLY corrected as soon as possible, in letters to editors, phone calls to radio shows, postings on any of the message boards you frequent and so forth.

 

The Antismokers have overstepped their bounds this time: the fraud they're trying to commit in the misrepresentation of the Helena study is basic and clear for all to see who even take a few minutes to investigate: we just need to spur the interest out there to get the investigations made.  Remember though: the target is NOT the BMJ: it took courage for them to give the Antismokers this golden opportunity to make fools of themselves and expose themselves as liars.

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.

Also, the following was written by Michael in his published book "Anti-Brains:"

The Helena Study is a CROCK

[SheLion]

My one grandmother smoked three packs of unfiltered Camels for years and lived to be 86 years old. Died of old age.

My other grandmother never smoked a day in her life, and died full of cancer at age 42.

When one's number is up, it won't matter one iota if we ever smoked or not.

[SheLion]

LOL!!!!!!! So often, you give me a good laugh!!!!!!!

[planekT]

I didn't need this article to know that second hand smoke is not very dangerous. Smokers have to suck down two packs a day for decades before they ever develop cancer.
How does anyone figure that being exposed to a few whiffs of diluted cigarette smoke in the air is going to kill them?

[Annie03]

When one's number is up, it won't matter one iota if we ever smoked or not.

That's my take as well.

[planekT]

...Johnny Carson regretted that he ever smoked...

Yea. Dead at the tender young age of 79. Damn those cigarettes.

[WildTurkey]

Let's have that list of non-smokers who lived forever

Hummm. Maybe I should make the list "Famous people that died from lung cancer". Please forward any you can think of to me. Thanks.

[shield]

Certain political outcome....so instead of real facts...we get a whole bunch of liars....from the liars.

[TexasCowboy]

"Let's have that list of non-smokers who lived forever"

I'd give a lot for your biting wit!

[TexasCowboy]

"How does anyone figure that being exposed to a few whiffs of diluted cigarette smoke in the air is going to kill them?"

Watch the reaction of some anti-smoking nazis to tobacco smoke.

They really do!

[Madame Dufarge]

We're born, we die, everything in between is that phenomenon called "life."

Why are you smoking Nazis so concerned about people who die because they smoke?

There's a morbid fascination with death that you all seem to share that reeks of cowardice.

The mortality rate is 100%, no matter how you live.

How terribly, terribly, offended you must be that other adults are livng their lives, not yours

[TexasCowboy]

We get hit with anecdotal stories about the horrendous deaths from smoking so I might as tell one from the other side:

Good farmer friend in Ganado, Texas.

Smoked unfiltered Camels since age 12.

Ate the same breakfast for sixty years - eggs, biscuits, gravy, real butter and bacon.

Worked every day except Sunday up until he dropped dead on the way to the barn at 5:30 in the morning.

He was 86.

[exnavychick]

Hummm. Maybe I should make the list "Famous people that died from lung cancer".

Sure, and when you can *prove* that their lung cancer was caused by smoking or second hand smoke, then it would impress me.

Causation and correlation, my friend. The two are NOT equal.

[T.Smith]

"Why don't you people grow up?" I don't like cigarette smoke so I need to grow up?

[TexasCowboy]

"There's a morbid fascination with death that you all seem to share that reeks of cowardice."

They're so afraid of things that might kill them that they can't live!

Yeah, I'd call that the epitome of cowardice.

[Madame Dufarge]

I don't like you, but I'm not trying to ban you by the force of law.

Get it?

[Madame Dufarge]

They're so afraid of things that might kill them that they can't live!

Never got chosen for a game of pickup-ball in their lives, I can almost guarantee it.

Useless as a shortstop, catcher,etc.....("I might get hit in the face"), formed their life's philosophy.

[WildTurkey]

Question. Do you believe that there is NO link between smoking and lung cancer?

[T.Smith]

I'm not trying to ban you either. You smokers have this crazy notion that I'm trying to get smoking banned. It doesn't matter how many times I state my conviction that private businesses should be able to choose for themselves, you all are still convinced that I want you outlawed. It must be either a victim mentality or a guilty conscience.

I'll say it again: I think smoking is an obnoxious, stinky habit that is engaged in by the none too bright. But, you should be free to do it - without the burden of excessive taxes intended to modify behavior - until you keel over if you like.