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
This may seem wierd. But here goes. I am not a smoker. I sort of smoked (non chain, sporadic) for a few years in my late teens and early 20s then stopped cold turkey (I had never been addicted). All of my life, I have actually somewhat enjoyed second hand smoke. Especially when someone first lights up, I love that smell and I always have, ever since I was a toddler. Anyhow, for what it's worth. I guess I am just a natural, non smoking appreciator of tobacco! LOL ... :=)
I always thought someone was attempting to blow smoke.
The confirmation is great!
~cough~
-unc.
The tiniest unhealthy reddish-browning of the tiny blood vessels in her skin, are so remarkable, they are a warning, yet go unnoticed.
Interesting statistic: 9 out of 10 people who buy cigarettes at gas filling stations, are women; and among them, most do that buying on their way home from work; and after that, on their way out for the evening.
Tragic.
I love second hand smoke. I don't smoke often because my husband throws a fit if I smoke. So I am stuck with just enjoying second hand smoke. I LOVE IT~! I go to my favorite liquor store, Peter's Cut Rate in Angleton TX, just because everyone who works there smokes and I love the experience. Call me crazy... I don't mind.
i agree...i have always loved the smell of tobacco
My father was a cigar/tobacco salesman when I was growing up. We used to sneak little cigars off his van and take them out in the woods to smoke them, my girlfriends and I did that. hee hee hee
You are right, you can tell a smoker, especially female, by her facial skin. It discolors the face and causes deep ugly wrinkles. That is true. I can spot a smoker from a mile away, after they are a certain age. And they do develop a terrible cough/hack.
Keep up the good work!!!!....Bob
I am the SAME way about cigar smoke. I've never smoked but mi abuelo (mom's dad) smoked Cuban cigars and in a funny way, cigar smoke reminds me of how when I was a kid we would visit my grandparents during the summer. My grandma would make enough food to feed an army and grandpa taught me how to play chess and how to follow sports on TV, especially baseball.
I have been trying for years to explain to non-smokers that the cigarette smoke they breathe is so dilute it couldn't possibly cause the kind of health risks the EPA maintains.
Smoking may be annoying and obnoxious to nonsmokers, and may cause some physical discomfort to asthmatics and those who are allergic, but it's dangers are highly exxaggerated.
#11 author Hostel's wife, FR screen name Severa
(That's what I get for not paying attention *s*)
Someone should contact the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, The National Cancer Institute, the British Medical Journal, the Environmental Health Information Service, and the Surgeon General's office, because they've all been wrong on second hand smoke. It's about time they hear the 'truth.'
They are the folks who distorted the science in the first place and they knew damn well what they were doing at the time. Maybe they did it with "good intentions" but the long term damage they do to science and their credibility far outweighs any good they could be doing.
The "boy who cried wolf" syndrome sets in.
The only reason I don't smoke around non-smokers (until or if they say it's okay) is out of mere courtesy, not because I think it's dangerous to them.
Heck, I sit in non-smoking sections when out to eat, because I don't like having smoke wafting in my face when I'm trying to eat.
Funny that so many non-smokers can't be as polite with their own bad habit. Namely, nagging perfect strangers and shooting daggers with their eyes.
Bump for truth!
Yesterday marked my 2nd year without a cig, after 40 years of puffing.
Well, common sense is justified after all.
If you lived in some eastern states, they'd tax you anyway, for secondary benefits.
lol
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.