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
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.
"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?
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]
I'm still glad I convinced my kids not to smoke.
Yep.
Pardon me for butting in, but...hey, that's awesome! :)
ping
LOL!
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!
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!
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.
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.
 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
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!
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.
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!
I have made the same kind of comments myself. Just because I smoke doesn't mean I Like smoke in my eyes.
Ditto to their rest of your post. And nagging when it has no chance to effect them (like when you are outside and far, far away from them).
And I will enjoy some good old 2nd hand smoke and coffee! Take care my friend! I might even ax you for a drag...;-)
Hey, where's a nice nose shot of Henry Nostrilitis Waxman??!
LOL! That's true enough. But then again, Christy Turlington is a big anti-smoking crusader, and she was a supermodel.
*shrugging*
When I was a kid (before the Civil War) the prevailing thought was that if you couldn't trust our government and our leaders, who could you trust?
Now, we know if you trust our government and our leaders you really need to try to hitch a ride on Halle Bopp the next time it comes around.
LOL, good job!
But "some" have driven the campaign against private property rights, vis a vis businesses that allow smoking.
but still obnoxious as hell.
And there's the crux.
Property rights be damned, the give and take of what's left of a free society be damned, a poo-poo smell all of this
Why don't you people grow up?
Very similar scenarios (for nonsmokers).
ROFL!!
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.
