Surgeon general warns of secondhand smoke

YAHOO NEWS ^ | 27 JUNE 2006 | AP

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

WASHINGTON - Separate smoking sections don't cut it: Only smoke-free buildings and public places truly protect nonsmokers from the hazards of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke, says a long-awaited surgeon general's report.

Some 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke, what U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona repeatedly calls "involuntary smoking" that puts people at increased risk of death from lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

Moreover, there is no risk-free level of exposure to someone else's drifting smoke, declares the report issued Tuesday — a conclusion sure to fuel already growing efforts at public smoking bans nationwide. Fourteen states have passed what are considered comprehensive smoke-free workplace laws, those that include restaurants and bars.

But the surgeon general is especially concerned about young children who can't escape their parents' addiction in search of cleaner air: Just over one in five children is exposed to secondhand smoke at home, where workplace bans don't reach. Those children are at increased risk of SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome; lung infections such as pneumonia; ear infections; and more severe asthma.

"Exposure to secondhand smoke remains an alarming public health hazard," Carmona said. "Nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces" — and by smokers voluntarily not puffing around children.

The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke, the most comprehensive federal probe since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Since then, numerous other health agencies have linked to secondhand smoke to heart disease and other illnesses. Earlier this year, California health officials estimated that secondhand smoke kills about 3,400 nonsmoking Americans annually from lung cancer, 46,000 from heart disease, and 430 from SIDS.

The new surgeon general's report doesn't retally the deaths, but it cites that toll.

The tobacco industry and some businesses, particularly restaurant and bar owners concerned about loss of smoking customers, have challenged some of the broadest public smoking bans in cities and states.

The new report gives new scientific ammunition against those challenges, said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

"There is no longer a scientific controversy that secondhand smoke is a killer," he said. The report "eliminates any excuse from any state or city for taking halfway measures to restrict smoking, or permitting smoking in any indoor workplace."

Among other findings:

_Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air and ventilation systems don't eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke.

_There is good evidence that comprehensive smoking bans, like those in New York City and Boston, don't economically hurt the hospitality industry.

_Workplace smoking restrictions not only reduce secondhand smoke but discourage active smoking by employees.

_Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease. Don't ever smoke around a sick relative, Carmona advised

_Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent.

_There isn't proof that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, although the evidence is suggestive. California earlier this year cited that link in becoming the first state to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant.

On the plus side, blood measurements of a nicotine byproduct show that exposure to secondhand smoke has decreased. Levels dropped by 75 percent in adults and 68 percent in children between the early 1990s and 2002. However, not only has children's exposure declined less rapidly, but levels of that byproduct among children are more than twice as high as in nonsmoking adults.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION BURIES SECOND-HAND SMOKE STUDY

[P-40]

And yet people will still voluntarily take up the addiction...

[flixxx]

Surgeon General Report URL

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm

[ZGuy]

And only two weeks ago in England the House of Lords said that the scientific evidence does not support a public smoking ban because environmental tobacco smoke is not the risk it is purported to be.

[starfish923]

Good post: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION BURIES SECOND-HAND SMOKE STUDY

The hyperbole surrounding the "horrors" second hand smoke is the work of the public advocates, that is, attorneys who don't have the time, energy and brains for being in the top eschelons of lawyerism: federal prosecution, corporatations, criminal defense.

Let's see if the criers come on to tell their sad tales of the anecdotal stories of the evils of second hand smoke. All very sad but all very balonial.

I just made up that word.

[DumpsterDiver]

But the surgeon general is especially concerned about young children who can't escape their parents' addiction in search of cleaner air: Just over one in five children is exposed to secondhand smoke at home, where workplace bans don't reach.

Time for Big Brother to install surveillance cameras in homes where children reside.

All of these articles coming out recently leads me to believe that someone is gearing up for another big lawsuit.

[Just A Nobody]

The big gun has been called into service.

Vice Admiral Richard H. Carmona was sworn in as the 17th Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service on August 5, 2002.

[Steve_Seattle]

Ok, but what about second-hand carbon monoxide from other people's automobiles? I've yet to find one anti-smoking zealot who'll take me up on my challenge: I'll sit in my garage smoking my pipe while they sit in their garage with their car engine running. The last one standing wins.

[Gabz]

Nanny State PING.

I have not yet had time to read the entire report - just the press releases.........

Interestingly enough, it appears Carmona has ties to the anti-smoker cartel and has been leaking information to them prior to the release of this report.

I plan on contacting some people - an investigation into the SG's office needs to be done, to determine the (possibly financial) ties between the SG's office, the anti-smoker cartel, and the pharaceutical industry.

[sgtbono2002]

Methinks that the Surgeon general has an agenda, but not the balls to call for a law banning smoking.

Meantime we tax hell out of them.

By the way I dont smoke. Never have.

I do wonder on occasion how the Government will replace all that income when they finally tax the cigarette companies out of business. Probably tax Candy or Soda's.

[patton]

funny tag line

[CSM]

"It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke, the most comprehensive federal probe since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986,..."

Which was proven to be bunk computer modeling that was thrown out of court. Oh, well, keep repeating it long enough and even FReepers will believe it.....

[Gabz]

Interesting, I've made a similar challenge over the years and have never been taken up on it.

[Madame Dufarge]

Carmona's press release sounds like it was cut and pasted from a typical smoking Nazi website.

The office of Surgeon General seems to be a dumping ground for nuts. The veiled threat to parents is a real nice touch.

I plan on contacting some people - an investigation into the SG's office needs to be done, to determine the (possibly financial) ties between the SG's office, the anti-smoker cartel, and the pharaceutical industry.

Excellent!

[Just A Nobody]

Which was proven to be bunk computer modeling that was thrown out of court.

Oh, well, keep repeating it long enough and even FReepers will believe it.....

Yeah, I've noticed that as well!

[Just another Joe]

Here we go again.

[SheLion]

And yet people will still voluntarily take up the addiction...

OMG! I AM SOOOOOO ADDICTED!   

I am addicted to RUNNING 6 miles a day.  Can't start my day without running 6 miles, I am SO addicted.

I am addicted to PEPSI!  Got to have it every morning to start my day.  Don't even look at me until I have my Pepsi.  I am SO ADDICTED!!!!

I am so addicted to working out at the gym 3 times a week.  GOT to work this body.  Can't manage my life without all the sweat and the exercise and the cardio!

YES I AM SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ADDICTED!  OH MY GAWD!!!!!! What to do what to do?!!!

[SheLion]

And only two weeks ago in England the House of Lords said that the scientific evidence does not support a public smoking ban because environmental tobacco smoke is not the risk it is purported to be.

DON'T LET THE HEADLINES FOOL YOU
Court throws out challenge to EPA findings on secondhand smoke - (December 2002) - The ruling was based on the highly technical grounds that since the EPA didn't actually enact any new regulations (it merely declared ETS to be a carcinogen without actually adopting any new rules), the court had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter.  This court ruling on the EPA report is NOT a stamp of approval for that report. Judge Osteen's criticisms of the EPA report are still completely valid and is accompanied by other experts.

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

They can try to stop me from smoking. I used to want to quit... Now I want to keep on smoking to spit in the eye of the first stupid SOB that says something to me.

[SheLion]

Thanks for the ping!

[SheLion]

Thanks for the ping, Gabz!

[markman46]

just for this I am going to go out an buy another carton for my wife on my way home for work.

[newgeezer]

there is no risk-free level of exposure to someone else's drifting smoke, declares the report

Likewise, there is no risk-free level of exposure to smoke-free (if such a thing technically exists) indoor air.

Beam me up, Scotty. With each passing month, this administration finds a way to appear loonier than the month before.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Vectorian]

I fully support peoples right to smoke. Smoking is good for the world at large.

Smoking is Darwinism in action! :D

[RandallFlagg]

Cool. A little investigative FReeping never hurts. Please keep us posted?

[metesky]

My poor father smoked plus he was surrounded by other smokers. Thank God he was in Florida and not here in Maine, so I didn't have to watch as he slowly, oh so slowly wasted away. Being robbed of your father's love by an early preventive death is nothing to crack jokes about, believe me.

[SheLion]

The Rest of the Story

Media Already Reporting that 30 Minutes of Secondhand Smoke Causes Blood Clots in Arteries; Does the Surgeon General's Report Really Matter?

June 27, 2006
By Michael Siegel
The Omaha World-Herald reported yesterday that just 30 minutes of secondhand smoke increases a nonsmoker's risk of developing blood clots in his or her arteries. According to the article: "Within a half-hour, the platelets in a person's blood vessels become stickier, increasing the likelihood of clots...".

It's not clear exactly where this information came from, but it's a good bet that it originated from one of the 80+ anti-smoking groups which are claiming that just a half-hour (or less) of exposure to secondhand smoke causes hardening of the arteries, clogged arteries, blood clots in arteries, catastrophic arrhythmias, heart attacks, and death.

The World-Herald also reported that: "For at least eight hours after leaving a smoky bar, the effects remain in the blood system - with the contaminants themselves remaining much longer."

The Rest of the Story

On the day that a new Surgeon General's report will be released which focuses on the health effects of secondhand smoke, it's not clear to me why we need a new Surgeon General's report.

If anti-smoking groups are already spreading word that just 30 minutes of secondhand smoke causes clotting of the arteries and can kill you, then it seems to me that we really don't need a detailed scientific report on the actual, documented effects of secondhand smoke.

Why does it really matter what the actual, documented effects are if anti-smoking groups are simply going to over-dramatize the situation and make up whatever alarming claims they want to? Let's face it. The 30-minute claim is a "made-up" claim; it is not based on scientific evidence:

• There is no evidence that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure causes hardening of the arteries.
• There is no evidence that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure causes reduced coronary blood flow.
• There is no evidence that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure causes narrowed or clogged arteries.
• There is no evidence that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure causes blood clots.
• There is no evidence that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure causes fatal or catastrophic cardiac arrhythmias.
• There is no evidence that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure causes heart attacks or death.

There is, in fact, no scientific evidence that a single 30 minute exposure to secondhand smoke poses any significant acute cardiovascular health threat to anyone other than someone who already has coronary artery disease.

But anti-smoking groups are widely going around making these claims, and the media are clearly picking up on this and reporting the fallacious claims to the public.

It's also not clear where the paper got the idea that the risk of suffering a blood clot in an artery from secondhand smoke lasts for 8 hours after leaving a smoky bar, but I'd bet that it came from an anti-smoking group which is attempting to sensationalize the health threat posed by acute secondhand smoke exposure in order to promote smoking bans.

The truth is that the effects of acute secondhand smoke exposure on aortic elasticity reversed completely within 15 minutes of discontinuation of exposure. So it's misleading to suggest that the "artery-stiffening" effect of secondhand smoke lasts for 8 hours. Even the platelet-aggregatory effects of secondhand smoke only lasted for 6 hours, so it's not clear where the 8 hour figure comes from. But since the alleged risk of suffering a blood clot from 30 minutes of secondhand smoke is not a documented one, I guess it doesn't really matter how long one claims that "effect" lasts.

While we all await the release, later today, of the Surgeon General's report on the health effects of secondhand smoke, I am less than convinced that the report has any significance. If we're going to make up our health claims in order to sensationalize them, then who cares what the actual scientific evidence shows?
Read

[metesky]

Oh yeah, he was 95, but I bet if he hadn't smoked he would have lived to 195!

195, yeah that's the ticket...

[mysterio]

Zealots lying again to achieve their goals. That's ok, though. Their personal vice is probably next.

[SheLion]

Oh yeah, he was 95, but I bet if he hadn't smoked he would have lived to 195!

Hahaaaaaaaaa

[gondramB]

>>But the surgeon general is especially concerned about young children who can't escape their parents' addiction in search of cleaner air: Just over one in five children is exposed to secondhand smoke at home, where workplace bans don't reach.<<

this is where i break from the surgeon General - smoking bans in places of public accommodation are as legal as other safety and health requirements for places of public accommodation.

But inside the car and home are private places that belong to the family. The parents have the right to harm the children. The alternative is a nanny state that brings up the children instead of parents.

[Just another Joe]

OSHA and the Environmental Health Department prove secondhand smoke is NOT a health hazard.

(snip)
500 ug (OSHA safe level) divided by 3.3 ug (median reading Applebees) = measured airborne nicotine* levels are 152 times safer than OSHA regulations ie. In other words NO HEALTH HAZARD as per OSHA workplace indoor air quality standards.
(snip)

There is no recognized safe level of exposure to all the substances of secondhand smoke.

That however, is a disingenuous statement, every harmful substance known to mankind has a safe level of exposure......it's called OSHA permissible exposure limits. And if you believed that false premise, no recognized safe level of exposure, we would have to ban drinking water due to the level of arsenic naturally present. We would have to ban the very air we breathe due to the CO2 levels present. (CO2 is fatal at a 20% concentration but with every breath we inhale a 4% concentration).

Secondhand smoke does not rise to the level of being a hazard, as proven scientifically. Therefore even though you may be offended by the smell of tobacco smoke; no government entity has the authority to ban secondhand smoke on the argument of public health hazard - that is a disingenous argument.

Did you notice the pro-smoking ban lies and rhetoric have become more vocal in the media lately? They are frantically trying to defend the indefensible. Perhaps another $100 million from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation would help.

[elkfersupper]

The office and position of Surgeon General is one of those things that just needs to go away.

Things like this make it and he/she look like the Ministry and Minister of Propaganda of the old Soviet Union.

[Cementjungle]

Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent.

Meaning that if your odds of lung cancer are normally 2 in 100 then this increase in risk makes it 2.6 in 100.

Of course the effects of automobile pollution or chemicals in the air in airtight office buildings probably are much bigger factors. I'm not sure anyone really knows for sure. Everything's a risk.

[383rr]

"The veiled threat to parents is a real nice touch"

It appears the ministry of truth is stepping up their game.

"Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease"

That's my particular favorite.
Hey just a tiny puff of smoke blowing in the window could kill great-uncle Joe.
And if I'm reading this right, it would only take, like 2.3 seconds.(I wonder if he has his will filled out yet......)

So, what they're telling me is, if I walk through a place with some smoke I could have instant arterial damage, and probably suffer a massive coronary.

HOW ABOUT THIS TID-BIT;
"there isn't proof that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, although the evidence is suggestive"

No PROOF; but it's SUGGESTIVE
All I can say is, WOW.

[383rr]

Thanks for the ping.

[Doohickey]

Why do we have a Surgeon General again?

[Gabz]

don't ask me.............

[gidget7]

BS One has to be suspicious of ALL scientific research, when such clearly bogus studies such as this are released and then spoken by politicians.

Name the study, and it can be disproved. It's really sad, because the more these studies come out that are tainted, no one believes any study. So many are incredibly bias and slanted, not to mention disproved later.

Time was a scientist was a respected profession. Now, the only ones heard from are the ones touting some agenda for a specific group or company, and it has left them with "no confidence from the public" and no credibility either.

[Mears]

Boy,you had me puzzled on this post---but then I kept going.

[Mears]

Attorneys General are to keep us healthy---and to suggest masturbation.

Do these idiots actually get paid? Nice deal !

[napscoordinator]

California earlier this year cited that link in becoming the first state to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant.


California!!!! I will take second hand smoking over the air pollution they have in that state. I can't believe they make such a big deal about second hand smoking...it is crazy.

[tacticalogic]

I do wonder on occasion how the Government will replace all that income when they finally tax the cigarette companies out of business. Probably tax Candy or Soda's.

You can bet they won't just find a way to do without it.

[tacticalogic]

Everything's a risk.

Apparently there's no risk of ever having too many taxes, too many bureaucracies, and too much regulation.

[Gabz]

Time was a scientist was a respected profession. Now, the only ones heard from are the ones touting some agenda for a specific group or company, and it has left them with "no confidence from the public" and no credibility either.

The investigation into the ties (financial???) between the pharmaceutical industry, the anti-smoker cartel and the office of the Surgeon General's office is going to be very interesting. The anti-smoker cartel has been very vocal the past few weeks, spouting nearly the identical stuff coming from the SG's office today.

I do not believe in coincidence.

[gidget7]

"I do not believe in coincidence."


Surely not when they are so transparent about it! When I am having a day when I laugh about such thing, I have to laugh at how they promote homosexuality, THE MOST disease infested lifestyle, with the most cost to insurance and the medical and pharmaceutical industry, and yet come out against smoking. If anything lifestyle is a public hazard, it would be the former one.

[Gabz]

Can't argue with you there.

[chickenlips]

I'll drink to that!