Passive smoking
From Free net encyclopedia
- See also tobacco smoking and Health effects of tobacco smoking
Passive smoking (also known as involuntary smoking, or Second Hand Smoking) occurs when the exhaled and ambient smoke from one person's cigarette, pipe or cigar is inhaled by other people. Involuntary smoking involves inhaling toxic components that are present in secondhand tobacco smoke. Passive smoking is one of the key issues in leading to smoking bans, particularly in workplaces.
Contents |
Epidemiological studies of passive smoking
Epidemiological studies suggest that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the evidence available from epidemiological and other studies regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Some studies make the claim that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25 per cent increase in risk of death from heart attack and are also more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes give you genital cancer.Some research suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. One study, the Helena Study, claims that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent. It’s worth noting the “researchers” made this claim to the press, but their final paper showed 40%, not 60%. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Parents who smoke appear to be a risk factor for children and babies and are associated with low birth weight babies, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:
- These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
Enstrom and Kabat
Two recent studies by Enstrom and Kabat <ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> conclude that the previous studies overestimated the effect of ETS on both lung cancer and heart diseases.
These studies have been criticised by the American Cancer Society, which describes the study as 'misinformation,' as the original cohort, as well as E&K's spotty follow-ups, were entirely inappropriate for reliably determining ETS exposure, smoking history, etc. Enstrom and Kabat are funded by the tobacco industry.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> ASH published an analysis of the studies that concluded that the studies can not be trusted, as there appears to be a direct conflict of interest. The analysis also criticizes the BMJ, as the journal failed to inform readers who funded the studies, along with several other faults.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Enstrom and Kabat rejected this criticism, claiming that the American Cancer Society funded most of the first study, but pulled their funding at the last minute, forcing the researchers to look elsewhere to find funding. Enstrom and Kabat say were only able to find it from a foundation funded by the tobacco companies. In response, ACS vice-president Michael Thun<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> asserts that Enstrom had been funded by the tobacco industry since 1997, without informing ACS and that Enstrom had communicated with Philip Morris about the potential value of the CPS-I follow-up as early as 1990.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
Experimental studies of passive smoking
Experimental studies in which animals are exposed to tobacco smoke have produced results supporting the view that exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke is carcinogenic to humans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer expert group concluded that:
- There is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of mixtures of mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke.
- There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of sidestream smoke condensates.[1]
Risk level of passive smoking
Most experts believe that moderate, occasional exposure to secondhand smoke presents a small, but measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The risk is considered more significant if non-smokers work in an environment where cigarette smoke is prevalent, although few studies bear this out. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Regardless, many countries (such as Ireland) and jurisdictions (like New York State) now prohibit smoking in public buildings as well as private businesses such as restraunts and clubs. Many office buildings contain specially ventilated smoking areas; some are required by law to provide them.
Effects on pets
A study conducted by the Tufts' School of Veterinary Medicine and the University of Massachusetts concluded that a cat living with a smoker is two times more likely to get feline lymphoma than one that's not. After five years living with a smoker, that rate increases to three times as likely. And, when there are two smokers in the home, the chances of getting feline lymphoma increases to four times as likely[PMID 15133168].
A study by Colorado State University found that a dog that has exposure to a smoker in the home is 1.6 times more likely to develop lung cancer than a dog that is not exposed to a smoker. The study also found that skull shape had an effect on the estimated risk of lung cancer in dogs.Template:Citeneeded
Controversy
Some controversy has attended efforts to estimate the specific risk of lung cancer related to passive smoking. In 1993, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report <ref>Template:Cite web</ref> estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the U.S. were caused by passive smoking every year. The Congressional Research Service issued a report that cast strong doubts on the veracity of the study [2]
Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and groups representing growers, distributors and marketers took legal action, claiming that the EPA manipulated scientific studies and ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices. In 1998 United States District Court Judge William Osteen, a former tobacco lobbyist, vacated this study, declaring it null and void in a 92-page decision, that found that the EPA had manipulated results and violated scientific norms in order to achieve its pre-determined conclusion that passive smoke was harmful. Osteen's decision was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2002 on the technical grounds that the report was not a reviewable agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the EPA classification of tobacco was ultimately left intact. Because the substantive disputer was never resolved, the findings in Osteen's report are still used to argue that the issue of ETS is driven by politics rather than science, and that research on passive smoking is largely junk science.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
Notes
<references/>
External links
- Late-breaking news on secondhand smoke
- How dangerous is passive smoking?
- A critical view on the anti-tobacco movementde:Passivrauchen
fr:Tabagisme passif no:Passiv røyking fi:Passiivinen tupakointi