Dangers of secondhand smoke

Feel free to post anything unrelated to wet shaving or men's grooming (I.e. cars, watches, pens, leather goods. You know, the finer things of life).
Leisureguy

Dangers of secondhand smoke

Post by Leisureguy »

I got into a discussion with a gentleman on the Wet Shavers Group that wandered a bit, ending with my mentioning the dangers of secondhand smoke, which he labeled as "junk science." I personally believe that label came more because he disagreed with the findings than with the research and methodology.

Today, I came across this and thought it might be of general interest:
Pub workers in Scotland breathed easier and showed better respiratory health shortly after a nationwide ban on smoking inside public places went into effect earlier this year, scientists report.

Other research had suggested that worker health improves after a smoking ban, but this is the most comprehensive study to date, says pulmonologist Daniel Menzies of the University of Dundee.

He and his colleagues identified 90 nonsmoking workers at 41 randomly chosen bars in Dundee and Perth. The researchers met each participant 1 month before the ban on smoking began in late March. The volunteers submitted to breathing tests, blood sampling, and health interviews. The researchers repeated the exams 1 month and 2 months after the ban took effect.

Before the ban, 61 of the 90 bar workers reported wheezing, shortness of breath, eye irritation, a running nose, or more than one of these symptoms. One month after the ban took effect, only 41 had such symptoms, and that number decreased slightly more in the next month, the researchers report in the Oct. 11 Journal of the American Medical Association.

In a standard lung-function test in which a person forcibly blows into a tube, the bar workers could exhale more air by 1 month after the smoking ban than they could beforehand. The quick turnaround is notable because these people had worked at the pubs for 9 years on average, Menzies says.

Two other tests measured inflammation in the workers’ bodies. One analysis showed that the workers had, on average, fewer white blood cells in their bloodstreams 2 months after the ban took effect than they did before—a sign of reduced inflammation. Another test measured the workers’ breath for nitric oxide, a gas produced by inflammation in the lungs and airways. Workers in good health showed no change after the smoking ban. But bar workers with asthma showed a 20 percent drop in expelled nitric oxide by 1 month afterward.

Previous research had established that exposure to second-hand smoke increases certain health risks. “There’s really no doubt that public policies aimed at limiting passive smoke indoors can lead to improved health,” says Mark D. Eisner, a pulmonologist at the University of California, San Francisco. The new report shows that people with chronic airway diseases might benefit the most, he says.

Although some bar and restaurant owners oppose smoking restrictions, research shows that bans don’t cut into their profits, says health economist Matthew C. Farrelly of the nonprofit research group RTI International in Research Triangle Park, N.C. “There’s a trend [against smoking] in some states, and my guess is that trend will continue,” Farrelly says.

Eisner notes that Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Italy, and New Zealand, as well as Scotland, have banned smoking in workplaces, as have nine Canadian provinces, parts of Australia, and 11 U.S. states.
User avatar
Sam
M'Learned Friend
Posts: 12018
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:13 am
Location: memphis, tennessee
Contact:

Post by Sam »

Michael: My parents smoked constantly while I was a child. I understand that there are studies that have shown that inhaling smoke from being around those that smoke can blacken lungs, but not to the degree that smoking causes it. My sense of smell I believe is directly related to the fact my parents smoked. Just my theory, as I can not detect smells, and Gordon has said Joris shave soap had a smell and I tell you it is the closest to an unscented shave soap I have come across.

Sam
User avatar
designwise1
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:25 am
Location: Harrison, Ark. USA

Post by designwise1 »

I couldn't smell the Joris you sent me, Sam. Was it the same bar? Maybe it was just a faulty one... :lol:

Somewhat off topic:
I quit cigarettes after about 22 years but I still enjoy an occasional stogie or a pipe before bed. I can do without so I know the tobacco addiction is gone. I now smoke when I want to, not because the craving never lets up. I really believe the stories about additives in cigarette tobacco because that "need" is missing from the cigars and pipe tobak.
Gerald Martin
Onion
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Post by Onion »

As a working musicisn playing in clubs since 1985 I can tell you that when California outlawed smoking in bars and restaurants, not only did I breathe easier but I don't get migranes nearly as often as I did back then, nor do I stink like smoke when I come home. I do believe in the hazards of second hand smoke.... I sure feel 100% better than I did when I was playing in the smokey haze.
User avatar
baldchin
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:27 am
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland

Post by baldchin »

Personally I don't believe in the second-hand smoke issue I just think its bad manners to smoke and annoy other people. On the other hand in a smokey atmosphere (pub or club) the staff never get a break from it and that at a minimum is unpleasant.

Migraine - I suffer from migraine too. It can be set off by many things: chocolate, cheese, constantly flashing lights, stress / grinding my teeth! I actually find shouting to make converstation in noisy "moozik" filled pubs all night much more stressfull than working towards deadlines. That you find that a smokey atmosphere sets it off doesn't surprise me.
Will

If it's smokin' it's cookin', when it's black it's done.
User avatar
javyn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:45 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by javyn »

Junk science? You don't need science to know inhaling smoke is bad for you, just common sense. Inhaling smoke is bad for you because, you are inhaling smoke!!!

I was a pack a day smoker for 13 years
John
User avatar
jww
Woolly Bully
Posts: 10960
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:49 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Post by jww »

Ever heard of Heather Crowe's case? Worth reading up on.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/heathercrowe/FAQ.htm

The sad ending to the story is that Heather died May 22 of this year as a result of lung cancer.
Wendell

Resident Wool Fat Evangelist & anglophile. Have you hugged a sheep today?
Sinatra
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:31 pm

Post by Sinatra »

I haven't posted in a while on here mainly because I have been busy but when it comes to people calling second hand smoke junk science it annoys me.

It is a proven fact and no credible scientific organization objects to secondhand smoke being harmful; the only people that object after the Koop report were the tobacco industry lobbyists who ignored the scientic method.

Also I am not some anti-smoking zealot; I actully oppose government sponsered smoking bans, mainly on my economic beleifs, bit I understand why they are enacted. I mean if i sit in a room for a night where the air is blue my clothes might stink and my eyes might dry out a bit, but other than that nothing major will happen. But for the employees it is another story and it is unfair for them. Just my rant....

Pat
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president."
-Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
DEF
Posts: 2561
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Tulsa, OK

Post by DEF »

javyn wrote:Junk science? You don't need science to know inhaling smoke is bad for you, just common sense. Inhaling smoke is bad for you because, you are inhaling smoke!!!
Well said.

Doug
Leisureguy

Post by Leisureguy »

One oddity: apparently inhaling marijuana smoke is not nearly so harmful as inhaling tobacco smoke---same lung cancer rate for heavy pot smokers and non-smokers. The best guess is that the THC has some protective function. Here are a couple of stories on the research. This came up in the context of the proposition 7 campaign in Nevada: proposition 7 will allow state-run stores to sell up to 1 ounce of marijuana to adults over the age of 20 (and will, of course, tax it to a fare-thee-well). It's been an interesting campaign because the opponents rely fairly heavily on lying and also make ominous statements about marijuana that also apply to alcohol (inhibits judgment and coordination, bad for children, etc.).
User avatar
JP
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:51 pm
Location: Central Ohio

Post by JP »

Allowing smoking in all public buildings and businesses comes up for a vote in Ohio this election season. If what has been happening with the passing of smoking laws in various cities around the state is any clue, most of the public wants to be free of second hand smoke.
User avatar
sgtrecon212
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Post by sgtrecon212 »

All I can say is that it can't possibly be GOOD for you to inhale smoke from whatever source.

In 1995, my sister died of lung cancer. She had smoked all her adult life.

She died at 48 years old. The only time my heart was truly broken.


Second hand smoke...... I believe it is harmful. I'm glad there is an ordinance in the city where I work restricting smoking in the workplace and in restaurants.

I feel the ordinance doesn't do quite enough, but that's my opinion. It does help, though.
Steve
______
Go Cubbies
User avatar
ScottS
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:39 am

Post by ScottS »

JP wrote:Allowing smoking in all public buildings and businesses comes up for a vote in Ohio this election season. If what has been happening with the passing of smoking laws in various cities around the state is any clue, most of the public wants to be free of second hand smoke.
And most of the public can be. The are plenty of non-smoking establishments- or would be, if it were financially advantageous. If enough bar patrons insisted on smoke free bars, there would be smoke free bars.

The smoking ban justifications have little to do with the desires of the public, but the folks in the service industries who don't really have a choice about the smoke exposure-- a much more reasonable argument.
User avatar
Laney1566
Posts: 933
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Portland Oregon

Post by Laney1566 »

I would like to see a study relating to second hand pipe smoke. Pipe smokers by-the-way get a bad rap because of cigarette smoke. Cigarettes are infused with many chemicals in order to get the stench we all hate. Pipe tobacco is natural and has not been chemically altered. Show me a study that proves pipe smokers die of lung cancer at a faster rate than non-smokers.

Sorry.....Ranting!!
Laney
Beard Management Specialist
Image
User avatar
ScottS
Posts: 3440
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:39 am

Post by ScottS »

Laney1566 wrote:I would like to see a study relating to second hand pipe smoke. Pipe smokers by-the-way get a bad rap because of cigarette smoke. Cigarettes are infused with many chemicals in order to get the stench we all hate. Pipe tobacco is natural and has not been chemically altered. Show me a study that proves pipe smokers die of lung cancer at a faster rate than non-smokers.

Sorry.....Ranting!!
Pipe Smoking in the United States, 1965-1991; Prevalence and Attributable Mortality, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 25, March-April 1996

Cigars and Pipes as Lethal as Cigarettes, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization, April 19, 1999

Cigar, Pipe, and Cigarette Smoking as Risk Factors for Periodontal Disease and Tooth Loss, Journal of Periodontology, Dec. 2000

Pipe smokers inhale much less than cigarette smokers. The risk of oral cancers is much higher in pipe smokers (you know, those guys that have half a face left after surgery). I would suspect that the secondhand smoke is actually worse from a pipe, but I have no way of knowing that. The Harvard Health Letter in 1998 said it was just as bad.
Laager
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:44 am

How to give up smoking.......

Post by Laager »

LX_Emergency
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 5:59 am
Location: Oss Netherlands
Contact:

Post by LX_Emergency »

If you'd like to see something interesting AND entertaining watch the film: "Thank you for smoking" I did a few weeks ago and was VERY amused and learned some new things.
Calling a dwarf "shorty" isn't a smart thing if you like your legs below the knees....

(Terry Pratchett)
e5f
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Canada

Post by e5f »

It IS junk science. Just ask WHO, that famed organization that squelched results from a 10 year study that found passive smoking did NOT cause cancer!!!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent. ... mok11.html

Cigs do have chemicals which could prove harmful. Cigars and pipes, on the other hand, are free from chemicals and are natural tobacco. SO ENJOY 8)

Thanks,
Merlyn
Facts Destroy Liberalism
User avatar
MOSES
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:41 am

Post by MOSES »

Umm.... I'll using my ten foot pole on the first issue. But as to the second, surely you aren't suggesting that because they don't have chemical additives, pipes and cigs are not harmful to the smoker? If so, um.... well, start by asking one of the goods docs on this forum what they think about that.

-Mo
Alrighty, stickim up and hand over the Coates real nice and slow like....
Leisureguy

Post by Leisureguy »

Hmmm. I think I'll take the word of the scientists first. The studies I quoted seem pretty convincing to me.
Post Reply