Secondhand smoke is a sore topic for smoking-ban advocates and detractors alike. Recent news show that tobacco users and those opposed to smoking bans are gaining traction with an unlikely ally: science. Or are they?
Secondhand Smoke in the News
“There are no safe levels of secondhand smoke in the workplace.” This is the beginning of a Facebook posting but also a frequently mentioned sentiment posted in the comment section of smoking-ban articles. It is curiously followed by the exhortation “the next time you hear someone say this, tell the speaker he or she is misinformed, flat out wrong….” Do smoking-ban opponents have a point?
Effects of Secondhand Smoke Questioned
Online posters opposing smoking-bans have found out that OSHA maintains a permissible exposure limit (PEL) rating for nicotine. It is currently set at 0.5milligrams per cubic meter of air, but appears to deal mainly with skin exposure.
Another common assertion of the anti smoking-ban lobby is the damning quote “it would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded” that is attributed to a letter from Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, to Leroy J. Pletten, PHD, dated July 8, 1997.
Even though this quote is making its way around the Internet, there is no official copy I could obtain from the OSHA site.
Study Offers Surprising Results about Secondhand Smoke Effects
Perhaps the most damning (and verifiable) source of ammunition for smokers who find that secondhand smoke effects are far overrated is the Enstrom and Kabat study that was published in 2003 in the BMJ(3).
A total of 118,094 Americans signed up for the American Cancer Society study in 1959. They were evaluated until 1998. Of these, 35,561 individuals had never smoked but were living with a smoker. Amazingly, the study finally concluded that the “results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.”
Do Smoking-Ban Proponents Have a Leg to Stand on?
Before dismissing the effects of secondhand smoke altogether, it is interesting to note that the BMJ study received funding from the American Cancer Society until about 1972; thereafter funding came from California’s Proposition 99 cigarette surtax until about 1997. In an astonishing move, the final leg of the study and final data analysis were bankrolled by the Center for Indoor Air Research, which in turn was bankrolled by the tobacco industry.
Citing their own BMJ study undertaken by the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, smoking-ban advocates make a strong case for a direct causation of mortality and secondhand smoke. In this study, 72,829 Chinese women offered information on living with smokers and working in a smoking environment.
This study found that “exposure to tobacco smoke from husbands (mainly current exposure) was significantly associated with increased … mortality due to cardiovascular disease.” Work exposure was indicated in cancer development, and exposure during the early years of life resulted in a higher risk for cardiovascular disease.
Are Smoking Bans the Answer? What about E-Cigarettes?
While smokers and tobacco lobbyists are pitching their scientists against researchers favored by the smoking-ban lobby, the consumer frequently finds herself in the cross-hairs.
Exhortations that cite obscure OSHA regulations – apparently dealing with skin contact – and mincing words are about as effective as anti-tobacco warnings to discredit a long-term study because of the finale few years of funding. (It is interesting to note that the study has its most reputable detractors based on the methodology employed in analysis, not the funding obtained.)
A third group that is demanding to be heard is the e-cigarette affiliate marketer. The electronic cigarette market has exploded and – in the Los Angeles radio market – sponsors commercials during the late morning and early lunch drives.
Detractors are not far away and the FDA has already weighed in with a warning of health risks. While there is no secondhand smoke to contend with, the FDA warns that “e-cigarettes can increase nicotine addiction among young people” while a “sample was found to contain diethylene glycol, a toxic chemical used in antifreeze.
Sources
(1)CigarMedia.TV. “OSHA Sets Safe Levels of Secondhand Smoke in the Workplace” (cached) (accessed March 21, 2010)
(2)OSHA. “TABLE Z-1 Limits for Air Contaminants” (accessed March 21, 2010)
(3)BMJ. “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98” (accessed March 21, 2010)
(4)BMJ. “Environmental tobacco smoke and mortality in Chinese women who have never smoked: prospective cohort study” (accessed March 21, 2010)
(5)FDA. FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes” (accessed March 21, 2010)
