Secondhand smoke apologists 0wned

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 04:25pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/09/20/sm ... index.html

Study: Smoky bars top roads for bad air

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 Posted: 9:53 AM EDT (1353 GMT)

TRENTON, New Jersey (AP) -- Which is more harmful to your health -- a smoky bar or a city street filled with diesel truck fumes? Well, you might want to skip your next happy hour.

Smoky bars and casinos have up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than highways and city streets clogged with diesel trucks at rush hour, according to a study that also shows indoor air pollution virtually disappears once smoking is banned.

Conducted by the researcher who first showed secondhand smoke causes thousands of U.S. lung cancer deaths each year, the study found casino and bar workers are exposed to particulate pollution at far greater levels than the government allows outdoors.

"This paper will help localities pass smoking bans," predicted the author, James Repace, a biophysicist who works as a secondhand-smoke consultant after spending 30 years as a federal researcher. "It shows how beneficial smoking bans are for hospitality workers and patrons."

Repace tested air in a casino, a pool hall and six taverns in Delaware in November 2002 and in January 2003, two months after the state imposed a strict indoor smoking ban.

His detectors measured two substances blamed for tobacco-related cancers: a group of chemicals called particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PPAHs, and respirable particles -- airborne soot small enough to penetrate the lungs.

"They are the most dangerous" substances in secondhand smoke, said Repace, a visiting assistant clinical professor at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Repace said his research also showed that ventilation systems -- sometimes touted by tavern, restaurant and casino groups as an alternative to smoking bans -- cannot exchange air fast enough to keep up with the smoke.

The study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, was partly funded by the nation's largest philanthropic organization devoted to health care, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation of Plainsboro, New Jersey.
Health benefits of smoking bans

Repace found an average level of respirable particles of 231 micrograms, or millionths of a gram, per cubic meter of air in the eight nightspots in Delaware. That is 15 times the 15-microgram Environmental Protection Agency limit for outdoor air, and 49 times the rush-hour average on Interstate 95 in Wilmington. It even tops the 199-microgram rush-hour level at the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel tollbooths.

The eight indoor places had an average PPAH level of 134 nanograms, or billionths of a gram, per cubic meter -- five times the level in the air outside. By comparison, the average rush-hour levels of PPAHs on Interstate 95 in Wilmington and in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood, heavily polluted by diesel and truck emissions, were 7 and 18 nanograms, respectively.

After the smoking ban took effect, levels of both cancer-causing substances dropped 90 percent or more in all of the indoor places tested, with the air quality nearly indistinguishable from outside air.

"It demonstrates really clearly that a smoking ban results in a massive improvement in air quality," said Dr. Jonathan Foulds, director of the tobacco dependence program at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's School of Public Health. "Here in New Jersey, and in many other states that don't have an indoor smoking ban, this should be used to put pressure on the legislators."

Timothy Buckley, associate professor of environmental health science at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said other research has shown dramatic air quality improvement after smoking was banned in workplaces, but this appears to be the first study in bars or casinos.

"The magnitude of that effect is striking," Buckley said.

As of July 1, a total of 727 U.S. municipalities had some smoking restrictions, with 312 banning smoking even in bars and restaurants, according to the nonprofit American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.

Delaware, New York and Massachusetts prohibit smoking in all workplaces, restaurants and bars. California and Connecticut have similar bans, but with exemptions for workplaces with five or fewer employees.

Yup, that's right: carcinogen levels in smoke-filled bars are fifteen times the EPA's limit for outdoor air. I expect retractions from all the smoking-apologist bitches who have told me in the past that I was wrong about second-hand smoke.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 04:27pm

Fuckin' A!

Great find, Mike. Now excuse me a minute, I have a few people I need to show this to...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 04:29pm

BTW, this is the second case where I have been vindicated by recent studies in taking a stand against interpreting a lack of prior conclusive studies as a disproof of effects despite theoretical mechanisms predicting otherwise. The first was herbal remedies. The fact that I don't tolerate pseudoscience does not mean that I'm going to rush into conclusions about matters in which no studies have been performed, and that approach has been vindicated twice.

Bertie Wooster · Post by **Bertie Wooster** » 2004-10-04 04:32pm

I'm glad they banned smoking in bars in Connecticut, NYC and have been banned for a while in California; my clothes would need to be washed from the stink of of cigarettes after a night out and small wonder what my lungs would have looked like after years of breathing smoke-filled air every weekend.

I feel bad for all the bartenders and servers that still have to work in those conditions.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 04:33pm

This is one of the top health issues in modern society, so unlike certain other drugs or social practices, this one has a lot more scientific scrutiny going on. I'm not expecting this to change certain stubborn minds though.

Given the UK is looking at a public ban now and the US Federal gov't is going to take Big Tobacco to court for the biggest damages claim in the history of law, this only puts one more nail in the filthy habit.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-10-04 04:41pm

Ah, this brings back memories.

In high school, I worked at a truckstop for one day. When I returned home, I had to wash my clothes and shower immediately to remove the reek of cigarette smoke, and I had to drive with the windows of my truck for a couple days to remove the smell from that (and that was just from me sitting in there going home). When my mom came home, after my shower and clothes washing, she could still smell the cigarettes and forbade me from going to work there anymore.

The thing I remember most from that day was the woman who was training me in that smoke filled place. She was coughing really hard and obviously had bad lung problems from the years of smoke, and commented to me that she didn't know why she and the other women there were all having respiratory problems. "Ya think it's something in the air?"

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 04:46pm

Some people are too stupid to own a body it would seem.

El Moose Monstero · Post by **El Moose Monstero** » 2004-10-04 04:47pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:This is one of the top health issues in modern society, so unlike certain other drugs or social practices, this one has a lot more scientific scrutiny going on. I'm not expecting this to change certain stubborn minds though.

Given the UK is looking at a public ban now and the US Federal gov't is going to take Big Tobacco to court for the biggest damages claim in the history of law, this only puts one more nail in the filthy habit.

Wasnt it actually quite popular with UK public? I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that something like 60% of the UK was in favour of a total ban in public places and something like 80% was in favour of raising the purchase age to 18?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-04 04:49pm

WHOA!
The potential dangers of second-hand smoke have of course always been a given but I had thought proper ventilation could sufficiently mitigate them (not that very many establishments ever bother with proper ventilation, at least around here...)
Looks like I was MAJORLY wrong, about this and about the magnitude of the threat in the first place.
Ban away.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 04:49pm

The_Lumberjack wrote: Wasnt it actually quite popular with UK public? I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that something like 60% of the UK was in favour of a total ban in public places and something like 80% was in favour of raising the purchase age to 18?

It's around those figures, yes. Scotland is seeking a public ban much like the RI has instated. England is looking at similar types of blanket bans, they were considering a bars and restaurant ban first, but pressure groups like ASH said a full scale ban or nothing would be the only option. I can see the age of buying fags and the tax on them going up at least.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 04:51pm

Haha, get this joker:

Wow. I'm stunned. An enclosed room can hold more smoke in the air than an open air highway. Once again, a useless study that proves something we already know. However, the study is flawed in that it assumes that "second hand smoke" causes cancer, which to my knowledge remains to be proven. Last I heard, it was the tar in cigarettes that did that, which is not expelled into the air after smoking. These scientists should be ashamed of wasting people's money on this crap without answering the fundamental question.

How should I respond? I'm guessing his Wall of Ignorance is on "high".

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-10-04 04:56pm

Shove a dildo in his mouth and say "it's not just tar, you fucknut, it's anything that's a carcinogen. You DO know what a carcinogen is, right, toiletburger?"

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-04 05:01pm

Okay, color me stupid, but 'second-hand smoke' is the exact same smoke us smokers inhale, except at a reduced concentration. The assumption so far has been that, being a lot less concentrated/being a lot less concentrated in a well ventilated room second hand smoke was no noticeable health risk (what with toxicity (sp?) being largely dependent on dosage). Apparently the concentration is NOT low enough for that.
Or am I missing something obvious?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 05:05pm

Batman wrote:Okay, color me stupid, but 'second-hand smoke' is the exact same smoke us smokers inhale, except at a reduced concentration. The assumption so far has been that, being a lot less concentrated/being a lot less concentrated in a well ventilated room second hand smoke was no noticeable health risk (what with toxicity (sp?) being largely dependent on dosage). Apparently the concentration is NOT low enough for that.
Or am I missing something obvious?

It is indeed the same shit. See, most smokers seem to think we get the filtered stuff they do. Not so given such studies and even if they were filtered fumes, the amount of noxious gases in the average death stick is more than enough to cause concern as they leak through anyway.

SHS carcinogen warning by IARC.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 05:12pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Haha, get this joker:

Wow. I'm stunned. An enclosed room can hold more smoke in the air than an open air highway. Once again, a useless study that proves something we already know. However, the study is flawed in that it assumes that "second hand smoke" causes cancer, which to my knowledge remains to be proven. Last I heard, it was the tar in cigarettes that did that, which is not expelled into the air after smoking. These scientists should be ashamed of wasting people's money on this crap without answering the fundamental question.
How should I respond? I'm guessing his Wall of Ignorance is on "high".

The guy didn't even bother reading the article, did he? I quote: "His detectors measured two substances blamed for tobacco-related cancers: a group of chemicals called particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PPAHs, and respirable particles -- airborne soot small enough to penetrate the lungs." He was specifically testing for known cancer-causing materials, not just some nebulous object called "second-hand smoke". This imbecile doesn't even realize that there's no way to test for general "second-hand smoke"; you can only monitor for specific ingredients of that smoke.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-04 05:15pm

Fuck, I completely forgot about filters.

So AT BEST, for filterless, non-smokers get exactly what we do (given that the dosage cop-out apparently doesn't work),
and AT WORST
non-smokers get even MORE toxins then us smokers do (thanks to our ilk benefitting from the filter). And we KNOW that filter-cigs ALREADY are bad for your health(to put it mildly...), leave alone unfiltered.
I can absolutely not see a problem with banning smoking in bars, restaurants, etc...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 05:16pm

It's okay, I saved that bit for if he responds to my posting of the WHO article proving him wrong along with my "no shit" response to his one on enclosed spaces.

What're you betting they'd moan about there being no reak links to enclosed spaces being worse if this study wasn't done?

Oh look, so far no response from him. Guess I won't need that planned smackdown.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2004-10-04 05:21pm

Wow. As a non-smoker, I'm glad that a law was passed here in Sweden earlier this year that will take effect next year and that bans smoking in all restaurants, bars and cafes etc, and steps has already been taken in other countries as well.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 05:22pm

Smoking in restaurants is a most despicable act. How anyone can enjoy a good meal and smoke that scum is beyond me. The last thing I tolerate is some stupid idiot lighting up when I'm eating. If you can't go an hour without a fag you've got something wrong with you.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-04 05:31pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Smoking in restaurants is a most despicable act. How anyone can enjoy a good meal and smoke that scum is beyond me.

While I'd argue that a cigarette AFTER a good meal is nothing to inherently frown upon smoking during/having to deal with smoke during the meal is indeed disgusting.

The last thing I tolerate is some stupid idiot lighting up when I'm eating.

No argument. Hell I AM a smoker and I hate that.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-04 05:33pm

Huzzah! Excellent find, Mike. I'll go show this to some people.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 05:50pm

Uh-oh, someone has linked the Dave Hitt website. Are there any good rebuttals to that place? I've never really considered it before, but citing the EPA report of over a decade ago to refute these new reports is folly.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 05:53pm

What are the arguments on this site?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-10-04 05:54pm

Haha, CynSwash is a worthless dumbass

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-04 05:57pm

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html

Not so much arguments as rants it would seem. But I haven't dared read it all, I'm allergic to bullshit.