BE WELL COLUMN: Dispelling the myths about secondhand smoke
By: Jescee Bennett
Issue date: 3/7/08 Section: Opinion
In light of the controversy over a no smoking policy here at USU, maybe now is as good a time as any to dispel some of the myths and rumors about what secondhand smoke is and what it isn't.
Myth #1: Secondhand smoke is not dangerous. The Truth: Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a complex mixture of gases and particles emitted from a burning cigarette, cigar or pipe tip. These gases and particles
contain more than 40 known cancer causing agents. Secondhand smoke also has twice as much nicotine and tar compared to the smoke that a smoker inhales. In 2006, the Surgeon General stated that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is the third-leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., killing 53,000 non-smokers each year.
Myth #2: Secondhand smoke outdoors is not dangerous. The Truth: Regardless of whether or not a person is exposed to SHS indoors or outdoors, it is still an increased risk to their health. Scientific studies have shown that concentrations of SHS in many outdoor areas are often as high as or higher than in some indoor areas. A study from the British Medical Journal reported that exposure to SHS for as few as 30 minutes (less than the time it takes to eat lunch on the
Taggart Student Center patio or wait at a bus stop) can raise a non-smoker's risk of heart attack to that of a smoker's.
Myth #3: Air pollution is more harmful than secondhand smoke. The Truth: Multiple studies have been conducted that prove this argument wrong. Here are just two. One study concluded that air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust. Another study conducted at outdoor cafes reported that air pollution at the outdoor cafes with many smokers were 5 to 20 times higher than on sidewalks of busy streets polluted by bus, truck and auto traffic. Both of these studies can be found at www.repace.com.
Myth #4: Smoking is a Constitutional Right. The Truth: The following information is quoted from "There is no Constitutional Right to Smoke" handout produced by the Public Health Institute: Technical Assistance Legal Center. "Proponents of the right to smoke often claim that smoking falls within the fundamental right to privacy, by arguing that the act of smoking is an individual and private act that government cannot invade. Courts consistently reject this argument. The privacy interest protected by the U.S. Constitution includes only marriage, contraception, family relationships and the rearing and educating of children. Very few private acts by individuals qualify as fundamental privacy interests, and smoking is not one of them. Generally, the Supreme Court requires a protected group to have "an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth." Smoking is not an "immutable characteristic" because people are not born as smokers, and smoking is a behavior that people can stop. Because smokers are not a protected group, laws limiting smoking usually will be judged only on whether the law is rational, or plausibly justified."
Hopefully, dispelling these myths will make it easier for everyone here at Utah State to have an educated opinion about a tobacco policy. To voice your opinion about the tobacco policy, attend the debate, March 20 at 12:30 p.m. in the TSC Auditorium.
Jescee Bennett graduated from Utah State University with her Master's in community health education. She is currently the Tobacco Coordinator for the Bear River Health Department. Co-author, Ryan Barfuss is the prevention specialist in the Student Health and Wellness Center, and contributor to the Be Well health column.
Myth #1: Secondhand smoke is not dangerous. The Truth: Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a complex mixture of gases and particles emitted from a burning cigarette, cigar or pipe tip. These gases and particles
contain more than 40 known cancer causing agents. Secondhand smoke also has twice as much nicotine and tar compared to the smoke that a smoker inhales. In 2006, the Surgeon General stated that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is the third-leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., killing 53,000 non-smokers each year.
Myth #2: Secondhand smoke outdoors is not dangerous. The Truth: Regardless of whether or not a person is exposed to SHS indoors or outdoors, it is still an increased risk to their health. Scientific studies have shown that concentrations of SHS in many outdoor areas are often as high as or higher than in some indoor areas. A study from the British Medical Journal reported that exposure to SHS for as few as 30 minutes (less than the time it takes to eat lunch on the
Taggart Student Center patio or wait at a bus stop) can raise a non-smoker's risk of heart attack to that of a smoker's.
Myth #3: Air pollution is more harmful than secondhand smoke. The Truth: Multiple studies have been conducted that prove this argument wrong. Here are just two. One study concluded that air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust. Another study conducted at outdoor cafes reported that air pollution at the outdoor cafes with many smokers were 5 to 20 times higher than on sidewalks of busy streets polluted by bus, truck and auto traffic. Both of these studies can be found at www.repace.com.
Myth #4: Smoking is a Constitutional Right. The Truth: The following information is quoted from "There is no Constitutional Right to Smoke" handout produced by the Public Health Institute: Technical Assistance Legal Center. "Proponents of the right to smoke often claim that smoking falls within the fundamental right to privacy, by arguing that the act of smoking is an individual and private act that government cannot invade. Courts consistently reject this argument. The privacy interest protected by the U.S. Constitution includes only marriage, contraception, family relationships and the rearing and educating of children. Very few private acts by individuals qualify as fundamental privacy interests, and smoking is not one of them. Generally, the Supreme Court requires a protected group to have "an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth." Smoking is not an "immutable characteristic" because people are not born as smokers, and smoking is a behavior that people can stop. Because smokers are not a protected group, laws limiting smoking usually will be judged only on whether the law is rational, or plausibly justified."
Hopefully, dispelling these myths will make it easier for everyone here at Utah State to have an educated opinion about a tobacco policy. To voice your opinion about the tobacco policy, attend the debate, March 20 at 12:30 p.m. in the TSC Auditorium.
Jescee Bennett graduated from Utah State University with her Master's in community health education. She is currently the Tobacco Coordinator for the Bear River Health Department. Co-author, Ryan Barfuss is the prevention specialist in the Student Health and Wellness Center, and contributor to the Be Well health column.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 15
Jake Nelson
posted 3/07/08 @ 5:26 PM MST
In a study done last year by Stanford University it stated that at distances of 2 meters the detection of second hand smoke is minimal and at 4 meters it is almost undetectable, even downwind. (Continued…)
Phil
posted 3/07/08 @ 5:28 PM MST
It's nice to hear someone who is well educated and well qualified on the subject of secondhand smoke tell it like it is. There are still some deniers out there who pretend that secondhand smoke is only a bad smell, and that it has no negative health consequences. (Continued…)
Richard Okelberry
posted 3/08/08 @ 11:53 AM MST
Myth by Myth
While you seem very good at compiling government propaganda, I would advise you to consider your sources. When something becomes popular like the movement against smoking, trans fats, obesity, etc; every politician and group with a moral agenda around is more than willing to fund research that supports their claim while denying resources to anyone whose research might tell a different tail. (Continued…)
mandyv
posted 3/29/08 @ 4:46 PM MST
Well said Richard.
The biggest study ever done Enstrom/Kabat says differant than the article, milk I believe has a higher RR risk. Propaganda is what this is about along with social engineering. (Continued…)
Zak Leonard
posted 3/30/08 @ 3:57 AM MST
Mandyv
Can we presume from you posting that you have read the BMJ study fully? What are you comments on the study finding an increased risk of COPD?
What are your views on the air monitoring results published in england and scotland that show indoor SHS pollution in bars there at levels approaching levels we would define as hazardous here in the USA?
You seem to be basing your views on a very small amount of the information that is out there, the vast majority of which show SHS to be hazardous. (Continued…)
Richard Okelberry
posted 3/31/08 @ 1:09 PM MST
NEWS FLASH – The ASUSU should be convened immediately to discuss the possibility of banning all cell phones on campus. A recent study has shown that cell phone radiation is more dangerous than both smoking and asbestos. (Continued…)
andy
posted 4/01/08 @ 4:19 AM MST
Swap The Myths and Truths headings around and this article will be about right.
SHS harm is the myth. The first rule of toxicology is that the dose makes the poison. (Continued…)
Gene
posted 4/04/08 @ 8:12 PM MST
Enstrom/Kabat--oh, you mean the tobacco-funded "study?"
Wow, somehow its findings pleased the tobacco industry. How'd that happen??
Mama O
posted 4/06/08 @ 5:00 PM MST
I read this article with interest since, as a child I was subjected to SHS until just prior to graduation from high school. I can accept the so-called myths 1, 2, and 3, but am amazed at number 4. (Continued…)
sheila
posted 4/27/08 @ 4:22 PM MST
My question is, while smoker's are not protected under the constitution, are Non smokers? My workplace is trying to FORCE employees supervise smokers and therefore be exposed to second hand smoke. (Continued…)
Post a Comment