Passive smoking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

 
Jump to: navigation, search
"Second hand smoke" redirects here. For the Sublime album, see Second-hand Smoke.
Tobacco smoke in an Irish pub before a smoking ban came into effect on March 29, 2004

Passive smoking is the inhalation of smoke, called second-hand smoke (SHS), or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), by persons other than the intended "active" smoker. It occurs when tobacco smoke permeates any environment, causing its inhalation by people within that environment. Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.[1][2][3] The health risks of second-hand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus.[4][5][6] These risks have been a major motivation for smoke-free laws in workplaces and indoor public places, including restaurants, bars and night clubs, as well as some open public spaces.

Concerns around second-hand smoke have played a central role in the debate over the harms and regulation of tobacco products. Since the early 1970s, the tobacco industry has viewed public concern over second-hand smoke as a serious threat to its business interests.[7] Harm to bystanders was perceived as a motivator for stricter regulation of tobacco products. Despite the industry's awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke as early as the 1980s, the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products.[4]:1242[6]

Effects

Second-hand smoke causes many of the same diseases as direct smoking, including cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases.[2][3][8] These diseases include:

Risk to children

Evidence

Exposure to secondhand smoke by age, race, and poverty level in the US.

Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. Most of the research has come from studies of nonsmokers who are married to a smoker. Those conclusions are also backed up by further studies of workplace exposure to smoke.[57]

In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of available evidence on the relationship between second-hand smoke and heart disease, and estimated that second-hand smoke exposure was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.[58] The absolute risk increase of heart disease due to ETS was 2.2%, while the attributable risk percent was 23%.

Research using more exact measures of second-hand smoke exposure suggests that risks to non-smokers may be even greater than this estimate. A British study reported that exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60%, similar to light smoking.[59] Evidence also shows that inhaled sidestream smoke, the main component of second-hand smoke, is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke. This fact has been known to the tobacco industry since the 1980s, though it kept its findings secret.[60][61][62][63] Some scientists believe that the risk of passive smoking, in particular the risk of developing coronary heart diseases, may have been substantially underestimated.[64]

A minority of epidemiologists have found it hard to understand how second-hand smoke, which is more diluted than actively inhaled smoke, could have an effect that is such a large fraction of the added risk of coronary heart disease among active smokers.[65][66] One proposed explanation is that second-hand smoke is not simply a diluted version of "mainstream" smoke, but has a different composition with more toxic substances per gram of total particulate matter.[65] Passive smoking appears to be capable of precipitating the acute manifestations of cardio-vascular diseases (atherothrombosis) and may also have a negative impact on the outcome of patients who suffer acute coronary syndromes.[67]

In 2004, 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 second-hand 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.[3]

Subsequent meta-analyses have confirmed these findings,[68][69] and additional studies have found that high overall exposure to passive smoke even among people with non-smoking partners is associated with greater risks than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers.[59]

The National Asthma Council of Australia cites studies showing that second-hand smoke is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:[70]

In France, exposure to second-hand smoke has been estimated to cause between 3,000[71] and 5,000 premature deaths per year, with the larger figure cited by Prime minister Dominique de Villepin during his announcement of a nationwide smoke-free law: "That makes more than 13 deaths a day. It is an unacceptable reality in our country in terms of public health."[72]

There is good observational evidence that smoke-free legislation reduces the number of hospital admissions for heart disease.[73] In 2009 two studies in the United States confirmed the effectiveness of public smoking bans in preventing heart attacks. The first study, carried out at the University of California, San Francisco and funded by the National Cancer Institute, found a 15 percent decline in heart-attack hospitalisations in the first year after smoke-free legislation was passed, and 36 percent after three years.[74] The second study, carried out at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, showed similar results.[75] Overall, women, non-smokers, and people under age 60 had the most heart attack risk reduction. Many of those benefiting were hospitality and entertainment industry workers.[76]

Risk level

The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2004 that there was sufficient evidence that second-hand smoke caused cancer in humans.[3] Most experts conclude that moderate, occasional exposure to second-hand smoke presents a modest but measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The overall risk depends on the effective dose received over time. The risk level is higher if non-smokers spend many hours in an environment where cigarette smoke is widespread, such as a business where many employees or patrons are smoking throughout the day, or a residential care facility where residents smoke freely.[77] The US Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30%.

Biomarkers

Breath CO monitor displaying carbon monoxide concentration of an exhaled breath sample (in ppm) with corresponding percent concentration of carboxyhemoglobin displayed below.

Environmental tobacco smoke can be evaluated either by directly measuring tobacco smoke pollutants found in the air or by using biomarkers, an indirect measure of exposure. Carbon monoxide monitored through breath, nicotine, cotinine, thiocyanates, and proteins are the most specific biological markers of tobacco smoke exposure.[78][79] Biochemical tests are a much more reliable biomarker of second-hand smoke exposure than surveys. Certain groups of people are reluctant to disclose their smoking status and exposure to tobacco smoke, especially pregnant women and parents of young children. This is due to their smoking being socially unacceptable. Also, it may be difficult for individuals to recall their exposure to tobacco smoke.[80]

A 2007 study in the Addictive Behaviors Journal found a positive correlation between second-hand tobacco smoke exposure and concentrations of nicotine and/or biomarkers of nicotine in the body. Significant biological levels of nicotine from second-hand smoke exposure were equivalent to nicotine levels from active smoking and levels that are associated with behaviour changes due to nicotine consumption.[81]

Cotinine

Cotinine, the metabolite of nicotine, is a biomarker of second-hand smoke exposure. Typically, cotinine is measured in the blood, saliva, and urine. Hair analysis has recently become a new, noninvasive measurement technique. Cotinine accumulates in hair during hair growth, which results in a measure of long-term, cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke.[82] Urinary cotinine levels have been a reliable biomarker of tobacco exposure and have been used as a reference in many epidemiological studies. However, cotinine levels found in the urine only reflect exposure over the preceding 48 hours. Cotinine levels of the skin, such as the hair and nails, reflect tobacco exposure over the previous three months and are a more reliable biomarker.[78]

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide monitored via breath is also a reliable biomarker of second-hand smoke exposure as well as tobacco use. With high sensitivity and specificity, it not only provides an accurate measure, but the test is also non-invasive, highly reproducible, and low in cost. Breath CO monitoring measures the concentration of CO in an exhalation in parts per million, and this can be directly correlated to the blood CO concentration (carboxyhemoglobin).[83] Breath CO monitors can also be used by emergency services to identify patients who are suspected of having CO poisoning.

Pathophysiology

A 2004 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, including 69 known carcinogens. Of special concern are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines, and aromatic amines, such as 4-aminobiphenyl, all known to be highly carcinogenic. Mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke, and second-hand smoke contain largely the same components, however the concentration varies depending on type of smoke.[3] Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke.[84]

Second-hand smoke has been shown to produce more particulate-matter (PM) pollution than an idling low-emission diesel engine. In an experiment conducted by the Italian National Cancer Institute, three cigarettes were left smoldering, one after the other, in a 60 m³ garage with a limited air exchange. The cigarettes produced PM pollution exceeding outdoor limits, as well as PM concentrations up to 10-fold that of the idling engine.[85]

Tobacco smoke exposure has immediate and substantial effects on blood and blood vessels in a way that increases the risk of a heart attack, particularly in people already at risk.[86] Exposure to tobacco smoke for 30 minutes significantly reduces coronary flow velocity reserve in healthy nonsmokers.[87]

Pulmonary emphysema can be induced in rats through acute exposure to sidestream tobacco smoke (30 cigarettes per day) over a period of 45 days.[88] Degranulation of mast cells contributing to lung damage has also been observed.[89]

The term "third-hand smoke" was recently coined to identify the residual tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is extinguished and second-hand smoke has cleared from the air.[90][91][92] Preliminary research suggests that by-products of third-hand smoke may pose a health risk,[93] though the magnitude of risk, if any, remains unknown. In October 2011, it was reported that Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital in Alexandria, Louisiana would seek to eliminate third-hand smoke beginning in July 2012, and that employees whose clothing smelled of smoke would not be allowed to work. This prohibition was enacted because third-hand smoke poses a special danger for the developing brains of infants and small children.[94]

In 2008, there were more than 161,000 deaths attributed to lung cancer in the United States. Of these deaths, an estimated 10% to 15% were caused by factors other than first-hand smoking; equivalent to 16,000 to 24,000 deaths annually. Slightly more than half of the lung cancer deaths caused by factors other than first-hand smoking were found in nonsmokers. Lung cancer in non-smokers may well be considered one of the most common cancer mortalities in the United States. Clinical epidemiology of lung cancer has linked the primary factors closely tied to lung cancer in non-smokers as exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, carcinogens including radon, and other indoor air pollutants.[95]

Opinion of public health authorities

There is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to second-hand smoke is harmful.[4] The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organisation, including:

Public opinion

Recent major surveys conducted by the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control have found widespread public awareness that second-hand smoke is harmful. In both 1992 and 2000 surveys, more than 80% of respondents agreed with the statement that second-hand smoke was harmful. A 2001 study found that 95% of adults agreed that second-hand smoke was harmful to children, and 96% considered tobacco-industry claims that second-hand smoke was not harmful to be untruthful.[107]

A 2007 Gallup poll found that 56% of respondents felt that second-hand smoke was "very harmful", a number that has held relatively steady since 1997. Another 29% believe that second-hand smoke is "somewhat harmful"; 10% answered "not too harmful", while 5% said "not at all harmful".[citation needed]

Controversy over harm

As part of its attempt to prevent or delay tighter regulation of smoking, the tobacco industry funded a number of scientific studies and, where the results cast doubt on the risks associated with second-hand smoke, sought wide publicity for those results. The industry also funded libertarian and conservative think tanks, such as the Cato Institute in the United States and the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia which criticised both scientific research on passive smoking and policy proposals to restrict smoking.[108][109] New Scientist and the European Journal of Public Health have identified these industry-wide coordinated activities as one of the earliest expressions of corporate denialism. Further, they state that the disinformation spread by the tobacco industry has created a tobacco denialism movement, sharing many characteristics of other forms of denialism, such as HIV-AIDS denialism.[110][111]

Industry-funded studies and critiques

Enstrom and Kabat

A 2003 study by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the British Medical Journal, argued that the harms of passive smoking had been overstated.[112] Their analysis reported no statistically significant relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer, though the accompanying editorial noted that "they may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings."[113] This paper was widely promoted by the tobacco industry as evidence that the harms of passive smoking were unproven.[114][115] The American Cancer Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data, criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom and Kabat's methodology prior to publication.[116] Notably, the study had failed to identify a comparison group of "unexposed" persons.[117]

Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment... in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking."[118] In a US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke."[119] The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center for Indoor Air Research,[120] a tobacco industry front group tasked with "offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip Morris[121] who stated that Enstrom's work was "clearly litigation-oriented."[122] Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms "illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it."[123]

Gori

Gio Batta Gori, a tobacco industry spokesman and consultant[124][125][126] and an expert on risk utility and scientific research, wrote in the libertarian Cato Institute's journal Regulation that "...of the 75 published studies of ETS and lung cancer, some 70 percent did not report statistically significant differences of risk and are moot. Roughly 17 percent claim an increased risk and 13 percent imply a reduction of risk."[127]

Milloy

Steven Milloy, the "junk science" commentator for Fox News and a former Philip Morris consultant,[128][129] claimed that "of the 19 studies" on passive smoking "only 8— slightly more than 42 percent— reported statistically significant increases in heart disease incidence.."[130]

Another component of criticism cited by Milloy focused on relative risk and epidemiological practices in studies of passive smoking. Milloy, who has a masters degree from the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, argued that studies yielding relative risks of less than 2 were meaningless junk science. This approach to epidemiological analysis was criticized in the American Journal of Public Health:

A major component of the industry attack was the mounting of a campaign to establish a "bar" for "sound science" that could not be fully met by most individual investigations, leaving studies that did not meet the criteria to be dismissed as "junk science."[131]

The tobacco industry and affiliated scientists also put forward a set of "Good Epidemiology Practices" which would have the practical effect of obscuring the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer; the privately stated goal of these standards was to "impede adverse legislation".[132] However, this effort was largely abandoned when it became clear that no independent epidemiological organization would agree to the standards proposed by Philip Morris et al.[133]

World Health Organization controversy

A 1998 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) found "weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS."[77]

In March 1998, before the study was published, reports appeared in the media alleging that the IARC and the World Health Organization (WHO) were suppressing information. The reports, appearing in the British Sunday Telegraph[134] and The Economist,[135] among other sources,[136][137][138] alleged that the WHO withheld from publication of its own report that supposedly failed to prove an association between passive smoking and a number of other diseases (lung cancer in particular).

In response, the WHO issued a press release stating that the results of the study had been "completely misrepresented" in the popular press and were in fact very much in line with similar studies demonstrating the harms of passive smoking.[139] The study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in October of the same year, and concluded the authors found "no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk" but "did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS."[77] An accompanying editorial summarized:

When all the evidence, including the important new data reported in this issue of the Journal, is assessed, the inescapable scientific conclusion is that ETS is a low-level lung carcinogen.[140]

With the release of formerly classified tobacco industry documents through the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, it was found[by whom?] that the controversy over the WHO's alleged suppression of data had been engineered by Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, and other tobacco companies in an effort to discredit scientific findings which would harm their business interests.[121] A WHO inquiry, conducted after the release of the tobacco-industry documents, found that this controversy was generated by the tobacco industry as part of its larger campaign to cut the WHO's budget, distort the results of scientific studies on passive smoking, and discredit the WHO as an institution. This campaign was carried out using a network of ostensibly independent front organizations and international and scientific experts with hidden financial ties to the industry.[141]

EPA lawsuit

In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the United States were caused by passive smoking annually.[12]

Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and groups representing growers, distributors and marketers of tobacco took legal action, claiming that the EPA had manipulated this study and ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ruled in favor of the tobacco industry in 1998, finding that the EPA had failed to follow proper scientific and epidemiologic practices and had "cherry picked" evidence to support conclusions which they had committed to in advance.[142] The court stated in part, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun…adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion... In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning…"

In 2002, the EPA successfully appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The EPA's appeal was upheld on the preliminary grounds that their report had no regulatory weight, and the earlier finding was vacated.[143]

In 1998, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the publication by its National Toxicology Program of the 9th Report on Carcinogens, listed environmental tobacco smoke among the known carcinogens, observing of the EPA assessment that "The individual studies were carefully summarized and evaluated."[144]

Tobacco-industry funding of research

The tobacco industry's role in funding scientific research on second-hand smoke has been controversial.[145] A review of published studies found that tobacco-industry affiliation was strongly correlated with findings exonerating second-hand smoke; researchers affiliated with the tobacco industry were 88 times more likely than independent researchers to conclude that second-hand was not harmful.[146] In a specific example which came to light with the release of tobacco-industry documents, Philip Morris executives successfully encouraged an author to revise his industry-funded review article to downplay the role of second-hand smoke in sudden infant death syndrome.[147] The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report criticized the tobacco industry's role in the scientific debate:

The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.[148]

This strategy was outlined at an international meeting of tobacco companies in 1988, at which Philip Morris proposed to set up a team of scientists, organized by company lawyers, to "carry out work on ETS to keep the controversy alive."[149] All scientific research was subject to oversight and "filtering" by tobacco-industry lawyers:

Philip Morris then expect the group of scientists to operate within the confines of decisions taken by PM scientists to determine the general direction of research, which apparently would then be 'filtered' by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity.[149]

Philip Morris reported that it was putting "...vast amounts of funding into these projects... in attempting to coordinate and pay so many scientists on an international basis to keep the ETS controversy alive."[149]

Tobacco industry response

Measures to tackle second-hand smoke pose a serious economic threat to the tobacco industry, having broadened the definition of smoking beyond a personal habit to something with a social impact. In a confidential 1978 report, the tobacco industry described increasing public concerns about second-hand smoke as "the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred."[150] In United States of America v. Philip Morris et al., the District Court for the District of Columbia found that the tobacco industry "... recognized from the mid-1970s forward that the health effects of passive smoking posed a profound threat to industry viability and cigarette profits," and that the industry responded with "efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that ETS causes disease."[4]

Accordingly, the tobacco industry have developed several strategies to minimise the impact on their business:

Citing the tobacco industry's production of biased research and efforts to undermine scientific findings, the 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report concluded that the industry had "attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus... industry documents indicate that the tobacco industry has engaged in widespread activities... that have gone beyond the bounds of accepted scientific practice."[154] The U.S. District Court, in U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al., found that "...despite their internal acknowledgment of the hazards of secondhand smoke, Defendants have fraudulently denied that ETS causes disease."[155]

Position of major tobacco companies

The positions of major tobacco companies on the issue of second-hand smoke is somewhat varied. In general, tobacco companies have continued to focus on questioning the methodology of studies showing that second-hand smoke is harmful. Some (such as British American Tobacco and Philip Morris) acknowledge the medical consensus that second-hand smoke carries health risks, while others continue to assert that the evidence is inconclusive. Imperial Tobacco describes second-hand smoke as "annoying" and "unpleasant", but denies any associated health risks. Several tobacco companies advocate the creation of smoke-free areas within public buildings as an alternative to comprehensive smoke-free laws.[156]

US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies

On September 22, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against Philip Morris and other major cigarette manufacturers.[157] Almost 7 years later, on August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found that the Government had proven its case and that the tobacco company defendants had violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[4] In particular, Judge Kessler found that PM and other tobacco companies had:

The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants. The ruling also concluded that tobacco companies continue today to fraudulently deny the health effects of ETS exposure.[4]

On May 22, 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court's 2006 ruling.[158][159][160]

Smoke-free laws

As a consequence of the health risks associated with second-hand smoke, smoke-free regulations in indoor public places, including restaurants, cafés, and nightclubs have been introduced in a number of jurisdictions, at national or local level, as well as some outdoor open areas. 1 Ireland was the first country in the world to institute an comprehensive national smoke-free law on smoking in all indoor workplaces on 29 March 2004. Since then, many others have followed suit. The countries which have ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) have a legal obligation to implement effective legislation "for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places." (Article 8 of the FCTC[1]) The parties to the FCTC have further adopted Guidelines on the Protection from Exposure to Second-hand Smoke which state that "effective measures to provide protection from exposure to tobacco smoke ... require the total elimination of smoking and tobacco smoke in a particular space or environment in order to create a 100% smoke-free environment."[161]

Opinion polls have shown considerable support for smoke-free laws. In June 2007, a survey of 15 countries found 80% approval for smoke-free laws.[162] A survey in France, reputedly a nation of smokers, showed 70% support.[72]

Effects

In the first 18 months after the town of Pueblo, Colorado enacted a smoke-free law in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 27%. Admissions in neighbouring towns without smoke-free laws showed no change, and the decline in heart attacks in Pueblo was attributed to the resulting reduction in second-hand smoke exposure.[163]

In April, 2010 the Canadian Medical Association Journal published a study evaluating the effects of a 10-year, three-stage smoke-free regulatory programme in Toronto. The study found that during the implementation of a restaurant smoke-free ordinance, hospital admissions for cardiovascular conditions declined by 39%, and admissions for respiratory conditions declined by 33%. No significant reductions in hospital admissions occurred in other cities which did not have smoke-free ordinances. The authors concluded that the study justified further efforts to reduce public exposure to tobacco smoke. In May 2006, Ontario instituted a comprehensive province-wide smoke-free law which extended the restrictions to all cities and municipalities in Ontario.[164] However, not all researchers agree that this was a causal relationship, and a 2009 study of many smoke-free ordinances in the United States disagreed with these conclusions.[165]

In 2001, a systematic review for the Guide to Community Preventative Services acknowledged strong evidence of the effectiveness of smoke-free policies and restrictions in reducing expose to second-hand smoke. A follow up to this review, identified the evidence on which the effectiveness of smoking bans reduced the prevalence of tobacco use. Articles published until 2005, were examined to further support this evidence. The examined studies provided sufficient evidence that smoke-free policies reduce tobacco use among workers when implemented in worksites or by communities.[166]

While a number of studies funded by the tobacco industry have claimed a negative economic impact from smoke-free laws, no independently funded research has shown any such impact. A 2003 review reported that independently funded, methodologically sound research consistently found either no economic impact or a positive impact from smoke-free laws.[167]

Air nicotine levels were measured in Guatemalan bars and restaurants before and after an implemented smoke-free law in 2009. Nicotine concentrations significantly decreased in both the bars and restaurants measured. Also, the employees support for a smoke-free workplace substantially increased in the post-implementation survey compared to pre-implementation survey. The result of this smoke-free law provides a considerably more healthy work environment for the staff.[168]

Public opinion

Recent surveys taken by the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco demonstrates supportive attitudes of the public, towards smoke-free policies in outdoor areas. A vast majority of the public supports restricting smoking in various outdoor settings. The respondents reasons for supporting the polices were for varying reasons such as, litter control, establishing positive smoke-free role models for youth, reducing youth opportunities to smoke, and avoiding exposure to secondhand smoke.[169]

Alternative forms

Alternatives to smoke-free laws have also been proposed as a means of harm reduction, particularly in bars and restaurants. For example, critics of smoke-free laws cite studies suggesting ventilation as a means of reducing tobacco smoke pollutants and improving air quality.[170] Ventilation has also been heavily promoted by the tobacco industry as an alternative to outright bans, via a network of ostensibly independent experts with often undisclosed ties to the industry.[171] However, not all critics have connections to the industry.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) officially concluded in 2005 that while completely isolated smoking rooms do eliminate the risk to nearby non-smoking areas, smoking bans are the only means of completely eliminating health risks associated with indoor exposure. They further concluded that no system of dilution or cleaning was effective at eliminating risk.[172] The U.S. Surgeon General and the European Commission Joint Research Centre have reached similar conclusions.[154][173] The implementation guidelines for the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that engineering approaches, such as ventilation, are ineffective and do not protect against second-hand smoke exposure.[161] However, this does not necessarily mean that such measures are useless in reducing harm, only that they fall short of the goal of reducing exposure completely to zero.

Others have suggested a system of tradable smoking pollution permits, similar to the cap-and-trade pollution permits systems used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent decades to curb other types of pollution.[174] This would guarantee that a portion of bars/restaurants in a jurisdiction will be smoke free, while leaving the decision to the market.

In animals

Multiple studies have been conducted to determine the carcinogenicity of environmental tobacco smoke to animals. These studies typically fall under the categories of simulated environmental tobacco smoke, administering condensates of sidestream smoke, or observational studies of cancer among pets.

To simulate environmental tobacco smoke, scientists expose animals to sidestream smoke, that which emanates from the cigarette's burning cone and through its paper, or a combination of mainstream and sidestream smoke.[3] The IARC monographs conclude that mice with prolonged exposure to simulated environmental tobacco smoke, that is 6hrs a day, 5 days a week, for five months with a subsequent 4 month interval before dissection, will have significantly higher incidence and multiplicity of lung tumors than with control groups.

The IARC monographs concluded that sidestream smoke condensates had a significantly higher carcinogenic effect on mice than did mainstream smoke condensates.[3]

Observational studies

Second-hand smoke is popularly recognised as a risk factor for cancer in pets.[175] A study conducted by the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine and the University of Massachusetts Amherst linked the occurrence of feline oral cancer to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke through an overexpression of the p53 gene.[176] Another study conducted at the same universities concluded that cats living with a smoker were more likely to get feline lymphoma; the risk increased with the duration of exposure to secondhand smoke and the number of smokers in the household.[177] A study by Colorado State University researchers, looking at cases of canine lung cancer, was generally inconclusive, though the authors reported a weak relation for lung cancer in dogs exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. The number of smokers within the home, the number of packs smoked in the home per day, and the amount of time that the dog spent within the home had no effect on the dog's risk for lung cancer.[178]

Animal nicotine poisoning

Animals like dogs, cats, squirrels, and other small animals are affected by not only second-hand smoke inhalation, but also nicotine poisoning.[citation needed] Domestic pets, especially dogs, usually fall ill when owners leave nicotine products like cigarette butts, chewing tobacco, or nicotine gum within reach of the animal.[citation needed] Littered cigarette butts from smokers are a problem for small animals that mistake them for food if they find them on sidewalks or trashcans.[179] Cigarette butts are the remains of a cigarette after smoking which contain the filter which is meant to contain tar, particles, and toxins from the cigarette such as ammonia, arsenic, benzene, turpentine and other toxins.[citation needed]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c "WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control" (PDF). World Health Organization. 2005-02-27. Retrieved 2009-01-12. "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability" 
  2. ^ a b c d "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General". Surgeon General of the United States. 2006-06-27. Retrieved 2012-07-24. "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke" 
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j IARC 2004 "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans"
  4. ^ a b c d e f Kessler 2006
  5. ^ Samet JM (2008). "Secondhand smoke: facts and lies". Salud Pública De México 50 (5): 428–34. doi:10.1590/S0036-36342008000500016. PMID 18852940. 
  6. ^ a b Tong, EK; Glantz, SA (2007-10-16). "Tobacco industry efforts undermining evidence linking secondhand smoke with cardiovascular disease". Circulation 116 (16): 1845–54. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.715888. PMID 17938301. 
  7. ^ a b c Diethelm P, McKee M (February 2006). "Lifting the smokescreen: Tobacco industry strategy to defeat smoke free policies and legislation". European Respiratory Society and Institut National du Cancer. Retrieved 2009-01-17. "The industry quickly realised that, if it wanted to continue to prosper, it became vital that research did not demonstrate that tobacco smoke was a dangerous community air pollutant. This requirement has been the central pillar of its passive smoking policy from the early 1970s to the present day" 
  8. ^ a b c d e "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant". California Environmental Protection Agency. 2005-06-24. Retrieved 2009-01-12. 
  9. ^ Surgeon General 2006, pp. 30–46
  10. ^ Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (1986). "1986 Surgeon General's report: the health consequences of involuntary smoking". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35 (50): 769–70. PMID 3097495. 
  11. ^ National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects, NRC, Washington, DC (1986).
  12. ^ a b US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disorders PDF
  13. ^ "Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency". Tob Control 6 (4): 346–53. 1997. doi:10.1136/tc.6.4.346. PMC 1759599. PMID 9583639. 
  14. ^ "Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health to the Chief Medical Officer, Part II". Retrieved 2006-07-26. 
  15. ^ Hackshaw AK (1998). "Lung cancer and passive smoking". Stat Methods Med Res 7 (2): 119–36. doi:10.1191/096228098675091404. PMID 9654638. 
  16. ^ National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1997).
  17. ^ Brennan P, Buffler P, Reynolds P, Wu A, Wichmann H, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel K, Benhamou S, Greenberg R, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham E, Kreuzer M, Darby S, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P (2004). "Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies". Int. J. Cancer 109 (1): 125–31. doi:10.1002/ijc.11682. PMID 14735478. 
  18. ^ Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2003). "Epidemiology of lung cancer". Chest 123 (1 Suppl): 21S–49S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21S. PMID 12527563. 
  19. ^ Filippini G, Farinotti M, Lovicu G, Maisonneuve P, Boyle P (June 1994). "Mothers' active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children". Int. J. Cancer 57 (6): 769–74. doi:10.1002/ijc.2910570602. PMID 8206670. 
  20. ^ Bull, P.D. (1996). Diseases of the Ear, Nose and Throat. Blackwell Science. ISBN 0-86542-634-1. 
  21. ^ Fabry DA, Davila EP, Arheart KL, et al. (November 2010). "Secondhand Smoke Exposure and the Risk of Hearing Loss". Tob Control 20 (1): 82–5. doi:10.1136/tc.2010.035832. PMC 3071573. PMID 21081307. 
  22. ^ Surgeon General 2006, Ch. 8
  23. ^ Dietrich DF, Schwartz J, Schindler C, et al. (2007). "Effects of passive smoking on heart rate variability, heart rate and blood pressure: an observational study". Int J Epidemiol 36 (4): 834–40. doi:10.1093/ije/dym031. PMID 17440032. 
  24. ^ Zou N, Hong J, Dai QY (February 2009). "Passive cigarette smoking induces inflammatory injury in human arterial walls". Chin. Med. J. 122 (4): 444–8. PMID 19302752. 
  25. ^ Surgeon General 2006, pp. 555–8
  26. ^ Llewellyn DJ, Lang IA, Langa KM, Naughton F, Matthews FE (2009). "Exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive impairment in non-smokers: national cross sectional study with cotinine measurement". BMJ 338: b462. doi:10.1136/bmj.b462. PMC 2643443. PMID 19213767. 
  27. ^ Surgeon General 2006, pp. 198–205
  28. ^ Surgeon General 2006, pp. 194–7
  29. ^ Been, Jasper (Mar 28, 2014). "Effect of smoke-free legislation on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60082-9. 
  30. ^ Geerts CC, Bots ML, van der Ent CK, Grobbee DE, Uiterwaal CS (January 2012). "Parental smoking and vascular damage in their 5-year-old children". Pediatrics 129 (1): 45–54. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0249. PMID 22201150. 
  31. ^ Salmasi G, Grady R, Jones J, McDonald SD (2010). "Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses". Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89 (4): 423–41. doi:10.3109/00016340903505748. PMID 20085532. 
  32. ^ Janson C (2004). "The effect of passive smoking on respiratory health in children and adults". Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 8 (5): 510–6. PMID 15137524. 
  33. ^ Lee CH, Chuang HY, Hong CH, et al. (November 2010). "Lifetime exposure to cigarette smoking and the development of adult-onset atopic dermatitis". Br J Dermatol 164 (3): 483–9. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10116.x. PMC 3062947. PMID 21054333. 
  34. ^ Glantz SA, Parmley WW (1991). "Passive smoking and heart disease. Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry". Circulation 83 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1161/01.cir.83.1.1. PMID 1984876. 
  35. ^ Taylor AE, Johnson DC, Kazemi H (1992). "Environmental tobacco smoke and cardiovascular disease. A position paper from the Council on Cardiopulmonary and Critical Care, American Heart Association". Circulation 86 (2): 699–702. doi:10.1161/01.cir.86.2.699. PMID 1638735. 
  36. ^ Surgeon General 2006, pp. 376–380
  37. ^ "More than 600,000 people killed by 2nd-hand smoke". The Washington Post. 26 November 2010. 
  38. ^ McMartin KI, Platt MS, Hackman R, Klein J, Smialek JE, Vigorito R, Koren G (2002). "Lung tissue concentrations of nicotine in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)". J. Pediatr. 140 (2): 205–9. doi:10.1067/mpd.2002.121937. PMID 11865272. 
  39. ^ Milerad J, Vege A, Opdal SH, Rognum TO (1999). "Objective measurements of nicotine exposure in victims of sudden infant death syndrome and in other unexpected child deaths". J. Pediatr. 133 (2): 232–3. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(98)70225-2. PMID 9709711. 
  40. ^ Surgeon General 2006, p. 194
  41. ^ a b "Secondhand Smoke and Children Fact Sheet", American Lung Association August 2006.
  42. ^ Surgeon General 2006, pp. 311–9
  43. ^ Vork KL, Broadwin RL, Blaisdell RJ (2007). "Developing Asthma in Childhood from Exposure to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke: Insights from a Meta-Regression". Environ. Health Perspect. 115 (10): 1394–400. doi:10.1289/ehp.10155. PMC 2022647. PMID 17938726. 
  44. ^ Spencer N, Coe C (2003). "Parent reported longstanding health problems in early childhood: a cohort study". Arch. Dis. Child. 88 (7): 570–3. doi:10.1136/adc.88.7.570. PMC 1763148. PMID 12818898. 
  45. ^ de Jongste JC, Shields MD (2003). "Cough • 2: Chronic cough in children". Thorax 58 (11): 998–1003. doi:10.1136/thorax.58.11.998. PMC 1746521. PMID 14586058. 
  46. ^ Dybing E, Sanner T (1999). "Passive smoking, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and childhood infections". Hum Exp Toxicol 18 (4): 202–5. doi:10.1191/096032799678839914. PMID 10333302. 
  47. ^ a b DiFranza JR, Aligne CA, Weitzman M (2004). "Prenatal and postnatal environmental tobacco smoke exposure and children's health". Pediatrics 113 (4 Suppl): 1007–15. doi:10.1542/peds.113.4.S1.1007 (inactive 2010-06-20). PMID 15060193. 
  48. ^ a b Chatzimichael A, Tsalkidis A, Cassimos D, et al. (2007). "The role of breastfeeding and passive smoking on the development of severe bronchiolitis in infants". Minerva Pediatr. 59 (3): 199–206. PMID 17519864. 
  49. ^ a b Preventing Smoking and Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Before, During, and After Pregnancy. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. July 2007.
  50. ^ den Boon S, Verver S, Marais BJ, et al. (2007). "Association between passive smoking and infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis in children". Pediatrics 119 (4): 734–9. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1796. PMID 17403844. 
  51. ^ Mahid SS, Minor KS, Stromberg AJ, Galandiuk S (2007). "Active and passive smoking in childhood is related to the development of inflammatory bowel disease". Inflamm. Bowel Dis. 13 (4): 431–8. doi:10.1002/ibd.20070. PMID 17206676. 
  52. ^ Richards GA, Terblanche AP, Theron AJ, et al. (1996). "Health effects of passive smoking in adolescent children". S. Afr. Med. J. 86 (2): 143–7. PMID 8619139. 
  53. ^ "Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders". The Collaborative on Health and the Environment's Learning and Developmental Disabilities Initiative. July 1, 2008. Archived from the original on 2009-03-27. 
  54. ^ Avşar A, Darka O, Topaloğlu B, Bek Y (October 2008). "Association of passive smoking with caries and related salivary biomarkers in young children". Arch. Oral Biol. 53 (10): 969–74. doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2008.05.007. PMID 18672230. 
  55. ^ Surgeon General 2006, pp. 293–309
  56. ^ Jacoby PA, Coates HL, Arumugaswamy A, et. al (2008). "The effect of passive smoking on the risk of otitis media in Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children in the Kalgoorlie–Boulder region of Western Australia". Med J Aust 188 (10): 599–603. PMID 18484936. 
  57. ^ Stayner, L; Bena, J; Sasco, AJ; Smith, R; Steenland, K; Kreuzer, M; Straif, K (March 2007). "Lung cancer risk and workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke". American journal of public health 97 (3): 545–51. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.061275. PMC 1805004. PMID 17267733. 
  58. ^ Steenland K (January 1992). "Passive smoking and the risk of heart disease". JAMA 267 (1): 94–9. doi:10.1001/jama.267.1.94. PMID 1727204. 
  59. ^ a b Whincup PH, Gilg JA, Emberson JR, et al. (2004). "Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: prospective study with cotinine measurement". BMJ 329 (7459): 200–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.38146.427188.55. PMC 487731. PMID 15229131. 
  60. ^ Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M (2005). "The whole truth and nothing but the truth? The research that Philip Morris did not want you to see". Lancet 366 (9479): 86–92. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66474-4. PMID 15993237. 
  61. ^ Schick S, Glantz S (2005). "Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke". Tobacco control 14 (6): 396–404. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.011288. PMC 1748121. PMID 16319363. 
  62. ^ Schick S, Glantz SA (2006). "Sidestream cigarette smoke toxicity increases with aging and exposure duration". Tobacco control 15 (6): 424–9. doi:10.1136/tc.2006.016162. PMC 2563675. PMID 17130369. 
  63. ^ Schick SF, Glantz S (2007). "Concentrations of the carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone in sidestream cigarette smoke increase after release into indoor air: results from unpublished tobacco industry research". Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 16 (8): 1547–53. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0210. PMID 17684127. 
  64. ^ Gaia Vince (2004-06-30). "Passive smoking danger was underestimated". New Scientist. Retrieved 2007-07-24. 
  65. ^ a b Novak K (2007). "Passive smoking: out from the haze". Nature 447 (7148): 1049–51. doi:10.1038/4471049a. PMID 17597735. 
  66. ^ Bailar J (1999). "Passive Smoking, Coronary Heart Disease, and Meta-Analysis (Editorial)". The New England Journal of Medicine 340 (12): 958–9. doi:10.1056/NEJM199903253401211. PMID 10089192. 
  67. ^ Raupach T, Schäfer K, Konstantinides S and Andreas S (2006). "Secondhand smoke as an acute threat for the cardiovascular system: a change in paradigm". European Heart Journal 27 (4): 386–392. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi601. PMID 16230308. 
  68. ^ Taylor R, Najafi F, Dobson A (October 2007). "Meta-analysis of studies of passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent". Int J Epidemiol 36 (5): 1048–59. doi:10.1093/ije/dym158. PMID 17690135. 
  69. ^ Stayner L, Bena J, Sasco AJ, et al. (2007). "Lung Cancer Risk and Workplace Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke". Am J Public Health 97 (3): 545–51. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.061275. PMC 1805004. PMID 17267733. 
  70. ^ "Health effects of indoor air pollution". Retrieved 2006-07-26. 
  71. ^ Wirth N, Abou-Hamdan K, Spinosa A, Bohadana A, Martinet Y (February 2005). "[Passive smoking]". Rev Pneumol Clin (in French) 61 (1 Pt 1): 7–15. PMID 15772574. 
  72. ^ a b "France to ban smoking in public". BBC. 2006-10-08. Retrieved 2006-10-09. 
  73. ^ Sims M, Maxwell R, Bauld L, Gilmore A (8 June 2010). "Short term impact of smoke-free legislation in England: retrospective analysis of hospital admissions for myocardial infarction". BMJ 340: c2161. doi:10.1136/bmj.c2161. PMC 2882555. PMID 20530563. 
  74. ^ Lightwood JM, Glantz SA (October 2009). "Declines in Acute Myocardial Infarction following Smokefree Laws and Individual Risk Attributable to Secondhand Smoke". Circulation 120 (14): 1373–9. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.870691. PMC 2967202. PMID 19770392. 
  75. ^ Meyers DG, Neuberger JS (November 2008). "Cardiovascular effect of bans on smoking in public places". Am. J. Cardiol. 102 (10): 1421–4. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.06.065. PMID 18993167. 
  76. ^ Tamkins, Theresa (September 22, 2009). "Big drop in heart attacks after smoking bans, studies say". CNNhealth.com. Retrieved 2009-09-23. 
  77. ^ a b c Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, et al. (1998). "Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 90 (19): 1440–50. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.19.1440. PMID 9776409. 
  78. ^ a b Metz-Favre C, Donnay C, de Blay F (February 2005). "[Markers of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure]". Rev Mal Respir (in French) 22 (1 Pt 1): 81–92. PMID 15968761. 
  79. ^ McClure JB (April 2002). "Are biomarkers useful treatment aids for promoting health behavior change? An empirical review". Am J Prev Med 22 (3): 200–7. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00425-1. PMID 11897465. 
  80. ^ Klesges RC, Debon M, Ray JW (October 1995). "Are self-reports of smoking rate biased? Evidence from the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey". J Clin Epidemiol 48 (10): 1225–33. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(95)00020-5. PMID 7561984. 
  81. ^ Okoli CT, Kelly T, Hahn EJ (October 2007). "Secondhand smoke and nicotine exposure: a brief review". Addict Behav 32 (10): 1977–88. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.12.024. PMID 17270359. 
  82. ^ Florescu A, Ferrence R, Einarson T, Selby P, Soldin O, Koren G (February 2009). "Methods for quantification of exposure to cigarette smoking and environmental tobacco smoke: focus on developmental toxicology". Ther Drug Monit 31 (1): 14–30. doi:10.1097/FTD.0b013e3181957a3b. PMID 19125149. 
  83. ^ Irving JM, Clark EC, Crombie IK, Smith WC (January 1988). "Evaluation of a portable measure of expired-air carbon monoxide". Prev Med 17 (1): 109–15. doi:10.1016/0091-7435(88)90076-X. PMID 3362796. 
  84. ^ Schick S, Glantz S. (2005). "Philip Morris toxicological experiments with fresh sidestream smoke: more toxic than mainstream smoke". Tob Control. 14 (6): 396–404. doi:10.1136/tc.2005.011288. PMC 1748121. PMID 16319363. 
  85. ^ Invernizzi G, Ruprecht A, Mazza R, et al. (2004). "Particulate matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust: an educational perspective". Tob Control 13 (3): 219–21. doi:10.1136/tc.2003.005975. PMC 1747905. PMID 15333875. 
  86. ^ Barnoya J, Glantz SA (2005). "Cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke: nearly as large as smoking". Circulation 111 (20): 2684–98. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.492215. PMID 15911719. 
  87. ^ Otsuka R, Watanabe H, Hirata K, et al. (2001). "Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults". JAMA 286 (4): 436–41. doi:10.1001/jama.286.4.436. PMID 11466122. 
  88. ^ Cendon, S.P.; Battlehner, C.; Lorenzi; Filho, G.; Dohlnikoff, M.; Pereira, P.M.; Conceição, G.M.S.; Beppu, O.S.; Saldiva, P.H.N. (22 May 2005). "Pulmonary emphysema induced by passive smoking: an experimental study in rats". SciELO Brasil. 507184. 
  89. ^ Eren, U.; Kum, S.; Sandikci, M.; Kara, E. (2006). "Effects of long-term passive smoking on the mast cells in rat lungs". Revue de Médecine Vétérinaire 6: 319–322. 
  90. ^ Matt GE, Quintana PJ, Hovell MF, et al. (March 2004). "Households contaminated by environmental tobacco smoke: sources of infant exposures". Tob Control 13 (1): 29–37. doi:10.1136/tc.2003.003889. PMC 1747815. PMID 14985592. 
  91. ^ Winickoff JP, Friebely J, Tanski SE, et al. (January 2009). "Beliefs about the health effects of "thirdhand" smoke and home smoking bans". Pediatrics 123 (1): e74–9. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2184. PMID 19117850. 
  92. ^ Rabin, Roni Caryn (2009-01-02). "A New Cigarette Hazard: 'Third-Hand Smoke'". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-12. 
  93. ^ Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. (February 2010). "Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (15): 6576–81. doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. PMC 2872399. PMID 20142504. 
  94. ^ Louisiana Hospital to Ban Odor of Smoke on Workers' Clothes, Fox News, October 3, 2011
  95. ^ Samet JM, Avila-Tang E, Boffetta P, et al. (September 2009). "Lung cancer in never smokers: Clinical epidemiology and environmental risk factors". Clin. Cancer Res. 15 (18): 5626–45. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0376. PMC 3170525. PMID 19755391. 
  96. ^ "Environmental Tobacco Smoke". 11th Report on Carcinogens. U.S. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 2007-08-27. 
  97. ^ "Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet". U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
  98. ^ "Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke". U.S. National Cancer Institute. Retrieved 2007-08-22. 
  99. ^ "Health Effects of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke". United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 2007-09-24. 
  100. ^ "The Truth about Secondhand Smoke". American Heart Association. Retrieved 2007-08-27. 
  101. ^ "Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet". American Lung Association. Archived from the original on 2007-09-18. Retrieved 2007-09-24. 
  102. ^ "Secondhand Smoke". American Cancer Society. Retrieved 2007-08-27. 
  103. ^ "AMA: Surgeon General's secondhand smoke report a wake-up call to lawmakers" (Press release). American Medical Association. Retrieved 2007-08-27. 
  104. ^ "Tobacco's Toll: Implications for the Pediatrician". American Academy of Pediatrics. Retrieved 2007-10-02. 
  105. ^ "National Response to Passive Smoking in Enclosed Public Places and Workplaces". Australian National Public Health Partnership. November 2000. Retrieved 2007-09-11. 
  106. ^ Two relevant reports have been published by the Scientific Committee:
    • A 1998 report of the SCOTH concluded that passive smoking was a cause of lung cancer, heart disease, and other health problems.
    • A 2004 update by the SCOTH, reviewing new evidence published since the 1998 report, found that recent research had confirmed the initially reported link between passive smoking and health risks.
  107. ^ Surgeon General 2006, p. 588 Ch. 10
  108. ^ "Cato and the tobacco industry". Accessed 8 April 2011.
  109. ^ Nahan, Mike. The Australian, 10 April 2000, "The IPA sings its own song".
  110. ^ Shermer, Michael; MacKenzie, Debora; Littlemore, Richard; Giles, Jim; Fitzpatrick, Michael (15 May 2010). "State of Denial, a Special Report". New Scientist: 36–45. Retrieved 16 August 2010. 
  111. ^ Diethelm, PA and McKee, M (2009). "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?". European Journal of Public Health 19 (1): 2–4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139. PMID 19158101. Lay summary. 
  112. ^ Enstrom JE, Kabat GC (2003). "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98". BMJ 326 (7398): 1057. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1057. PMC 155687. PMID 12750205. 
  113. ^ Davey Smith G (2003). "Effect of passive smoking on health: More information is available, but the controversy still persists". BMJ 326 (7398): 1048–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1048. PMC 1125974. PMID 12750182. 
  114. ^ Kessler 2006, p. 1383
  115. ^ Tong EK, Glantz SA (2007). "Tobacco industry efforts undermining evidence linking secondhand smoke with cardiovascular disease". Circulation 116 (16): 1845–54. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.715888. PMID 17938301. 
  116. ^ "American Cancer Society Condemns Tobacco Industry Study for Inaccurate Use of Data" (Press release). American Cancer Society. 2003-05-13. Retrieved 2007-08-29. 
  117. ^ Thun MJC (2003). "More misleading science from the tobacco industry". BMJ 327 (7418): E237–8. doi:10.1136/bmjusa.03070002 (inactive 2010-06-20). 
  118. ^ "Proposed Research on the relationship of Low Levels of Active Smoking to Mortality: Letter from James Enstrom to Philip Morris Scientific Affairs office". 1997-01-01. Retrieved 2007-08-29. 
  119. ^ Dalton R (March 2007). "Passive-smoking study faces review". Nature 446 (7133): 242. doi:10.1038/446242a. PMID 17361147. 
  120. ^ Kessler 2006, p. 1380
  121. ^ a b Ong EK, Glantz SA (2000). "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study". Lancet 355 (9211): 1253–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02098-5. PMID 10770318. 
  122. ^ Kessler 2006, pp. 1380–3
  123. ^ Enstrom JE (2007). "Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko pseudoscience". Epidemiol Perspect Innov 4 (1): 11. doi:10.1186/1742-5573-4-11. PMC 2164936. PMID 17927827. 
  124. ^ Kessler 2006, p. 162
  125. ^ United States of America v. Philip Morris et al., United States Factual Memorandum Pursuant to Order No. 470, Section V, United States District Court for the District of Columbia. p. 44
  126. ^ ETS / IAQ SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANTS, from the Legacy Tobacco Documents Archive. Retrieved July 19, 2007.
  127. ^ Gori, Gio Batta (Spring 2007). "Stoking the Rigged Terror of Secondhand Smoke". Regulation 30 (1): 14–7. 
  128. ^ Smoked Out: Pundit for Hire, by Paul D. Thacker. Published in The New Republic on January 26, 2006. Retrieved August 22, 2007.
  129. ^ Philip Morris budget for "Strategy and Social Responsibility", listing Milloy as a paid consultant. Retrieved August 22, 2007.
  130. ^ "Secondhand Joking", by Steven Milloy. Retrieved May 31, 2013.
  131. ^ Samet JM, Burke TA (2001). "Turning Science Into Junk: The Tobacco Industry and Passive Smoking". Am J Public Health 91 (11): 1742–4. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1742. PMC 1446866. PMID 11684591. 
  132. ^ Scientific Communications Through the Media, from the Philip Morris document archive. Retrieved October 3, 2007. Also cited in Ong EK, Glantz SA (2001). "Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms". Am J Public Health 91 (11): 1749–57. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1749. PMC 1446868. PMID 11684593. 
  133. ^ a b Ong EK, Glantz SA (2001). "Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms". Am J Public Health 91 (11): 1749–57. doi:10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1749. PMC 1446868. PMID 11684593. 
  134. ^ "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer —Official". 
  135. ^ "Smokescreens – The World Health Organization is showing signs of allowing politics to get in the way of truth. The Economist March 14th, 1998" (PDF). 
  136. ^ Le Grand C. Anti-smokers blown away by study. Australian 1998, March 10.
  137. ^ WHO Rejects smoking link with lung cancer. Zimbabwe Independent 1998, Oct 23.
  138. ^ No Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer. The Times 1998, March 9.
  139. ^ "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You". 
  140. ^ Blot WJ, McLaughlin JK (1998). "Passive smoking and lung cancer risk: what is the story now?". J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 90 (19): 1416–7. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.19.1416. PMID 9776401. 
  141. ^ "Tobacco Companies Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World Health Organization" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-12-30. 
  142. ^ "The Osteen Decision". 
  143. ^ "Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative vs. EPA" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-12-30. 
  144. ^ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, ed. (December 2–3, 1998). "Final Report on Carcinogens – Background Document for Environmental Tobacco Smoke" (PDF). Meeting of the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors – Report on Carcinogens Subcommittee. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. p. 24. 
  145. ^ Thun MJ (2003). "Passive smoking: Tobacco industry publishes disinformation". BMJ 327 (7413): 502–3; author reply 504–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7413.502-c. PMC 188400. PMID 12946979. 
  146. ^ a b Barnes DE, Bero LA (1998). "Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions". JAMA 279 (19): 1566–70. doi:10.1001/jama.279.19.1566. PMID 9605902. 
  147. ^ Tong EK, England L, Glantz SA (2005). "Changing conclusions on secondhand smoke in a sudden infant death syndrome review funded by the tobacco industry". Pediatrics 115 (3): e356–66. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1922. PMID 15741361. 
  148. ^ "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke" (PDF). Executive Summary. Surgeon General of the United States. 2006. p. 21. Retrieved 2009-01-28. 
  149. ^ a b c "Minutes of a meeting of Philip Morris with British tobacco companies to discuss tobacco-industry strategy on passive smoking". Retrieved 2007-08-27. 
  150. ^ A Study of Public Attitudes toward Cigarette Smoking and the Tobacco Industry in 1978, produced for the Tobacco Institute and released under the terms of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.
  151. ^ Smith EA, Malone RE (June 2007). "'We will speak as the smoker': the tobacco industry's smokers' rights groups". Eur J Public Health 17 (3): 306–13. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckl244. PMC 2794244. PMID 17065174. 
  152. ^ Trotter L, Chapman S (2003). ""Conclusions about exposure to ETS and health that will be unhelpful to us"*: How the tobacco industry attempted to delay and discredit the 1997 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council report on passive smoking". Tob Control 12 (Suppl 3:iii): 102–6. doi:10.1136/tc.12.suppl_3.iii102. PMC 1766130. PMID 14645955. 
  153. ^ Garne D, Watson M, Chapman S, Byrne F (2005). "Environmental tobacco smoke research published in the journal Indoor and Built Environment and associations with the tobacco industry". Lancet 365 (9461): 804–9. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17990-2. PMID 15733724. 
  154. ^ a b "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke" (PDF). Executive Summary. Surgeon General of the United States. 2006. Retrieved 2009-01-28. 
  155. ^ Kessler 2006, p. 1523
  156. ^ The most current positions of major tobacco companies on the issue of passive smoking can be found on their websites. As of 13 January 2009, the following websites contain tobacco-industry positions on the topic:
  157. ^ Litigation Against Tobacco Companies U.S. Department of Justice
  158. ^ Appeal Ruling, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 22 May 2009
  159. ^ Altria, Cigarette Makers Lose 'Lights' Ruling Appeal Bloomberg news, 22 May 2009
  160. ^ U.S. appeals court agrees tobacco companies lied Reuters, 22 May 2009
  161. ^ a b "Guidelines on the Protection from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke" (PDF). Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. World Health Organization. 2007. Retrieved 2009-01-29. 
  162. ^ Market Research World
  163. ^ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (January 2009). "Reduced hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction after implementation of a smoke-free ordinance—City of Pueblo, Colorado, 2002–2006". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 57 (51): 1373–7. PMID 19116606. 
  164. ^ Naiman A, Glazier RH, Moineddin R (April 2010). "Association of anti-smoking legislation with rates of hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions". CMAJ 182 (8): 761–7. doi:10.1503/cmaj.091130. PMC 2871198. PMID 20385737. 
  165. ^ Shetty, Kanaka D., et al. (April 2009). "Changes in U.S. Hospitalization and Mortality Rates Following Smoking Bans". NBER. 
  166. ^ Hopkins DP, Razi S, Leeks KD, Priya Kalra G, Chattopadhyay SK, Soler RE (2010). "Smokefree policies to reduce tobacco use. A systematic review". Am J Prev Med 38 (2 Suppl): S275–89. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.10.029. PMID 20117612. 
  167. ^ Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, Glantz S. (Mar 2003). "Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry". Tobacco Control 12 (1): 13–20. doi:10.1136/tc.12.1.13. PMC 1759095. PMID 12612356. 
  168. ^ Barnoya J, Arvizu M, Jones MR, Hernandez JC, Breysse PN, Navas-Acien A (November 2010). "Secondhand smoke exposure in bars and restaurants in Guatemala City: before and after smoking ban evaluation". Cancer Causes Control 22 (1): 151–6. doi:10.1007/s10552-010-9673-8. PMID 21046446. 
  169. ^ Thomson G, Wilson N, Edwards R (June 2009). "At the frontier of tobacco control: a brief review of public attitudes toward smoke-free outdoor places". Nicotine Tob. Res. 11 (6): 584–90. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp046. PMID 19359392. 
  170. ^ Geens, Andrew; Max Graham (March 2005). "No ifs or butts". Building Sustainable Design. Retrieved 2009-01-28. 
  171. ^ Drope J, Bialous SA, Glantz SA (March 2004). "Tobacco industry efforts to present ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free environments in North America". Tob Control 13 (Suppl 1): i41–7. doi:10.1136/tc.2003.004101. PMC 1766145. PMID 14985616. "The industry developed a network of ventilation 'experts' to promote its position that smoke-free environments were not necessary, often without disclosing the financial relationship between these experts and the industry." 
  172. ^ "Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Position Document" (PDF). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 2009-01-28. 
  173. ^ "Institute for Health and Consumer Protection Activity Report 2003" (PDF). European Commission Joint Research Centre. 2003. Retrieved 2009-01-28. [dead link]
  174. ^ Haveman, Robert; John Mullahy (September 25, 2005). "Let Bars Buy, Sell Smoking Permits". Wisconsin State Journal. p. B2. Retrieved 2009-01-28. 
  175. ^ Thompson, Andrea (2007-08-31). "Secondhand Smoke Causes Cancer in Pets". LiveScience. Retrieved 2007-08-31. 
  176. ^ Snyder LA, Bertone ER, Jakowski RM, Dooner MS, Jennings-Ritchie J, Moore AS. (2004). "p53 expression and environmental tobacco smoke exposure in feline oral squamous cell carcinoma". Vet Pathol 41 (3): 209–14. doi:10.1354/vp.41-3-209. PMID 15133168. 
  177. ^ Bertone ER, Snyder LA, Moore AS. (2002). "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Risk of Malignant Lymphoma in Pet Cats". American Journal of Epidemiology 156 (3): 268–273. doi:10.1093/aje/kwf044. PMID 12142262. 
  178. ^ Reif JS, Dunn K, Ogilvie GK, Harris CK. (1992). "Passive smoking and canine lung cancer risk". Am J Epidemiol. 135 (3): 234–9. PMID 1546698. 
  179. ^ Novotny TE, Hardin SN, Hovda LR, Novotny DJ, McLean MK, Khan S (May 2011). "Tobacco and cigarette butt consumption in humans and animals". Tobacco Control. 20 Suppl 1 (Suppl_1): i17–20. doi:10.1136/tc.2011.043489. PMC 3088460. PMID 21504918. 

External links

Scientific bodies
Tobacco industry
Other links