|MadSci Network: Medicine|
Dear friend , I feel that many scientific papers published in this matter of harmful effect of passive smoking .And mind me there is no doubt about its harmful effects. i even remember one employee of british company getting compensation from her company for her chronic bronchitis after rightly pursued legal battle. Here I am providing you some information regarding passive smoking. Regarding ur 2nd question I feel infant below 2yr old or foetus in utero will be at more risk due to passive smoking than older one though at the moment I haven't any scientific evidence in my hand to prove I am right on this matter. What is passive smoking and why make a fuss now? "Passive smoking" is the term used for breathing in other peopleís tobacco smoke. This form of smoking is usually involuntary and is particularly dangerous because the smoke that drifts from the end of a lit cigarette contains far greater amounts of cancer-causing chemicals and other toxic substances than the smoke inhaled by the smoker. These chemicals include ammonia, benzene, carbon monoxide, nicotine and five different compounds known to cause cancer.The smoke particles involved in passive smoking are also smaller, so they can be inhaled more deeply into the non-smokerís lungs. It has only come to light over the last 20 years, through rigorous scientific research, that passive smoking is dangerous. Now, it would be irresponsible not to acknowledge the wealth of evidence on the subject and take appropriate action to protect the health of employees and the general public.Years ago people unknowingly worked with asbestos but, now, no-one willingly exposes themselves to this deadly substance. Like asbestos, cigarette smoke is now classified as a "Group A" cancer causing agent in the US.Renowned British medical researcher Professor Sir Richard Doll has said that the risk of developing lung cancer from passive smoking is as much as 90 times higher than the risk of developing an asbestos-related cancer due to asbestos in buildings. What does cigarette smoke do to the non-smoker? assive smoking is known to cause the following health problems: Lung cancer - Non smokers living with a smoker have a 30%increase in the risk of developing lung cancer.Heart disease - Non smokers living with a smoker have a 24%increase in the risk of heart attack or death from coronary heart disease.Asthma, respiratory illness, glue ear and an increase in the risk of sudden infant death in children. Estimated 46,500 cases of asthma caused annually in Australia by passive smoking. Irritation of the eyes, nose and throat.Health effects are greatest for people working in hospitality areas because this is where concentrations of environmental tobacco smoke are greatest. Some of these workers inhale the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes per day. Who says itís so dangerous? There are hundreds of studies on the effects of passive smoking but, more importantly, there have been major reviews conducted on the scientific evidence by national and international research authorities including: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Tobacco Smoking. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1985 (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 38) US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking. A report of the Surgeon General.Rockville, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, Centres for Disease Control, Centre for Health Promotion and Education, Office on Smoking and Health, 1986. DHHS Publication No (CDC)87-8398. Committee on Passive Smoking. Environmental Tobacco Smoke Ė Measuring exposures and assessing health effects. Committee on PassiveSmoking, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council. Washington: National Academy Press, 1986.National Research Council Committee on Passive Smoking.enviornmental tobacco smoke: Measuring exposures and assessing health effects. Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1986:241-242. National Health and Medical Research Council. Effects of Passive Smoking on Health. Report of the NH & MRC Working Party on the Effects of Passive Smoking on Health. Adopted at the 101st Session of the Council, June 1986. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1987. Fourth Report of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health. (Chairman: Sir Peter Froggatt). London: HMSO, 1988. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disorders. Publication EPA/600/6-90/006F. Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency. December, 1992. Working Party on Smoking and the Young. Royal College of Physicians of London. Smoking and the Young. London: Royal College of Physicians of London, 1992. Environmental tobacco smoke and cardiovascular disease. A position paper from the Council on Cardiopulmonary and Critical Care, American Heart Association. Circulation 1992: 86:699-702. Californian Environmental Protection Agency. Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Dunn A, Zeise L (eds). Office of Environment Hazard, California USA, September 1997. National Health and Medical Research Council. The Health Effects of Passive Smoking: A Scientific Information Paper. Adopted at the 125th Session of the Council, November 1997. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1997. The UK Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (Chaired by Prof David Poswillo). Department of Health. The Stationery Office, March 1998. Who is trying to throw doubt on the harm caused by passive smoking? In May 1998, British American Tobacco (BAT) "leaked" results of a study undertaken jointly by the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. BAT claimed that the study showed the risks of passive smoking were insignificant. They also alleged that these results were being suppressed for political reasons. In fact the study, which had already been presented at an open scientific meeting, shows that non-smokers are: 16% more likely to get lung cancer from passive smoking at home. 17% more likely to get lung cancer from passive smoking at work. These results are entirely consistent with other studies and the major, independent scientific reviews cited earlier that show an increased risk of lung cancer from passive smoking. They have not been suppressed - at the time of BAT's "leak", the data had been submitted for publication to a leading medical journal and were part way through the normal process of anonymous peer-review. The paper is expected to appear in the scientific press later in 1998. Isnít air pollution more dangerous? Air pollution can cause and aggravate respiratory symptoms. However, unlike passive smoking, there is no conclusive evidence that air pollution causes lung cancer. It has been estimated that non-smokers have a 25% higher risk of developing cancer from passive smoking than from indoor radon. This risk is about 57 times greater than the estimated cancer risk from all the hazardous outdoor air pollutants currently regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency. Is there a safe level of passive smoking? As scientific and medical authorities have concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, any degree of passive smoking is potentially harmful.
Try the links in the MadSci Library for more information on Medicine.