Study raises concerns about outdoor second-hand smoke

November 18, 2009

Indoor smoking bans have forced smokers at bars and restaurants onto outdoor patios, but a new University of Georgia study in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that these outdoor smoking areas might be creating a new health hazard.

The study, thought to be the first to assess levels of a nicotine byproduct known as cotinine in nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke outdoors, found levels up to 162 percent greater than in the control group. The results appear in the November issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene.

"Indoor smoking bans have helped to create more of these outdoor environments where people are exposed to secondhand smoke," said study co-author Luke Naeher, associate professor in the UGA College of Public Health. "We know from our previous study that there are measurable airborne levels of secondhand smoke in these environments, and we know from this study that we can measure internal exposure.

" contains several known carcinogens and the current thinking is that there is no safe level of exposure," he added. "So the levels that we are seeing are a potential issue."

Athens-Clarke County, Ga., enacted an indoor in 2005, providing Naeher and his colleagues and ideal environment for their study. The team recruited 20 non-smoking adults and placed them in one of three environments: outside bars, outside restaurants and, for the control group, outside the UGA main library. Immediately before and after the six-hour study period, the volunteers gave a saliva sample that was tested for levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine and a commonly used marker of tobacco exposure.

The team found an average increase in cotinine of 162 percent for the volunteers stationed at outdoor seating and standing areas at bars, a 102 percent increase for those outside of restaurants and a 16 percent increase for the control group near the library.

Naeher acknowledges that an exposure of six-hours is greater than what an average patron would experience but said that employees can be exposed for even longer periods.

"Anyone who works in that environment—waitresses, waiters or bouncers—may be there for up to six hours or longer," Naeher said. "Across the country, a large number of people are occupationally exposed to second-hand smoke in this way."

Studies that measured health outcomes following indoor smoking bans have credited the bans with lowering rates of heart attacks and respiratory illness, but Naeher said that the health impacts of outdoor second-hand smoke are still unknown.

In Naeher's study, cotinine levels in the volunteers at the bar setting saw their levels increase from an average pre-exposure level of 0.069 ng/ml (nanograms per milliliter) to an average post-exposure level of 0.182 ng/ml. The maximum value observed, however, was 0.959 ng/ml. To put that number into context, a widely cited study has determined that an average cotinine level of 0.4 ng/ml increases lung cancer deaths by 1 for every 1,000 people and increases heart disease deaths by 1 for every 100 people.

Still, the researchers caution that it's too early to draw policy conclusions from their findings. Cotinine is a marker of exposure to tobacco, Naeher said, but is not a carcinogen. The team is currently planning a study that would measure levels of a molecule known as NNAL, which is a marker of tobacco exposure and a known , in people exposed to second-hand smoke outdoors.

"Our study suggests that there is reason to be concerned about second-hand smoke levels outdoors," said study co-author Gideon St. Helen, who is pursuing his Ph.D. through the university's Interdisciplinary Toxicology Program, "and our findings are an incentive for us to do further studies to see what the effects of those levels are."

Source: University of Georgia (news : web)

1.7 /5 (6 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

Simonsez
Nov 18, 2009

Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
So what they are saying is that by forcing smokers outside, they are just subjecting a different group of non-smokers to second-hand smoke. Way to go, government.
DaveAtherton
Nov 18, 2009

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
Can I suggest to Gideon St Helen that effects on health are zero. This SHS smoke fable is becoming more alchemy by the day. Firstly can I confirm an 8 year study by the Universities of Stamford and Wisconsin looked into SHS and heart attacks. It covered 270 million heart attacks, 2 million deaths over an 8 year period in all 50 states and 468 counties. Their conclusions were:

"In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases."

"An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

http://tobaccoana...ack.html

Conflicts of interest: Director, Freedom2Choose a smokers rights gp
DaveAtherton
Nov 18, 2009

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
Also you may want to hear of some research that was carried out in 1991. It assumes you are in a room 100m3 about 20 feet x 20 feet by 20 feet, sealed and unventilated. Here are the number of smokers that you have to be surrounded by before you reach danger levels of the chemical is the last figure:

Benzene: 13,300 A car gives off 20,000 more chemicals than a smoker per cubed inch.

Methyl chloride 0.88 10.30 1,170
Acetaldehyde 1.26 180.00 1,430
Nitrogen oxides 2.80 50.00 1,780
Phenol 0.25 19.00 7,600
Benzene 0.24 32.00 13,300
Dimethylamine 0.036 18.00 50,000
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.00009 0.20 222,000
Polonium 210 0.4pCi 3pCi/l 750,000
Toluene 0.000035 375.00 1,000,000

Dasan
Nov 18, 2009

Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)
Dave,
I don't have a lot of information on the subject, but short-term effects do not have to be the same as the long term effects. From what I understand, cancer and heart attacks are usually caused by long term exposure to a chemical or chemicals.

To even consider that SHS isn't dangerous is madness. There is no conspiracy against cigarette companies. People aren't trying to close down the factories to make money like with hemp vs cotton, or hemp paper vs trees. This is all just scientists trying to learn the dangers of smoking. The only people who would want to make up fake scientific reports are the cigarette companies who stand to lose money!

Just because a bomb will kill you faster, doesn't mean the pistol won't kill you.
RobertKLR
Nov 18, 2009

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (5)
For 2 decades my niece's seizures were attributed to exposure to second hand smoke as a child. It is now been proven her problem was related to a benign brain tumor. 5 years ago that tumor was removed and with it went the problem. For 2 decades the experts swore it was because of second hand smoke. The doctors, one after another, played follow the leader until Doctor Lacy, who didn't follow the leader, came along and took a closer realistic look at the issue and found the real problem. Tens of thousands of dollars were wasted on a 20 year string of misdiagnosis.
jimmie
Nov 18, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
perhaps the stuff coming out of your tailpipe
might have a significant impact.
or your power plant.
or your wood heat.
or sunspots.
DaveAtherton
Nov 18, 2009

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
To Dasan.

What do you make of this study into lung cancer and exposure to SHS in Iowan women. This study is the latest from 2006. Yes, SHS is actually protective, and by a statistically significant amount too.

"There was no significant increase or decrease in risk for those in high-risk occupations, those with any chemical exposure, those with asbestos exposure, or those with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as a child. A significant inverse association was found for those with some college education (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.48-0.81) and for those with adult passive smoke exposure at home (OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.26-0.54)."

http://www.ncbi.n...1876736/
DaveAtherton
Nov 18, 2009

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Asthma/atopy have long been blamed on SHS. While smoking levels have declined asthma has risen. I am aware of that have investigated it. The first is Swedish and the second from New Zealand, both found SHS protective against atopy. The NZ by a staggering 82% reduction. "Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children."

Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy"

http://www.medwir...lergic_s
DaveAtherton
Nov 18, 2009

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
@Dasan

If in doubt play the tobacco card. "The only people who would want to make up fake scientific reports are the cigarette companies who stand to lose money!"

None of those studies I have cited were paid for by tobacco companies. The inconvenient truth is like George W Bush's "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, to Richard Nixon's "there will be no cover up at the White House" governments do mislead. While I accept most of the science on ACTIVE smoking quite frankly the way that many Americans have been brainwashed into at least debateable science to downright lying is a stain on the country.

I am aware of over 80 epidemiological studies into lung cancer and heart disease. 16% suggest SHS a risk, 14% suggest it is protective and 70% are statistically insignificant. Hardly a solid case for work bans.

x646d63
Nov 19, 2009

Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
The whole point of workplace bans is that people retain the right not to smoke. When people around you smoke, you are forced to smoke.

It doesn't matter if it's healthy or not. You are not required to eat vitamins when I do, so why should I be required to smoke when you do?
DaveAtherton
Nov 19, 2009

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
@x646d63

If I stand in your vicinity do I have to breathe in your exhaled air? Most viral infections are spread orally and through sneezing etc. Also what about your car? Benzene is listed by the EPA as Class A carcinogen and constitutes 0.5% of a gallon of gas. Your car spews out 20,000 more Benzene per cubic inch than any cigarette smoker, should I be forced to breathe in your exhaust fumes?

Methinks you are applying selective and hypocritical standards.

As the 2006 Neuberger commented on lung cancer and urban living: "Urban residence was a significantly increased risk factor using inside city limits as the category (OR=1.84, 95% CI=1.35-2.51)."

The next time you turn the key in your ignition, think of my words. Yes, driving your car nearly doubles the chance of someone else contracting lung cancer.

http://www.ncbi.n...1876736/

Egnite
Nov 19, 2009

Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
The whole point of workplace bans is that people retain the right not to smoke. When people around you smoke, you are forced to smoke.

It doesn't matter if it's healthy or not. You are not required to eat vitamins when I do, so why should I be required to smoke when you do?


I cycle and as a result do not make exhaust fumes so why should I be forced to inhale everyone else's when I don't cause any?? Oh there's no band wagon for that yet, guess my views are a little premature for mindless fad followers like yourself!

As for working in a smokey environment, I believe it's your employers responsibility to supply appropriate saftey equipment, not the governments to ban that unsafe fume.

It's amazing the amount of people out there that can't think for or look after themselves and would rather the government remove thier freedoms to "help" them. Well what are you going to do when driving is banned? Or flying, farmers use of pesicides or heating ur home with fossil fuels?
x646d63
Nov 19, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
If I stand in your vicinity do I have to breathe in your exhaled air?


My breathing is not a conscious choice I can avoid.

Also what about your car? Benzene is listed by the EPA as Class A carcinogen and constitutes 0.5% of a gallon of gas.


Yes, I agree that air pollution in all forms is disappointing to those who wish to exercise their right to breathe clean air.

Unfortunately American society is built around the use of the motor vehicle, so it is a problem not worth tackling at the moment.

Methinks you are applying selective and hypocritical standards.


No, I am applying realistic standards, as are the governments that support workplace smoking bans.
x646d63
Nov 19, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
I cycle and as a result do not make exhaust fumes so why should I be forced to inhale everyone else's when I don't cause any??


I sincerely doubt you are 100% cycle/walk, but if you are, I applaud you. As I posted previously, however, it's not realistic to ask everyone to stop driving because our society relies on motor vehicle traffic to function.

As for working in a smokey environment, I believe it's your employers responsibility to supply appropriate saftey equipment, not the governments to ban that unsafe fume.


Workplaces are *required* to provide safety equipment as mandated by the government. Just as they are *required* to prevent smoking in the workplace as mandated by the government.
x646d63
Nov 19, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
It's amazing the amount of people out there that can't think for or look after themselves and would rather the government remove thier freedoms to "help" them. Well what are you going to do when driving is banned? Or flying, farmers use of pesicides or heating ur home with fossil fuels?


The United States Federal Government (I'm a U.S. Citizen) was established in order to protect the rights of its citizens.

By banning smoking, it is protecting the rights of those who wish not to be subjected to cigarette smoke. It is not banning the choice to smoke; you may continue to do so as long as you are not infringing on another's right to not smoke.

Your choices end where another's rights begin.

For what it's worth, I'm a strong Constitutionalist and believe that the US Federal Government has well overstepped its charter and infringes on our individual rights on a daily basis. I even voted for Ron Paul.
DaveAtherton
Nov 19, 2009

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Can you tell me under the Constitution where it compels you to go into a smoking bar, restaurant or patio? If you do not like Chinese food for example surely you go to another restaurant serving a different cuisine.

Is it all too hard for you?

"...the US Federal Government has well overstepped its charter and infringes on our individual rights on a daily basis."

When government impinges upon a private property owner his right to allow a legal pasttime to happen, when you have every right not to be there.

So on cars you have he right to inflict your carcinogens on all and sundry because the government gives you a clean conscience?

x646d63
Nov 20, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Can you tell me under the Constitution where it compels you to go into a smoking bar...


You are demonstrating a profound misunderstanding of the US Constitution, and the argument used in court to justify workplace smoking bans.

When government impinges upon a private property owner his right to allow a legal pasttime to happen, when you have every right not to be there.


Workplace smoking bans have little to do with customers who can choose not to frequent a smoking establishment. They exist to protect workers (primarily in food & entertainment) who don't have a choice. If every restaurant allowed smoking, where would a food service worker work to avoid smoke?
x646d63
Nov 20, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
So on cars you have he right to inflict your carcinogens on all and sundry because the government gives you a clean conscience?


Did you read my posts? I believe that vehicle exhaust is equally bad for us all (or worse.) But it's a battle that can't be won because our entire society is built around the automobile.

It's unfortunate, but a reality. Perhaps generations into the future we'll have an alternative structure, but in my lifetime it will not change.

Acknowledging that doesn't make a hypocrite. It should also demonstrate I'm not an unthinking cause-of-the-moment idiot.
otto1923
Nov 21, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
This SHS smoke fable is becoming more alchemy by the day
Who cares? As long as it helps rid the world of your stink. You addicts go on kidding yourselves with miracles and mistakes. Ever stand downwind from a brush fire? You move quickly right? That's because the body has a natural aversion to breathing dirt. Addiction overcomes that urge but it's still there in your subconscious telling you you're killing yourselves. Take a deep breath and hold it. Can't? You haven't much time left smoker.
otto1923
Nov 21, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children."
So I guess if they actually eat dirt they would be even better off? Possibly while smoke is busy killing off parts of your brain it kills off the part responsible for normal immune system reactions, is my guess.
otto1923
Nov 21, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
It is not banning the choice to smoke; you may continue to do so
for every 'polite', neurotic smoker there are many inconsiderate, thoughtless, malicious smokers who continue to endanger their families and dirty up the environment. You lower the quality of life for everyone including yourselves. We know you don't care so we've got to take your drugs by force. We start with your wallet. Try getting healthcare in a few years (you'll need it). Try buying tobacco without a prescription.
Rank 1.7 /5 (6 votes)
Relevant PhysicsForums posts

More news stories

Cell biologists describes mechanism by which some people may be more susceptible to colon cancer

An international research team led by cell biologists at the University of California, Riverside has uncovered a new insight into colon cancer, the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United ...

Medicine & Health / Cancer

created 45 minutes ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0 | with audio podcast

Anyone can learn to be more inventive, cognitive researcher says

There will always be a wild and unpredictable quality to creativity and invention, says Anthony McCaffrey, a cognitive psychology researcher at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, because an "Aha moment" is rare and ...

Medicine & Health / Psychology & Psychiatry

created 13 minutes ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0 | with audio podcast

FDA outlines path for lower-priced biotech drugs

(AP) -- The Food and Drug Administration is preparing to review the first lower-cost versions of biotech drugs, expensive medications which have never before faced generic competition.

Medicine & Health / Medications

created 23 minutes ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Focus on self-improvement, rather than winning, benefits young athletes

Underserved youth athletes report more life skill and character development when their coaches place greater emphasis on creating caring climates instead of focusing on competition, according to research from ...

Medicine & Health / Psychology & Psychiatry

created 12 minutes ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Army studies: High recurrence of shoulder instability, better arthroscopic repair outcomes

Two studies on shoulder instability in a military population were presented today by U.S. Army sports medicine surgeons at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' annual meeting. Findings in one study suggest patients ...

Medicine & Health / Other

created 14 minutes ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0


'Dark plasmons' transmit energy

Microscopic channels of gold nanoparticles have the ability to transmit electromagnetic energy that starts as light and propagates via "dark plasmons," according to researchers at Rice University.

New method makes culture of complex tissue possible in any lab

Scientists at the University of California, San Diego have developed a new method for making scaffolds for culturing tissue in three-dimensional arrangements that mimic those in the body. This advance, published online in ...

NASA's TRMM satellite sees Cyclone Jasmine in 3-D

Data from NASA's TRMM satellite was used to create a 3-Dimensional look at Cyclone Jasmine, currently moving through the South Pacific Ocean.

New integrated building model may improve fish farming operations

Today's "locavore" movement with its emphasis on eating more locally-produced food is a natural fit for fruits and vegetables in nearly every region, but few entrepreneurs have dared to apply the concept to ...

FBI file: Steve Jobs was considered for govt post

(AP) -- FBI background interviews of some people who knew Apple co-founder Steve Jobs reveal a man driven by power and alienating some of the people who worked with him.

LinkedIn's 4Q earnings strong, revenue doubles

(AP) -- LinkedIn reported a strong fourth quarter as the online professional-networking service added 14 million members. Its net income and revenue beat Wall Street's expectations.