Hygienist says the science on second-hand smoke not clear
By Bobbi Mlynar (Contact)
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Secondhand smoke: a threat to health or an acceptable risk?
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency cannot seem to agree.
OSHA says that its measures of secondhand smoke in the workplace are below permissible emission levels (PEL); consequently, OSHA’s standards do not include any for secondhand smoke.
The EPA contends that secondhand smoke threatens the health of non-smokers and, in particular, the health of children.
The EPA is joined in its findings by the American Cancer Society, Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Surgeon General, and an array of other entities that have conducted studies and drawn similar conclusions.
Ralph Keller of Kansas City, Mo., understands why the governmental agencies have agreed to disagree. He tests for health risks regularly in his career as a certified industrial hygienist.
“I measure indoor air pollutants,” said Keller, who has a doctorate in chemical engineering.
Occasionally he is asked to measure for tobacco smoke, and he looks for either particulates or nicotine in the air.
“OSHA deals with a certain degree of risk, and their acceptable risk for an occupational exposure is higher than the EPA acceptable risk for a general population,” Keller said. “And it could vary by a factor of as much as one one-thousandth.”
The same carcinogenic chemical levels OSHA accepts in the workplace air could well be found in much lower levels in the environment or ground water, but it would not be acceptable to the EPA.
“Because of how they perceive risk, and what is acceptable risk to OSHA, secondhand smoke is an acceptable risk in the workplace,” he said. “… From their viewpoint, they deal with things far worse than that.”
Keller, however, has his own non-scientific opinion of secondhand smoke. He grew up in a family of smokers. His father smoked pipes and his brother and mother still smoke.
“I had a lot of secondhand smoke in my life — probably 18-19 years — but I myself, because of my asthma, I didn’t take up smoking,” Keller explained. “I also didn’t think it was good for your health.”
Keller said he had noted a tremendous range of individual responses to secondhand smoke. It often aggravates asthmatic and allergic reactions in some, while not seeming to affect other individuals at all.
“So that huge range in people response makes it extremely difficult to predict the impact,” he said.
People begin to make assumptions based on those reactions, then, he said, “the validity of your conclusions starts to suffer.”
“People who make those types of statements have no proof behind what they’re saying,” Keller said. “It’s a judgment on their part, but I hear it all the time. It’s very common for people to put their feelings into play rather than looking at something scientifically. … It’s very common for people to use their perceptions and emotions to come to a conclusion, rather than scientific fact.”
Keller said it is difficult to gauge the impact of secondhand smoke when the environment, genetics and other factors are also affecting human bodies.
The atmosphere itself contains an assortment of harmful particles. Some of them are natural, like particulates from volcanic eruptions, but most are manmade.
Carbon black — generated from wildfires, diesel smoke and poorly tuned gasoline engines — is a potential carcinogen for males, he said. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are prevalent, and rubber tires pounding the highways churn harmful particulates into the air.
At one time, Keller said, science and society worried about all particulates. Later, concern focused on those less than 10 microns, one millionth of a meter, in size, until currently particles of 2.5 microns are believed to be more dangerous.
“But there’s far more manmade processes that make that small particle than there are natural,” Keller said.
Studying the long-term effects of any of those particles, second-hand smoke included, is hampered by the inability to conduct pure scientific tests.
“It’s not possible for me to put a human into a controlled environment for 72 years,” he said. “It’s very difficult to predict health impacts.”
Conditions within the workplace affect the amount of secondhand smoke being inhaled.
“It changes greatly when you have room ventilation; it has turbulence,” Keller said.
Inside a cubicle, however, pollutants become trapped.
“Their particular exposure would be much higher than you would anticipate,” he said.
Keller believes that many of the tests do not accurately measure the contents of the smoky air.
“A lot of those tests are laboratory tests,” he said. “They don’t represent reality. They represent whichever side of the bell curve you’re on.”
Removing smoke alone cannot relieve the air of second-hand smoke or any other potentially hazardous particles. Keller said that Honeywell had offered equipment capable of removing particulates. Equipment can remove carbon dioxide, another piece can remove hydrocarbons, and another can take out particulates.
“You have to do a general ventilation of the entire room or building. You can’t just pull the smoke itself out,” Keller said.
Even with sophisticated equipment, complete ventilation is not yet possible.
“... (Y)ou can purify the air back to 95 percent of what it would be if there were not smokers in the area,” he said.
But some carcinogenic hazards will remain in the air humans must breathe, whether they come from secondhand smoke or other manmade sources.
“I’ve never seen an article yet that has accurately defined it (the risk) and I suspect there never will be,” Keller said.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sounds like he knows what hes talking about.
Posted by NoMoreMold (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The above, very-well written article tells us that after 50 years of research and posturing, our government agencies cannot agree on something as simple (now) as secondhand smoke being dangerous. The lesson to be learned is that hundreds of thousands of other exposures that are harmful, such as mold and chemicals, are also in the category of "not-agreed upon" by these same government agencies. After Big Tobacco spent huge sums to deny its culpability in selling an addictive product that harmed the health of its users, for a time, the public remained confused, as did the government, on whether smoking was harmful to health. The same thing is occuring with dangerous chemicals and mold, by industries that don't want to be liable. Some of the same scientists-for-hire are going back and forth from working for the government agencies to big business. Visit www.schoolmoldhelp.org to review these topics. Read this article, called ACOEM Expose! http://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/content/vi...
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These are my favorite parts of that article. The first reflects what has been my opinion the whole time, the second and third mirror exactly the kind of thing that has been happening on this forum since the beginning of the second hand smoke debate.
"Keller believes that many of the tests do not accurately measure the contents of the smoky air. "
"People begin to make assumptions based on those reactions, then, he said, “the validity of your conclusions starts to suffer.”
“People who make those types of statements have no proof behind what they’re saying,” Keller said. “It’s a judgment on their part, but I hear it all the time. It’s very common for people to put their feelings into play rather than looking at something scientifically. … It’s very common for people to use their perceptions and emotions to come to a conclusion, rather than scientific fact.”
"Keller said it is difficult to gauge the impact of secondhand smoke when the environment, genetics and other factors are also affecting human bodies"
So at the very least (as I said a month ago on this forum), until there can be concrete 100% proof that second hand smoke is bad for you a ban on smoking is premature.
Now the true colors of the EDA and Clean Air Emporia come to light. It is now abundantly clear ( or should be) that this is not a health issue, but a property rights issue. There are people in this community that want to make the rules for everyone else based on their personal preferences. It is wrong and should not be allowed to happen. I've never said that second hand smoke is not harmful. I have only said that it is too soon to tell. Seems to me like this Dr. Keller ( a chemical engineer) is as qualified as anyone else to give an opinion on the subject. And what do you know, even he thinks that there is too many factors to determine that SHS is bad for you or CAUSES disease.
This should end the myth that this is a health issue. It probably won't, but it should.
And as I have said many times in this forum, when you removed the guise of health from this ban, it really falls apart.
Let private property owners decide what legal activities take place on their property. Last time I checked cigarettes, pipes, and cigars were legal (for now), so but out and let businesses handle this issue.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems that the elitists are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I say that we ban rocks. Somebody might throw one that hurts another, or worse, the rock could stir up dangerous particles when it hits the ground. Hey, I have to breathe that air afterward. Somebody do something before it's too late.
Posted by dale011 (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My folks smoked when we were young. My Dad was a 5 pack of Chesterfield straights daily smoker and Mom smoked a couple. We had five kids in the family and we all woke up every day to the smell of cigarettes and coffee and my dad hacking in the kitchen. Our clothing always smelled like an ashtray and I can't count the times I would be so sick that I felt like puking while being trapped in the family station wagon.
Mom and Dad both died from cancer and the youngest of the five of us is terminal right now - he never smoked. I don't need scientific studies that differ on outcomes to tell me that exposure to second hand smoke is harmful. I think about it every time I look at those tombstones.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
daleo11: The discussion is about Second Hand Smoke, not smoking. Are you healthy? If so, you have made the author's point. By the way, did you say 5 packs per day? That is 100 cigarettes, slightly more than one cigarette every 15 minutes around the clock. When did he sleep? That's a serious smoker.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As tragic as that is Dale011, your parents cancer was probably due to their smoking. However, you can't seriously be suggesting that your siblings cancer was caused by your parents second hand smoke. I am assuming that you are an older person because of your reference to Chesterfields (which are next to impossible to get now days). did he get cancer while living with your parents. It could be that he was genetically prone to cancer, especially considering it killed both of your parents. I am certainly not making light of your family tragedies, but there are so many factors that go into the contracting cancer. It seems that singling out one thing and saying, that did it is ludicrous.
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker, you made my day with the ban of rocks. Tell you what, I've had a long day of canning peaches. So tired, I sat down to read the forum and your banning of rocks just tickled me so much I laughed myself silly. Just had to get off topic to say so.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, create. I'll trade that laugh for a quart of peaches.
Posted by Newsie (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My dad died at the age of 50. He left a wife and five children. He had a heart attack. His doctor said his heart was too weak to revive. The doctor said it was most likely weakened by years of smoking.
That's a good enough reason for a ban for me.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newsie: You've made a good argument against smoking. What does that have to do with second hand smoke? Or a ban?
Posted by gazette_reader (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 11:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Careful, jayhawker. Someone may take your rock ban seriously. The next thing you know, the Flint Hills will have to be scooped up and carted away.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 21, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newsie: I'm sorry to hear about the early demise of your father. My dad died at the age of 81. He left a wife and two children. He had a heart attack. The doctor said his heart was most likely weakened by years of excessive drinking.
That's NOT a good enough reason for me to propose a ban on alcohol for all Emporians.
My mother died at the age of 82. She left two children, four grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. She committed suicide with a .38 caliber handgun.
That is NOT a good enough reason for me to propose a ban on handguns for all Emporians.
My brother died at the age of 28. He left two loving parents and two siblings. He scattered his brains all over his bedroom with a 20 gauge shotgun.
That's NOT a good enough reason for me to propose a ban on shotguns for all Emporians.
This is America. We are free to make choices, right or wrong, and no one else has the right to make those choices for us.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 12:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bjnemp: What a powerful post. I'm sorry for your loses. Thank you for your clear headedness, even in the face of strong emotional situations that would pull a lesser person to different conclusions.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Jayhawker. What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... and wiser.
Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ditto Jayhawker's comments to you Bjnemp.
My Great Grandfathers all smoked, filterless roll your own cigarettes, pipes, cigars and a couple of them chewed as well. They all died in their upper 90's. Their wives all lived around their habits, none of the four had major health issues and all died of old age.
Both of my Grandfathers smoked, neither died of lung cancer nor suffered emphezema. One died in his 60's when he committed suicide. The other died in his early 80's. My maternal grandmother died at 85 of natural causes. The other died at 98, neither suffered lung cancer, asthma or any other diseases being blamed on second hand smoke.
My father smoked in my presence as a kid. My aunt who spent alot of time around us chained smoked in the house, car, where ever we were. None of her kids nor any of my brothers suffered the diseases being blamed on nictoine and secondhand smoke. All four of us boys have smoked in the past or continue to smoke today, me included.
No blood relative of mine has died of cancer nor have any of them been diagnosed as having it. Two uncles by marriage who both smoked and drank like there was no tomorrow, died young. One had cancer, the other died of a massive heart attack. Both of their blood related families had a history of heart conditions and or cancer.
My point is, claiming secondhand smoke is the root of all evil and the cause of alot of major health issues is a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry long stretch.
Posted by Steve_Corbin (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to thank Bobbi Mlynar and the Emporia Gazette for a well researched and written 3 part article on the smoking ban issue. After reading all the blogs I can say we will all probably agree to disagree on this issue, but I am still against the proposed ban and EDA's lead in proposing it.
Thanks Bobbi
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crackinsack: I'm sorry to hear of your serious and abnormal physical problem. You realize that severe & unusual reaction to light concentrations of smoke such as you described (lungs hurt, eyes burn, uncontrollable coughing) are signs of something more serious than effects of cigarette smoke, don't you? It sounds as if you are the unfortunate victim of some internal medical malady: hopefully, a physical one. You need to see a doctor right away. Secondhand smoke wouldn't cause such a violent reaction in a normal healthy person. It sounds as if you have a medical condition not caused by smoke, but aggravated by smoke. For that reason, you shouldn't attempt to punish smokers for your personal unrelated health issues. I Hope you find the problem and get it corrected soon. I also hope it is a simple physical problem, but from your description, it sounds more like a psychological issue. Good luck with that.
Posted by TacoBellB (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps Walters and company should focus on a much bigger health issue - obesity. That is the newest big epidemic. I bet more people die from complications of obesity than second hand smoke.
Posted by TacoBellB (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
crack
I never stated I was making an analogy because I know it wouldn't fit, I was simply stating that there might be more pressing problems for these folks to focus on
And by the way, we do suffer (not physically) from overweight people, it's called footing the bill for all their medical problems when they can't pay.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on August 22, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Los Angeles started off with a smoking ban, officially because the smoke was bad for the health of its citizens. Now, it has banned fast food restaurants in parts of town, officially because fast food was bad for the health of its citizens. Remind you of anything? We tried Prohibition once. We found out that squeezing a balloon in the middle makes it pop out on the end. Are we headed back to the time of "speak easys" where people hide from the police to have a hamburger and a cigarette?
Posted by mythoughts (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, bjnemp. I have the same reaction as crackinsack when I get around a lot of smokers. Most of my non-smoking friends are the same way. We must have the same "abnormal physical problem"! Is it a terrorist biological warfare plot?
Posted by Weltha (anonymous) on August 25, 2008 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, mythoughts.... Maybe not an "abnormal physical problem" but mental. It's called HYPOCHONDRIA. And as a hispanic friend of mine would say about your over reacting... scandalosa (spelling of course) LOL Some of the wieny people on here just flat crack-my-egg. LOL
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)