Tobacco Documents Online

IV. REFUTING FALSE CLAIMS Although there is no convincing proof to date to show that other people=s cigarette smoke causes disease in nonsmokers, a number of false allegations bearing on this subject have been widely publisbed. Some of the more common claims are listed below accompanied bY the facts': Claim: Smoking causes chronic deqenerative diseases in nondmokers. Fact : There is no scientific basis for such claims. An American Cancer Society epidemiologic'al study in 1976 found no proof that nonsmokers 22 constantly exposed to tobacco smoke have Increased risk of lung cancer. Claim: Atmospheric tobacco smoke causes or contdb~e~ to the development of ~therosc;:. :osls (a disease characterized by~ lnelastlclt~_a~., thickening of arterial vessel walls) ,i..n nonsmokers~ as a result of carbon monoxide, Fact : Studies conducted onanimals .chronically exposed to carbon monoxide compared with a;~ima]s not so exposed showed that these animals had 23 arterial changes which duplicated early atherosc]erosls. However, these tests ignored observations in human t~ridge and tunnel workers which showed that those persons 0 also chronically exposed to carbon 24 mono~de did .n~. have any increased incidence of atherosclerosis. The original experimenter, P. Astrup, has admitte.d that he is unable to reproduce his previous experiment and thst his "present ~tudy suggests -]0-

that applying the oenera]Jy accepted crJtnrla for |nI|mal (membrane or ]inlno of an organ) damaQe, no direct toxic effect of CO can be demonstrated," 25 Claim: Par~[a] ~'~o~ln~ cause~"~irato~ Illness Foct : A Qroup o~ researchers studJed respJrato~ s~mptoms~ diseases and lung fun~on In 376 ~amllles with 816 children In three towns "~ound no s~Qnlftcant reJatdon between parental smoking and resplrato~ s~mptoms or ]unu function. In their children," T~e~ concl~ed:"~hat exposure to low Jeve}s o~ smoke pr~uced b~ clga~tte smokers does not result in c~onlc re~pirato~ symptoms or loss of lu~ function among ... children or among adults Another recent clinical study confirms the same f~d~gs. The study determined that:'Smoking and nonsmoklng parents have abc~ the-same propo~ion of children with resplratow symptoms. ~he nu~er of cigarettes smoked by the parents has no influence ~ ~sp~tory symptoms ~ their chil~n..." Claim: Cigarette Smoke causes resptrato~ a~le~ies. Fa~ : Claims ab~t tobacco alle~y stem p~marllY from the man~ st~les In • • which e~ra~ from tobacco leaf has been tested a~ fo~d to cause alle~lc 28 response In people who are otherwise a~e~ic. However, these tobacco leaf e~ract st~les do not resolve the.issue, and despite.the claims of one, others-are unable to identify any alle~ens in tobacco smoke. 29 ' work is still being done In this area.

Claim; Asthmatics are believed to be particularly vulnerable to tobacco smoke. Tact ; A recent studl? failed to find any significant changes in the lung function of asthmatics who had been exposed to cigarette smoke in a small test chamber. 30

.V, CARSON MONOXIDE AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS Some nonsmokers have expressed concern over the presence of tobacco smoke in the atmosphere. " Studies measuring tobacco smoke constituents in the atmosphere under realistic conditions have not found levels sufficiently high to Justify' such concern.. The level set by the UoS o Occupational Safety and H.ealth Administration (OSHA) as the limit for Industrial exposure over an eight hour • " period Is 50 parts .per million (ppm)o The combined results of studies on the amount of carbon monoxide in the atmosp.here fi'om Smoking indicate that, under realistic conditions, carbon monoxide in the .~tmosph.ere from .smoking will 31 l-tire1), exceed 10 ppm. One exception was reported in a study of a sports arena whioh permitted smoking but was not air conditioned, causing the carbon monoxide level to reach 25 ppm.32Other exceptions were studies performed in taverns 33 and nightclubs where carbon monoxide levels as high as 42 ppm were recorded. However, ~hese studies were conducted with an instrument that is known to exaggerate the. level of carbon monoxide in the presence of alcohol vapors. Combined results of studies of COHb*levels In smokers and in non- smokers exposed to tobacco smoke indicate that,under realistic conditions, . smokers will rarely experience COHb levels greater that. ten percent and that nonsmokers usually will not exceed two to three percent. And~ even these relatively low levels of COHb will drop within a few hours after the cessation .34 of exposure to smoke *the combination formed by carbon monoxide and red blo~ pigment

Some nol~smokors also complain about the alleged buildup of carbon monoxide in offices ~:nd other placos where smoking Is allowed. Yet, one recent study showed that the COllb levels o! office workers were higher when they came to work than when they left at the end of the day, ev~,n though they were exposed to cigarette smoke throughout the day.35Clearly, the real concern should be for th~ outdoor levels of carbon monoxide from car exhaust and other sources to which nonsmokers are exposed on their way to work. No one has ever established that the health of nonsmokers is adversely affected by even the smag amount of ~rbon monoxide that might be in the atmosphere due to cigarette smoke. CO is a natural b~y constituent which Is present in the blo~ without any exposure to CO In the atmosphere, and the b~y can a~ d~s eliminate CO by various means. Persons with CO~ levels of 15 percent or less rarely even suffer any of the first symptoms of CO 36 difficulties such as.headaches a~ nausea. A claim frequently made about 3):pcsure to low levels of CO Is tha~ it affects ce~ain perfo~ances, such as the ability to distinguish ~tween sho~ ~te~als of time or to solve mathematical problems~ B~ them Is still scientific disagreement about whether such performances are alleged by COHb measurements In the neighborho~ of ten percent or less. Some studies indicate .that these levels of CO will affect such performance,3~hlle other 38 studies do not ~o indicate. This area requires additional research. It also has been alleged that persons with severely compromised cardiovascular systems are ~dversely affected by environmental tobacco smoke,

especially, carbon monoxide. This belief stems largely from Aronow's studies of angina patients In which he used "pure" carbon monoxide, as well as tobacco smoke, to elevate their COHb levels. He found that a certain COHb level obtained by exposure to "pure" carbon monoxide caused certain changes in cardiac funotion~ but that the same COHb level obtained from tobacco smoking did not result in 39 such changes. While the reasons for these differences in cardiovascular function are as yet unknown, the author suggested that it might be due to "nicotine which antagonizes the negative inotroplc effect of carbon monoxide. "4~v~rhatever the reason for these findings, this study is not conclusive. This Is another area where further research is'needed. Studies of other tobacco smoke constituents Indicate that smoke's 41 contribution to atmospheric levels of ~hese compounds ts minimal. Such studies are usually conducted as the result of a claim about the danger of exposure to some compound attributable to tobacco smoke. One such study of "volatile" organic-compounds, recently concluded that the amount of such compounds added to the atmosphere as a result of cigarette smoking is 42 "insignificant." As to nicotine, research shows that low a.tmospherlc levels result from cigarette smoke.43No one has suggested that the minuscule amount of nicotine that might be absorbed by a nonsmoker has any:hing todo with the production of human disease. In fact, a recent study monitoring heart rates

of nonsmokers exposed to cigarette smoke under laboratory, conditions ~ r concluded that the amount of nicotine Inhaled by nonsmokers under their i: rigorous test conditions was too small to alter heart rate° 44

VI,, ,THE ANNOYANCE FACTOR All of the foregoing establishes, in our Judgement, that there Is no physiological basis for claiming that other people's smoke causes disease '~" in:the nonsmoker, Despite that fact, it Is ,~lear that cigarette smoke does annoy some people. Tobacco smoke may "drift= into the eyes or nose of the nonsmoker who may be annoyed by the smell~ In places that are poorly , ventilated, high concentrations with other environmental impingements may cause eye or nasal irritation. At least one scientist, Dr. Gary H,uber, .suggests that the odor of smoke components "may tri.~ger emotJonal responses not yet we~ understood." Support for this theory was found in e recent study in which college students were first characterized as to their ettitudes concerning tobacco smoke and then were exposed to such smoke.46The heart rates of those who "disliked" smoke '! were much higher than those who were. =Indifferent" ~o smoke. There was no way to determine from the data whether initially the "dislike" group had a higher heart rate or whether the anticipation of sitting and Inhaling the "disliked" cigarette smoke caused an increased heart rate. .. Yet some studies suggest that the vast majority of ~okers and nonsmohar-'-" ;=re not usually annoyed.by public smoking. For example, a recent U.S. survey conducted by Response Analysis in Princeton, people were asked about the kinds of things that annoyed or Irritated them in

their everyday lives, only about two percent of the ~nnoyances mentioned were related to smoklng.47And, 91 percent of those In the survey didn't even mention smoking. 48 The American Express Company found little interest In nonsmoklng travel tours,4~nd e Seattle, Washington, reStaurant reported that there were only seven requests for seating in the nonsmoklng section during a .three-month 50 period when they' served 30,000 customers. All of this suggests that the Issue of other people's smoking really falls into the category of annoyances -- akin to other everyday annoyances, such as barking dogs, loud music, personol eating habits, etc. Smoking Is like any other habit or practice with the potential of annoying others. In our society, such annoyances are alleviated through the traditional rules of common courtesy. The "second hand" smoking problem addressed In this paper would surely begin to disappear if smokers were more sensitive to the feelings of nonsmokers and practiced simple rules of courtesy in dealing with the problem. One fact Is clear: Although atmospheric tobacco smoke may be annoying to some people, It has not been proven to cause disease in nonsmokers. # # # #

REFERENCES 1. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health• Health aspects of smoking in transport a-'rcraft Rockville, Md AD 736097, December 1971. 85 pp. 2. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Reg. Docket No. 15614, In the Matter of the Petition of the Airline Pilot's Committee of 1976, The Public Health Citizen's Health Research Grcup, and the Aviation Consumer Action Project, Decided August 22, 1977. 3. U'S. Interstate Commerce Commission. Smoking by passengers and operating personnel on interstate buses. Washington, D.C. No. MC- C-6748, Motor Carrier Cases, 114: 256-278; November 17, 1971. 4. Schlevelbeln, H. "On the question Of the effect of tobacco smoke on the morbidity of non-smokers." Internist 14 (5): 236-243; 1973, 5. Corn, M., et al. Workshop summary and recommendations. Report from a workshop on Environmental Tobacco Smoke Effects on the Non-Smoker~ Bermuda, March 27-29, 1.o74. Scand. ]; Resp. Dis,. Suppl. 91: 88-90~ 1974. . 6. Valentin, H. In: Passive Smoklnq at the Workplace. Reports and discussions from a meeting of.the Bavarian Academy of Industrial and Social Medicine, March 31-April ], 1977, p. 24. 7. Schilling, R.S.F., Letal, A.D., Hut, S.L., Beck, G.J., Schoenberg, J.B., Bouhuys, A. "Lung function, respiratory disease and smoking in families." .Am. ~. Epidemiol. 106 (4): 274-283~ 1977. 8. Avlado, D. M., Statement before the Public Hearing before the Council of the District of Columbia Committee on Transportation and Environmental Affairs, pp. 1-6, April 27, ]976. 9. Booker, Walter M., Statement Before the New Jersey Public Health Council, Trenton, N.J., October 20, 1977• I0. Dr. Edwin R. Fisher, Professor of Patholo2y, University of Pittsburgh, in a Statement Bdore the New Jersey PubIlc Health Council, Trenton, N.J., October 20, 1977.