Tobacco Documents Online

~ / ` VIaiYY> Y~ ~ C Judith T. McNair 3319 Colony Drive Fort Collins, Co. 80526 April 3, 1985 Ms. Miriam G. Adams R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 Dear Ms. Adams: Thank you for responding to my letter of concern over the rights of smokers. I appreciate the literature that you enclosed. I would appreciate it, if you would send me another copy of the literature because I got mad this morning and sent mine to Sue McDonald at the Fort Collins Coloradoan. This town passed a no smoking or inance recent y but this newspaper won't let the issue rest and continues to print biased material on smoking. I am enclosing two articles that made front page headlines today. I'm concerned because I don't believe the majority of those reading these articles zoom in on the words " Can, Can be, May, May be" and accept these cited studies as gospel. I don't know where I was when all of these studies were made because: , hout the 1. I have been pregnant twice and smoked throug pregnancies. My first son weighed 8 lb 10 oz. and my second son weighed 7 lb. 14 oz. 2. Being a military family, we get free medical care yet my children (exposed to smoke their entire lives) are extremely healthy, and have not seen a doctor in at least five years except for emergency treatment for stitches and broken bones which is in no way related to passive smoking. 3. I personally have seen a doctor once in the past seven years for a broken toe, and six times for a continuing eye problem which are no way related to smoking. I have smoked for approximately 16 years and do not have smokers cough, yellow fingers etc. and wouldn't know bronchitis, pneumonia, emphysema, etc if it bit me on the nose.

Mir3am G. Adams Aptjl J, 1985 Page two 4. No one in my family has increased heart rates, or high blood pressure from my smoking. I just refuse to believe that my family is unique. As a matter of fact, my sister and her husband living in Conyers Georgia with their three girls are the most sickly family I have ever heard of and no one in that family has ever lit even one cigarette! Has anyone ever done a survey of super healthy families that have a smoker in the house? I just know that we are not alone, and would like to see such a report done! The second -article in today's paper bothered me just as much and I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I wrote to the EPA in Denver, regarding statements made in that article. Thank you for being a sounding board again. My husband has just received orders sending us back to D.C. in August and if there is anything I can do to express the views and rights of smokers, please let me know.

`Second-hand' tobacco smoke .may be danger to non-smokers ; Cigarettes . per capita cor ~`4.3 L 4.2} ~`~- In thousands of cigarettes for 4.1 • people 18 years ! ` and oWer - • ; 3.9 • + 3.8 , • 7 . 3. 1 i ~ . 3.5 3.4 ~ ~ 1976 '77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 '83' 'Estimate Chicago TribX+e Graor+ir Source U.S. DeDartment of A9ncunure ~ By SUE MacDONALD ! Gannett News Service I, For a person who smokes cigarettes, the act of digging !` into a package, pulling out a cigarette. lighting it and taking a few puffs is almost instinctual. { The cigarette will burn an average of 12 minutes. ` The smoker will inhale an average eight, maybe nine times. for a nicotine fix that lasts about 24 seconds Where does the rest of the smoke go for 11-plus min- ! utes' ! It drifts into the air, unfiltered. full of particulates and ` toxic chemicals, and into the noses- mouths, lungs and eyes of bystanders who may, or may not, be annoyed by its presence. In the past 10 years, it has become known as -second- hand smoke." the byproduct of burning cigarettes. ( cigars and pipes. It is the smoke that fills homes, bars. ~ public meeting rooms and other spaces inhabited b} i smokers and non-smokers alike. 1 Second-hand smoke also has become a matter of ce::- I cern among health professionals who once confined the:r ~ worries about smoking hazards only to smokers. ~ Now, the concern is spreading to non-smokers, and research is fast telling a tale of potential lung damage eye and nose irritation, respiratory dysfunction and allergies among non-smokers subjected to the wastes of their smoking co-workers, spouses. neighbors and friends. See SMOKE, Back Page Smoke_______ Continued from Page Al No conclusive disease links have been estab- lished, but problems have been reported. • Last November, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that from 500-5,000 non-smokers die each year of lung cancer caused by others' cigarettes. . • A 1980 study found that non-smoking workers chronically exposed to tobacco smoke suffer long- term damage to the small airways in their lungs. • Children of smoking parents are sick more often and suffer up to twice the rate of acute bron- chitis and pneumonia,: particularly as infafttQ, !vs ' those of non-smokers. Additionally, smoking par- ents contract more respiratory infections that they can pass to their children. • • A 1982 study by the Centers for Disease Control said that burning tobacco produces radioactive polonium, which can collect in the linings of the bronchial tubes for eventual passage to the entire body of heavy smokers. Accumulated radioactiv- ity, they said. can be a catalyst for malignant tumors. They estimated that a 1%-pack-a-day smoker receives a yearly dose of alpha radiation equivalent to 300 chest X-rays, adding that "the American public is exposed to far more radiation from the smoking of tobacco than they are from any other source or ... sources combined." • In one study, children exposed to second-hand stnoke in a small room for 30 minutes experienced . increased, heart rates, and blood pressures. 6 Pregnant women who smoke have a higher like- lihood lihood of miscarriage, stillbirth and delivering underweight and abnormally small babies.

Tne CoiOratlt*n, 1(yetlnesoiy, April 3. 198! 'Sidestream' smoke more toxic than that inhaled by smokers By SUE MacDONALD Gannen News Seroce What exactly is second-hand smoke° To non-smokers, the answer to that ques- Uon can be highly unsettling. The unfiltered "sidestream" smoke that drtft3 from the burning end of a cigarette. cigar or pipe is more toxic and contains higher concentrations of harmful substances than "mainstream" smoke inhaled directly by a smoker. The sidestream smoke contains hundreds of chemical compounas. some known and some still unknown. In fact. sidestream smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine, four tlmes as much benZopyrene. five times as much carbon monoxide and 46 times,as much ammonta as smoke that is tnhaled and filtered by a smoker's lungs before it is re-released into the air, according to the American Lung Association Burning tobacco also reteases benzene. cadmtum, nitrogen dioxide. formaldehyde. hydrogen sulphide. toluene. acetone. 2-buta- none, acetylene, hydrogen cyanide. pyri• dine, pyrene. aldehydes. hydrocyaruc acid. napthalene and many other gases and parti- cles into the air. One study also found it contains radioac- See TOXIC. Back Page Toxic Continued from Page Al tive poionium. ln the workplace and home. smoke and its irritating odor can increase air-conditioning demands by 600 percent in one room A national studv has deter• mined that tndustry pays an extra S65'l a year per smoking employee ($307 for excessive company insurance. $80 for increased absenteeism. $166 for lost productlvlty.-S55 for other insurance and $49 in miscella- neous costs that include heating and cooling costs and increased matntenance i . Smokers have twice the accl- dent rate of non-smokers In the workplace. attributable to loss of attention, preoccupation of the hand for smokLig, coughing, eye trritsUon and flammability of smoking materials. Direct health costs for smok• ing-related illnesses are esU• mated at S13 billion a year. and lost productivity and wages for smoking employees total another 125 billion

Judith T. Mc0air 3319 Colony Drive -Fort Collins, Co. 80526 April 3, 1985 Ms. Sue MacDonald Gannett News Service % Coloradoan 1212 Riverside Ave. Ft. Collins, Colorado 0524 Dear Ms. HacDons.ld : I am writing this letter in response to two articles which made froh& page news in today'y Coloradoan, concerning passive or second-hand smoke. 1. This is a dead issue in Fort Collins since the no smoking issue was passed recently. These two totally biased articles are just adding to the disharmony c: rccedted by this hot issue. 2. The articles contain alot of key words like "Can, Can be; May, and May be", and e.~.tes several studies regarding these "Candand May be" effects yet t.~zhee are se'deral studies available to contradict tiiese, which are rarely mentioned. I have enclosed some information which you may or may not be interested in reading. In all of the information I have read, pro and con, on smoking and passive smoking, I cannot recall any one study that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that smoking or passive smoke positively causes lung cancer or other maladies. I believe tinac through research, cancer, as other diseases, will not only be cureable, but that exact causes will be found, and that after all of this hullabaloo, smoking just might not have a thing to do with it. I prefer to keep an open mind. Sincerely, Judith T. McNair

Judith T.~McNair 3319 Colony Drive Fort Collins,Co. 80526 April 3, 1985 Office of the Regional Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1860 Lincoln Avenue Denver, Colorado 80295 Dear Sir: I am writing this letter in regard to two articles on smoking which appeared in today's Coloradoan , which I have enclosed. The first article states that the EPA estimates that between 500 and 5000 non-smokers die each year of lung cancer caused by "Second-hand Smoke". I would like to obtain a copy of the study done, reaching this conclusion. The second article states that hundreds of chemical compounds are released into the air by smokers and goes on to list a number of them. I would like to know if the EPA has any documentation stating that any of these chemical compounds have a definite link to being a cause of lung cancer. I have one last request which I believe your agency will be able to provide. I would like to have a copy of any report listing chemical compounds that are emitted into the air and subsequently our lungs, from automobiles, factories and industrial plants found in an average city. I sincerely appreciate your time and anxiously await the requested material. Sincerely yours, Judith McNair

~ 7isvioM T rf3ibuL ~ I'9vi7Q ynolo0 etEE aS208 .o0,eni1lo0 j7o'3 28(?t E IIYqA zois77alnimbA Isnoig95i srij 10 301110 yo,zs3A aoljoejo7q lsfn9mno7i-vn3 9uasvA nlo~oni.I Oa8t Z°S08 obs7o1o0 ~79vn9Q :7.i2 7ssQ fI0 29102j78 oWl Oj b7Sg97 nt 191191 2zrlf Sn'rli7w ms I I dolriw t nsobs7olo0 a' ysbol nl bs7ssqqs rf.:irlw gni;lmmz s b9ao.[.ons 9vsr! J$dJ 29.fs~711l29 Aq,3 9dJ jsfij 29j6J2 91-oif7B 7271l 9ffT gnul 10 zssy rioss sib a79;Iom2-noa 000z bns 00z nsswi9d od si11 bluow I .'°9gom2 brrBrl-bnoos2'° yd b9zuso 7sonso ) noiaulonoo zlrii gn.lriose7 C9nob ybuja sdJ ao yqo.o s alsido Isolm9rio 3o 2bs7bfZuf'f J$1ff asisia 9IOlf7s bnoo92 9dT 29og bns 27sSlOm2 yd Z.LS sdj olCLL b92SsIs7 97s 2bt7uoqm00 3i won;l ol eAlt bluow I m9rlJ 3o isdmija s j2il oj ao 929ffj IO yns isClj 3IIlJsJ2 nolJsjn9muoob Yns asd Aq3 9dj sgriisd oJ lill sjini3sb s svsrl abnuoqmo~ Isolm9do - .7sOCls-0 $nuI 30 s2us0 1llw yoQ93s 'Yuoy 9vst19d I d02lfw f29up97 j2SI 9110 9VBd I yns 3o yqoo s 9vsrI oj 93ti1 bluow I .9bivo7q o7 slds sd oiril b9ijims 9zs fsril abnuoqmoo lsoim9rio gnljail .t7oqs7 e 2sltdo(Ilojus mo73 ~ 23nut 7uo yjln9upeedua bas. 7is srij .yf10 93B79VB ns nr bauo3 Zjnslq lsi7laubn.i bas 29i7ojosa 9dj j'rswByglauotXns bas emif 7uoy 9JB2o97qqs yt97soaia I .Ist79iBm b9d29uP9'Y ,a7uoy y19Y9Ont2 7isYIoM ri.?.ibuL

_xAh;_. y el .. . ,..11 rM..rw,..-,.,..,a,.--: . . ~ Redhead D®ooy. . Mrs. C.A. Mtkirr, k O ,~P tA ~185 i ~ ve :~ ~ Art v J" R.'•) ~0lQTiy Dr 'co 40526 '--- - ft. Miriam G. R.J. Reynolds Winston-Salem, Adams Tobac:;o North Company Carolina 27102 6L£L i'~SOS