Tobacco Documents Online

/ Thurs , Aug 11, 1977 ~. EXAMINER-Page 37 I 0 Other voices/The Examiner's open forum for your views on all Issues Second-hand smoke By Charles H. Hine, M.D. A S A MEDTCAL SCIENTIST involved in research, I ave been asked more and more often of late to comment on legislation now pending in the California Iegialature to prohibit or restrict smoking in all places of employment and most places to which the public has access. Rather than enter the political arena, I conf inemy Cemarks to facts established by competent research and in which qualified medical experts-includinR those who often represent anti-smoking organizations - concur. Senate Bill 500, now under consideration by our Legislature, begins with these words: -Pbe Legislature finds and declares that tobacco smoke and smoke from other plants is harmful to the health, comfort and environment of non-smokers ..." The Legislature ran no doubt find that tobacco smoke is disturbing to the comfort and desired environment of non-smokers. but to declare it harmful to the health of non-smokers contradicts medical facts. A non-smoker cannot contract cancer or other diseases from second-hand smoke. Before fur[her addressing the question of disease, It Is necessary to dispel several misconceptions about aidestream tobacco smoke. Firstly, because it is diluted by the environment, it Is not "more toxic ' than the smoke inhaled by the smoker. In addition, any attempt to measure ambient tobacco smoke must take into account complex variables such as smoke concentration, room volume, ventilation. Another misrnncrption is that the exposure of a non-smoker can be measured in terms of a specific number of ci¢arettes. Althouch mislca,tine. the concept of using a given number of cigarettes is understandahle, especially for lay persons and non• medical journalists. However, such an extrapolation Involves highly unreliabie estimates and is usually based upon unrealistic experiments. Apart from a discussion of disease, there probably are physical irritations involved with exlosure to high concentrations of tobacco smoke. This may be caused by constituents of tobacco smoke like ammonia, acrotein and aldehydes, especially when they are coupled with warm, dry air. It is not inconceivable that the odor and high visibility of tobacco smoke play a part in the annoyance reaction of some non-smokers to tobacco smoke. Unfortunately, definite evidence available that such ts the case does not exist. While there have been some experiments, which create simulated exposures, these studies employ expenmeutal conditions which are not typical of those in real life. The medical lirerature to (late does not Indicate any significant health risk to the non-smoker from environmental tobacco smoke normally encountered in day-to-day situations. It is of interest to examine the observations of scfentists who have generally expressed anti-tobacco senttments. is it harmful? For example, Dr. E. Cuyler Hammon, vice president, Epidemiology and Statistical Research, of the American Cancer Society, addressed the International Conference on Public Education About Cancer in Monaco in 1974. A delegate asked Dr. Hammon his views on the hazards of tobacco smoke on non-smokers who inhale It. The official summary proceedings of the conference reports: "Dr. Hammon stated that there was'no shred of evidence that a non-smoker can get cancer from 'second-hand' smoke and there is a lot of evidence that he cannot... He added that to suggest passive smoking (inhalation of smoke by non-smokers) could cause cancer is dishonest, and that he would be prepared to testify as much in court." Dr. Johnathan Rhoades, chairman of the National Cancer Advisory Board and a past-president of the American Cancer Society, is another prestigious spokesman for the anti-smoking movement. He declared: "I do not have hard evidence in that direction (that there fs a harmful effect from smoke on the non- smoker). To mv knowledge, it is not, in fact, actually harmful." The "Journal of Preventive Medicine" reported to its professional readership: "lt appears that passive inhalation of tsecond-handt tobacco smoke by non-smokers or smokers does not inctrase their risk for chronic illnesses such as cancer of the respiratory tract, emphysema or cardiovascular disease:" Dr. Ernest Wydner, of the American Health Foundation. is one of the major scientific voices of the anti-smokin¢ movement. He sums it up this way: "Passive smoking can provide tears or can be otherwise disagreeable, but it has no influence on the health." California's legislators face a political decision concerning what some non-smokers find disagreeable or annoying. To proclaim such a law necessary to protect the health of non-smokers is a premise contradicted by scientific evldence. The opinion of researchers does not provide a sound scientific basis upon which the proposed law may rest. Dr. Charles H. Hine is clinical professor of preventive med ic•ine, toxicology and envirnnmenta/ medicine at the University of California MedMal Center, San Francisco. lieal.sol.sa consultant for the California Department of Health. 0 4=011111111

r RECE_iVED 1977 C. H. JUDGE