Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Nicotine is the marker chemical for AQ testing of secondhand smoke

* (As per air quality researchers nationwide) Nicotine is the only unique or "trace" chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air. And then our comparison to OSHA guidelines is the logical manner in which to determine if secondhand smoke levels pose a health hazard, as you can see, according to OSHA, the authority on workplace safety, they do not.

If you wanted you could measure every airborne chemical in secondhand smoke and then compare them to OSHA guidelines for each specific chemical, the results would be the same, if not more dramatic. To wit, the tobacco companies provide more nicotine content in their products than any other of the alleged chemicals such as benzene, fomaldehyde, arsenic, etc.......isn't that what the tobacco trials confirmed?

More here:

WHO report "Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer "

Because the U.K.'s Telegraph recently removed this official report, which stated ("No increase in risk was detected "), CTA has retained a copy on our website for your analysis.

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.

This report is obviously quite damaging to the "secondhand smoke is a deadly hazard" argument proliferated by the pharmaceutical industry (Nicoderm) funded smoking ban activists; which explains the reason, after years of this story being in the public domain, it was suddenly and inexplicably removed.

Air quality testing around the globe, conducted or sponsored by organizations such as Johns Hopkins, University of Washington, American Cancer Society, etc. etc. proves that when compared to OSHA workplace air quality guidelines secondhand smoke is NOT a workplace health hazard.....more here:

Update: since smoking ban activists like to cite former Surgeon General Carmona's report on secondhand smoke, here is an analysis that reduces his "report" to worthless drivel:

Federal Judicial Center's 2000 "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition," the official guide for judges to understand and rule on science introduced in courtrooms.

According to the manual, nearly all the studies cited in Carmona's report wouldn't pass muster in a court of law because they are observational studies, the sample sizes are too small, or the effects they show are too negligible to be reliable.

For example, the Reference Manual states, "the threshold for concluding that an agent was more likely than not the cause of an individual's disease is a relative risk greater than 2.0." Few of the studies Carmona cites found relative risks this large, and most found risks in a range that included 1.0, which means exposure to secondhand smoke had no effect on the incidence of disease. In the world of real science, that's a knockout blow.

Most of the research Carmona cites was rejected by a federal judge in 1993, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherry-picked studies to support its position, misrepresented the most important findings, and failed to honor scientific standards. Carmona's report relies on the same studies and makes the same claims EPA did a decade ago.

Monday, March 29, 2004

American Cancer Society AQ study originally hosted on Roswell Park site

(American Cancer Society air quality test results backed up on our server)

Survey of Air Quality in Local Worksites Demonstrates Need for Stronger Clean Air Laws

NEWS from the American Cancer Society

October 30, 2002


Survey of Air Quality in Local Worksites Demonstrates Need for Stronger Clean Air Laws

AMHERST, NY. Workers in bars, restaurants and other worksites not covered by smoke-free laws are exposed to unacceptably high levels of toxins found in secondhand smoke, according to a new study, released today by the American Cancer Society and funded by the Erie/Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition.

“We know that people who work in bars and restaurants, where smoking is allowed, are more likely to get lung cancer,” said Dr. Andrew Hyland of Roswell Park Cancer Institute, who coordinated the study. “But now we have real evidence about how high the average amounts of secondhand smoke exposures can be for some workers in Erie and Niagara counties.”

The study found levels of secondhand smoke exposure was highest in places that have no restrictions on smoking, including stand-alone bars and taverns. Researchers also found elevated levels of exposure to secondhand smoke in places where smoking is only partially restricted, such as bowling alleys and restaurants with bar areas. Even non-smoking sections of restaurants showed elevated levels of secondhand smoke exposure.

“We knew that secondhand smoke is dangerous and that some workers in Erie and Niagara counties aren’t protected by clean air laws,” said Gretchen Leffler, Regional Vice President of the American Cancer Society. “What’s most troubling, is finding out just how much secondhand smoke some people are forced to breathe in just to make a living. This study clearly illustrates exactly why we need stronger clean air laws.”

During July and August, the air in 18 local venues was tested to measure ambient nicotine levels, showing how much secondhand smoke was in the air. Air quality was tested in restaurants with bar areas, restaurants without bar areas, stand alone bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls, and smoke free hospitals in Erie and Niagara Counties. Volunteers collected data by wearing a passive nicotine air monitor while they were in each venue for a minimum of four hours. Monitors were then sealed and sent to a laboratory for analysis to determine the amount of nicotine each monitor was exposed to and results were reported in nanograms per eight hours of exposure.

Secondhand smoke is a known Group A carcinogen, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The government’s Group A rating places secondhand smoke in the same category as asbestos, benzene and radon. Exposure to secondhand smoke is the cause of many health problems in non-smokers including lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, and extreme irritation to mucus membranes in the eyes, nose and throat. Every year, 60,000 otherwise healthy non-smokers die from smoking related illness due to exposure to secondhand smoke.

Results showed that workers in places with no smoking restrictions suffered the most exposure to secondhand smoke. The highest exposure levels were recorded in bingo halls, which averaged 940 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour shift. Standalone bars and taverns also had high levels of nicotine in the air, averaging 539 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour shift. Air monitoring conducted in two local bars sponsoring “Marlboro Night” cigarette promotions revealed high levels of smoke pollution averaging 814 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour exposure.

Venues that have some smoking restrictions fared somewhat better, but still showed measurable levels of secondhand smoke. Workers in bowling alleys were exposed to an average 110 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour shift. Bar areas of restaurants, which are currently exempt from local clean air laws, showed an average of 80 nanograms per eight hours.

Non-smoking sections in some local restaurants also showed measurable levels of exposure to secondhand smoke. Non-smoking sections of restaurants that allow smoke in their bar areas averaged 30 nanograms per eight hours, while restaurants that installed enclosed smoking areas averaged secondhand smoke exposure at 20 nanograms per eight hours.

The only places that had no measurable exposure to nicotine in the air were places where smoking is completely prohibited. Restaurants without bars in Erie County tested the same as hospitals with non-detectable levels of nicotine in the air.

“Other studies have shown us that restaurant workers, who typically have greater exposure to secondhand smoke, are 50% to 100% more likely to develop lung cancer,” said Leffler. “Until today, not much information was available on how much secondhand smoke different types of workers are exposed too. We hope that seeing this data will make people stop, before they light up, and think about how many other people they’re harming.”

“This study demonstrates what many have suggested,” summarized Dr. Hyland. “The only way to ensure that workers will not be forced to breathe in dangerous secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking at their work site.”

Funding for the study was proved by a grant from the Erie/Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition. Contributors from the study were Andrew Hyland, PhD, Joseph Bauer, PhD, and Michael Cummings, PhD, MPH from Roswell Park Cancer Institute and Catherine Vladutiu from the American Cancer Society.

The American Cancer Society is the nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives and diminishing suffering from cancer through research, education, advocacy and service. For information about cancer, call toll-free anytime 1-800-ACS-2345 or visit the American Cancer Society website at

Roswell Park Cancer Institute, founded in 1898, is the nation’s first cancer research, treatment and education center, and is the only National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in Western New York. For more information visit our website at

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012