advertisement

St. Louis study finds smoking ventilation systems don't work

Wednesday, September 8, 2010 | 5:55 p.m. CDT

ST. LOUIS — Ventilation systems in restaurants and bars don't protect employees or patrons from secondhand smoke, and venues with the systems had higher levels of nicotine in the air than sites without the devices, researchers in St. Louis said Wednesday.

Researchers from the Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, the Washington University School of Medicine and the Center for Tobacco Policy Research at the university studied air quality at St. Louis-area bars and restaurants, using airborne nicotine monitors to measure the level of secondhand smoke exposure.

The study found that airborne nicotine levels were 31 times higher in venues where smoking is allowed. Monitors also found the level of nicotine in the air was roughly three times higher at sites with ventilation systems, compared to those without the systems.

"This finding most likely reflects that ventilation systems were actually recycling the air back into the ventilated space," said Sarah Moreland-Russell, research manager of the Center for Tobacco Policy Research, who led the study.

Kathy Harness, director of government relations for the American Lung Association, said, "Ventilation does reduce the level of visible smoke in the air, and the smell, but it doesn't address the toxins or the gases."

David W. Kuneman, Midwest regional director for the smokers' rights group Citizens Freedom Alliance, questioned the findings. He said several other studies have shown that ventilation systems do work to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke.

"There's an awful lot of work out there contradicting what Washington University has found," Kuneman said.

Cities and states are increasingly limiting areas where smoking is allowed. The anti-smoking lobbying group Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, based in Berkeley, Calif., said 32 states have laws limiting smoking in some combination of workplaces, restaurants and bars. Missouri is not among them, though dozens of communities have passed their own laws.

A smoking ban takes effect Jan. 2 for St. Louis and St. Louis County, but there are several exemptions — casino floors, some hotel rooms and some private clubs.

Experts say more than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to someone else's tobacco smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General in 2006 cited "overwhelming scientific evidence" that tens of thousands die each year as a result, from heart disease, lung cancer and other illnesses.

The St. Louis researchers analyzed nicotine levels in randomly selected bars and restaurants — 10 of each — in the city of St. Louis and in St. Louis County. Sixteen allowed smoking indoors, and four were smoke-free.

Researchers also analyzed nicotine levels in hair samples from 78 employees of the monitored venues. Those employees also answered survey questions.

Hair samples found nicotine concentrations higher for employees who smoke — but present for nonsmokers, too. Employees responding to the surveys showed high percentages of both smokers and nonsmokers with symptoms often tied to smoking — shortness of breath, coughing, irritated eyes.

Sixty-two percent of survey respondents said they prefer working in a smoke-free environment. More than half of respondents who smoke said smoke-free legislation would help them quit.

The study was funded by the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

John Erkle September 8, 2010 | 8:50 p.m.

It appears that the dietary intake of nicotine in nonsmokers may be of practical importance in the interpretation of the role of passive smoke inhalation when one is determining nicotine and cotinine levels in body fluids.
Edward F. Domino M.D.
Erich Hornbach B.A.
Tsenge Demana Ph.D.
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

(Report Comment)
John Erkle September 8, 2010 | 8:54 p.m.

..........................

OSHA regulates employee exposure to welding smoke as well, there is no OSHA permissible limit for "welding smoke",

secondhand smoke, wood smoke, or any other composite pollutant of two or more chemicals. OSHA is much more scientific and precise than that......each chemical component of an indoor air pollution source must be measured independently to determine if a health hazard exists.
Nicotine safe level of exposure (PEL) is 0.5 mg per cubic meter
thats roughly 4,000,000 smokers at once

So we have almost 4 million smokers crammed into a small hermitcally sealed room 9x20 smoking all at once for an hour to meet OSHA's minimum pel for nicotine.......second hand smoke is a joke!

......................................

.The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.
The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!.

............................

ETS-RSP inhaled doses are estimated to be between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers. Differences in effective gas phase doses are expected to be of similar magnitude. Thus the average person exposed to ETS would retain an annual dose analogous to the active MSS smoking of considerably less than one cigarette dispersed over a 1-year period.
http://www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthia/a....

(Report Comment)
John Erkle September 8, 2010 | 8:59 p.m.

You will note that nicotine is not a carcinogen nor will any indoor facility ever exceed OSHA safe limits of exposure......this study is not a study but the normal B.S. propaganda that tobacco control has done everywhere....

Dose makes the poison and thats a fact........osha has set levels to everything in second hand smoke and those levels amount to this:

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air.....now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

(Report Comment)
John Erkle September 8, 2010 | 9:15 p.m.

The study found that airborne nicotine levels were 31 times higher in venues where smoking is allowed. Monitors also found the level of nicotine in the air

WHAT WERE THE LEVELS,VERY VERY CONVIENIENT TO NOT LIST THEM HERE.......OBVIOUSLY THEY NEVER REACHED ANY LEVEL OF HARM TO ANY HUMAN OR EVEN AN INSECT........NICOTINE IS NOT A CARCINOGEN,,,,DID YOU EVEN TAKE FOOD BORN NICOTINE INTO CONSIDERATION IN YOUR CONTININE TESTING...........AGAIN SHOW IT.....THIS STUDY IS JUNK AS USUAL.

.....................................................

Kathy Harness, director of government relations for the American Lung Association, said, "Ventilation does reduce the level of visible smoke in the air, and the smell, but it doesn't address the toxins or the gases."

AGAIN,PROVE YOUR CLAIM.....BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION THE PM 2.5 PARTICULATE WASNT A PROBLEM AS YOU DIDNT EVEN BRING IT UP........TOXINS GASES AGAIN DID THEY REACH ANY LEVEL OF HARM TO HUMANS.........OF COURSE THEY DIDNT BECAUSE THEY COULDNT EVEN BE MEASURED AND YOU KNOW IT......NANOGRAMS,FEMPTOGRAMS.............

................................................

Employees responding to the surveys showed high percentages of both smokers and nonsmokers with symptoms often tied to smoking — shortness of breath, coughing, irritated eyes

DID YOU TEST THESE SELF CLAIMS WITH VIRAL TESTING FOR HEAD COLDS TO RULE OUT ALL OTHER CAUSITIVE EFFECTS.........EVEN THE SG REPORT SAYS THIS ABOUT SHS/ETS ON SHORTNESS OF BREATH

(Report Comment)
John Erkle September 8, 2010 | 9:16 p.m.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally.....

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

(Report Comment)
John Erkle September 8, 2010 | 9:39 p.m.

Some of the effects of secondhand smoke on the cardiovascular system in nonsmokers are comparable to the effects of active smoking and occur within a half hour of exposure, says Joaquin Barnoya, MD, a research assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at Washington University School of Medicine.

..............................OH really.........

eres what the smoke free groups did to try and prove a connection to heart disease and second hand smoke....

The "30 minute" experiments that the statement is based on have nothing at all to do with the exposures one might get on a park bench sitting next to a smoker or even with what one would normally get in any decently ventilated bar or restaurant.

The exposures in the supportive experiments involve smoke concentrations at levels of 400% to 2,000% as high as what used to be measured in the middle of the smoking sections of pressurized airplanes!! (Which used to be held up as one of the worst smoking environments.)

The experiments take nonsmokers who avoid smoke in all their daily home, social, and working life, force them to sign papers

acknowledging the "danger" they are about to be put in, and then sealing them in smoke-choked chambers that nonsmokers would run screaming from if they weren't being paid $100 to endure 30 minutes for science. . . . When the poor souls come stumbling out blood test measurement show small changes that could theoretically relate to heart disease.

The changes are like ones other experimenters find when they feed subjects a bowl of corn flakes and milk.... but in the kooky world of antismoking research those results get twisted into representing an unusual and deadly threat.

And remember: they only get those results in EXTREME conditions, nothing like normal restaurant/park or even decent bar/casino exposures. . . . The Antismokers today are lying just like Big Tobacco did back in the 1950s.
Antismoking extremism needs to be put to rest. Smoking is unhealthy like a lot of other things, but the smoke from burning smokers at the stake smells a lot worse than Newports. . . .

Cornflakes, White Bread Could Boost Heart Risk
'High-glycemic' carbs like these hamper blood vessel function, study shows.

THURSDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- Eating a diet rich in carbohydrates that boost blood sugar levels -- foods such as cornflakes or white bread -- may hamper the functioning of your blood vessels and raise your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, a new study suggests.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newssto......

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements