04.28.08
Secondhand cigarette smoke
I’ve been on blogs and in forums where the issue of secondhand smoke has come up, and conservatives leap to deny that secondhand smoke is at all harmful. If you beat them down on the facts, their fallback position is that, even if it is harmful, the government (local, state, or federal) shouldn’t do anything about it—let the free market decide. I just spotted this story on WebMD:
Just 30 minutes in a smoky room can cause profound blood vessel injury in healthy young adults, greatly increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease, according to a new study published in the May 6 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The findings add to the growing body of evidence that suggests that there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke, also called environmental tobacco smoke, contains an array of harmful chemicals, including nicotine, which have been shown to increase one’s risk for cardiovascular disease. Exposure to such smoke causes upwards of 50,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers every year in the United States, making it a major public health concern.
Study author Christian Heiss, MD, currently affiliated with the University RWTH Aachen in Germany, and colleagues in California evaluated blood vessel function in healthy, young, nonsmoking adults after they were exposed to a half hour of secondhand smoke at levels commonly found in public smoking areas. The study participants also underwent similar evaluations after exposure to smoke-free air on a different day.
The researchers learned that in healthy nonsmokers, even brief exposure to secondhand smoke resulted in blood vessel dysfunction and interfered with the activity of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), which are believed to play a key role in repairing blood vessels. The damage to the EPCs appeared to last as long as a day.
“Taken together, these findings provide further evidence that even a very short period of passive smoke exposure has strong, persistent vascular consequences,” the scientists write in the journal article.
Heiss’ team is the first to describe the effect of secondhand smoke on EPCs in humans.
A decrease in the number and function of EPCs has been linked to cardiovascular risk factors, including chronic smoking, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.
“These findings have significant public health implications and should raise further awareness of the negative side effects of even brief exposures to secondhand smoke,” Heiss tells WebMD. “Our results help explain why there is a big immediate drop in heart attacks when smoke-free laws are passed.”
In a related editorial, David S. Celermajer, MD, a cardiologist with the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, Australia, writes that Heiss’ current findings regarding the adverse effect of secondhand smoke on EPC activity, and not just their number, are worthy of much further investigation, adding that the team has shown that “where’s there’s smoke, there is indeed fire.”
Harry O'Brien said,
2 May 2008 at 9:31 pm
Since you don’t spell it out, it’s hard to know what you mean by conservatives leaping to deny that secondhand smoke is at all harmful. But if you’re talking about the long-term effects, you should take note of Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, an anti-tobacco crusader, epidemiologist (Harvard/Yale), and President of the American Council on Science and Health: “There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant.” (Said when the New York City ban was enacted.) “This secondhand smoke business, with its preposterous claims, fails every test.” Moreover, “We have 380 scientists here and they’re in accord, or I wouldn’t be speaking in the name of the Council.” 380, sir, on a Council that is thoroughly anti-tobacco.
80 percent of all spousal epidemiological studies made over the past quarter century show only a weak or statistically insignificant relationship between secondhand smoke and either lung cancer or heart disease. And the same with two of the biggest studies ever made, the 1998 WHO study and the Enstrom/Kabat study of 2003. And as to acute effects, if you have asthma and are allergic to secondhand smoke, avoid it.
So do you even know what you’re talking about? Moreover, it’s not ‘conservatives’; it’s largely libertarians, if you want to put a name to these people. I’m a liberal myself, but a libertarian as well, so please study up, smarten up, and try to get your facts straight.
LeisureGuy said,
3 May 2008 at 8:16 am
Unfortunately you don’t address the specific study in the post. Still, your advice is good. The remark about conservatives was occasioned by a couple of occasions when I have posted in support of smoking bans in public places and the workplace and got a barrage of criticisms from conservatives. Nothing sinister, just another area of policy disagreement.