The California EPA identified passive smoking as a risk factor for the following:
Childbirth and infancy
Low birthweight
Cot death (SIDS)
Illnesses in children
Middle ear infection
Asthma (induction & exacerbation)
Bronchitis (induction & exacerbation)
Pneumonia (induction & exacerbation)
Illnesses in adults
Heart disease
Stroke
Lung cancer
Nasal cancer
The California EPA report also identified a link between passive smoking and the following:
Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)
Adverse impact on learning and behavioural development in children
Meningococcal infections in children
Cancers and leukaemia in children
Asthma exacerbation in adults
Exacerbation of cystic fibrosis
Decreased lung function
Cervical cancer
The UK population is about 56 million, so if there were the same per capita impact as the United States, this study would suggest around 8,000 dying of heart disease caused by passive smoking each year in the UK.
Since then, studies have shown conclusively that not only does exposure to ETS increase the risk of heart disease in non-smokers but that the risks are non-linear. It would appear that even a small exposure to tobacco has a large effect on heart disease, with further exposure having a relatively small additional effect. This may be explained by the fact that exposure to ETS causes the blood to thicken - a phenomenon known as platelet aggregation. New research has shown that even half an hour’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke by non-smokers is enough to adversely affect cells lining the coronary arteries. The dysfunction of these endothelial cells contributes towards the narrowing of arteries and a reduction in blood flow. [16]
Unlike the risk for lung cancer, where the risk is roughly in proportion to smoke exposure, passive smokers’ risk of heart disease may be as much as half that of someone smoking 20 cigarettes a day even though they only inhale about 1% of the smoke.
Posted by Gavin Sheridan at November 4, 2003 02:26 AMThe thing is Gavin, it doesn't really matter. Let us stipulate that ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) is bad for you. Most people understand that to be true anyway. Most (non-smoking) people act as if second hand smoke is, even if not harmful, at the very least unpleasant. Yet they still patronise bars or work in bars where people smoke. That is a free choice. The Government's smoking ban obliterates that free choice. At the moment, nobody is forced to endure ETS.
Few people who oppose the smoking ban do so on utilitarian grounds (that second hand smoke is good for you) but do so on the basis that adults can have their individual assessment of risk and decide whether the pleasure of a night in a smoky bar or the benefit of working in that bar is worth the risk. There are plenty of risky activities that people enjoy, (bungee jumping, hang-gliding, potholing, sexual experimentation, extended clubbing sessions) would you welcome various government bans for such activities?
Posted by: Frank McGahon at November 5, 2003 02:47 PM