Second Hand Smoke More Harmful Than People Think
Editor's ChoiceMain Category: Smoking / Quit Smoking
Also Included In: Respiratory / Asthma; Public Health
Article Date: 21 Aug 2010 - 11:00 PDT
email to a friend
printer friendly
opinions
'Second Hand Smoke More Harmful Than People Think'
| Patient / Public: |  |
|
| Healthcare Prof: |  |
4.44 (9 votes) |
| Article opinions: | 17 posts |
Being exposed to second hand smoke, also known as passive smoking - non-smokers breathing in smoke from lit cigarettes around them - may significantly increase the long-term risk of developing lung disease, such as lung cancer and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), according to a report published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The same applies to casual (occasional) smoking.
This is the first study to demonstrate what passive or occasional smoking does to the body at a gene function level, say the authors.
Study author, Dr. Ronald Crystal, head of pulmonary and critical care medicine at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell and chair of the department of genetic medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, said:
Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we found direct effects on the functioning of genes within the cells lining the airways.
The genes which are usually activated in the cells of regular heavy smokers may also be turned on/off in individuals with very low-level exposure, Dr. Crystal explained.
Dr. Crystal added:
The genetic effect is much lower than those who are regular smokers, but this does not mean that there are no health consequences. Certain genes within the cells lining the airways are very sensitive to tobacco smoke, and changes in the function of these genes are the first evidence of 'biological disease' in the lungs or individuals.
The researchers tested 121 individuals from three different categories:
- Non-smokers
- Currently active regular smoker
- Low exposure smokers
Each participant's entire genome was scanned to find out which genes were either activated or deactivated in the cell linings of the airways. The researchers discovered that there was no level of nicotine or cotinine that did not also correlate with genetic abnormalities.
Dr. Crystal said:
This means that no level of smoking, or exposure to secondhand smoke, is safe.
Dr. Crystal added that the genetic changes act like a canary in a coal mine warning of latent life-threatening conditions and diseases..
..but the canary is chirping for low-level exposure patients, and screaming for active smokers.
This is further compelling evidence in favor of banning smoking in public places where non-smokers may be at risk of future lung disease, Dr. Crystal says.
Second hand smoke - also known as passive smoking or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is environmental tobacco smoke that is inhaled involuntarily by a non-smoker.
"Threshold of Biologic Responses of the Small Airway Epithelium to Low Levels of Tobacco Smoke"
Yael Strulovici-Barel, Larsson Omberg, Michael O'Mahony, Cynthia Gordon, Charleen Hollmann, Ann E Tilley, Jacqueline Salit, Jason Mezey, Ben-Gary Harvey, and Ronald G Crystal
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2010, doi:10.1164/rccm.201002-0294OC
Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
25 May. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/198529.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/198529.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
Visitor Opinions (latest shown first)
Science Triumps Over Wishful Thinking
posted by Peter on 22 Aug 2010 at 11:51 amI'll believe science done by scientists before I'll believe smokers in denial when it comes to studies involving smoking.
a scientific and personal view of SHS
posted by gerald pinsky on 22 Aug 2010 at 10:45 amLet's not view second-hand smoke(SHS)emotionally. If the scientific evidence say sit's more dangerous than we thought, we have to accept this until we can get science to disprove or at least question this. Of course this does not mean that there aren't more serious risks or that other forms of pollution may interact with SHS and make it more dangerous.
I never smoked but I liked the smoke of certain pipe tobacco. My late beloved father used to smoke it but I forget the name of the tobacco. It never bothered me, but once I was at a small meeting where one person smoked a cigar and the other smoked pipe tobacco and it really was a bit too much for me.
There a lot of stories of people who never smoked
but died from second-hand smoke,like performers at night clubs. My wife tells me that the wife of the actor who planed "Superman" was one of them.
Cleaving of genes
posted by Nell Nockles on 21 Aug 2010 at 9:43 pmCigarette smoke is not the only weapon that can cleave genes. There are a wide number of environmental insults that are know to cause harm to genes. Why not name them all in one paper, or at least the major ones. Ozone?
Freedom of choice
posted by Mario Catalan on 21 Aug 2010 at 7:06 pmThe smoker asks for freedom to choose to smoke where he likes. The non-smoker asks for freedom to breathe air that is not contaminated by tobacco smoke. This is a problem. Who has more right? Who should cede?
I think the smoker should have the right to smoke. I think the non-smoker should have the right to exist, work and go about his/her daily business without breathing in the smokers' smoke, if that is their wish.
In the UK, USA, and many other countries, non-smokers represent the majority of the population. In such countries, non-smokers prefer not to have to breathe in other people's smoke.
So, the smoker has got to cede. It is a question of democracy. The majority, if it came to a vote, would vote for a public places smoking ban. The smoker should smoke at his/her discretion without infringing on other people's freedoms and choices.
Smoking is bad
posted by Jiuma Binhal on 21 Aug 2010 at 7:01 pmThere is no way around it. Smoking is bad. Dishing out anecdotal stories about being surrounded by a family of heavy smokers and enjoying good health is not statistically relevant. It is like the man who says "I crossed the road with my eyes closed ten times, and look at me - I am fine."
Always the same old thing
posted by Maria Palez on 21 Aug 2010 at 6:56 pmNo matter who publishes it, no matter how compelling a study may be on second hand smoke - the same old team of bullies pour their sentences. check out every article on the Internet on this subject, compare the diction of each protester in the opinions section - talk about copy and paste en masse!! A team of 30 people at the most attempt to make us all think there are millions. But no - it is only about 30 or so.
GOTCHA!!
Smokers should not be allowed to put others at risk with their bad habit
posted by sandlily on 21 Aug 2010 at 4:13 pmThis news is not unexpected but it is still upsetting.
I work in downtown Toronto, where is seems that these days every second person smokes. Mostly around building doors, but also walking down the street. It is impossible to go a day without inhaling a lot of second hand smoke.
I am mildly asthmatic and I have had to use my inhaler more in the past year since I started working in Toronto than in all previous years. And for the record, I have worked in other large cities without having this problem including LA, Chicago and San Francisco. It is the cigarette smoke which is the problem, not car exhaust or any other big city source of pollution.
It makes me really angry that smokers are allowed to put my health at risk this way. And don't get me started on the health care costs of smoking.
When did it become socially acceptable to smoke again? Are we in a timewarp to the 1960's? There should be no smoking in any public space. People can choose to smoke and risk their own health. But they should not be allowed to choose to risk mine.
Be Suspicious
posted by Loren Meck on 21 Aug 2010 at 3:49 pmIt doesn't appear that any comparison with other sources of smoke was done. The public might discount the significance of the study if smoke from wood fires has similar effects.
A recently reported study showed that teenagers who watch more television are at greater risk for depression later. But the study did not attempt to exclude subjects with ADHD, which may cause both excessive television viewing and later depression.
In many of these study results reported by the popular press, I see evidence that the methods used may have skewed the result in a way that will make the result more newsworthy. Maybe newsworthy results are more likely to attract grant money. If so, we need to be very suspicious of any study result reported by the popular press.
Really?
posted by Terrance on 21 Aug 2010 at 2:39 pmposted by Finch on 21 Aug 2010 at 12:43 pm
How is everyones Health in your family Now Terrance ??
The short answer is that none of us have ever suffered from any respiratory diseases or ailments. My parents and sister have passed away from old age or causes unrelated to smoking/lung disease, etc. My two brothers are 76 and 70.
Smokers never understand
posted by Paul Lawrence on 21 Aug 2010 at 2:34 pmThe tobacco industry and many smokers just do not understand what a nuisance and public health problem passive smoking is. They come out with all the old arguments, such as "what about xxx, which is also bad?", or the nanny state, etc. Well, if it takes a nanny state so that I and my kids can breathe air, then let it be so. You have only yourselves to blame. And the other argument, "what about, xxxx, it is worse?" Well, I am sorry to tell you that one devil does not become a saint just because another one is more evil.
Just grow up, and smoke your stuff away from me!!!
Blame is the alchemist
posted by Lori on 21 Aug 2010 at 12:55 pmAmazing, people have been smoking for many thousands of years and only dying of these respiratory diseases since post industrialization. I wonder what put the hole in the ozone layer and how many exhaust pipes it is safe to suck on? But, we must malign the smokers as the evil doers of all time when in fact it is science that engineers most killing, yet we watch as those numbers go up in a puff of smoke as the scientists themselves create their magical ivory tower numbers to malign another industry while medicine can not mind its own back yard. Who is for tort reform, with a greater incidence of death in hospitals due to staph and staff? Blame is the alchemist of all and the equalizer, while guns and other killing machines are still manufactured and the smoker remains the most evil and maligned? Ha Ha, driving another nail in the coffin of the ozone layer, next stop must be obesity and fast food, before we get to a lack of industry standards for tubing in hospitals and the horror stories of patient deaths due to mix up in health care, whoops? Tort reform? Nooooo, blame the smokers for causing all the mayhem to begin with?
Dose makes the poison
posted by Ajax the Great on 21 Aug 2010 at 12:50 pmEven though very low levels of exposure allegedly showed some detectable changes in gene expression, it does not mean that such changes are clinically significant or practically significant. Such changes are not necessarily disease. Now people will be panicking even more about this kind of stuff, while they ignore pollution from cars as a health hazard.
Really? re 2nd hand smoke
posted by Finch on 21 Aug 2010 at 12:43 pmHow is everyones Health in your family Now Terrance ??
smokers r stupid
posted by smokers r stoopid on 21 Aug 2010 at 12:37 pmJust b/c there's "more" crap in the air from pollution doesn't mean both aren't dangerous. duh. ur brain must be depleted from smoking...
Really? re 2nd hand smoke
posted by Terrance on 21 Aug 2010 at 12:16 pmWhen I was growing up, everyone in my family smoked-- my parents plus my two older brothers and an older sister--in the house, in the car, everywhere we went. I've probably inhaled more second-hand smoke than any three people in these studies. Plus, I grew up working in a garage where I regularly inhaled asbesto-rich brake dust, washed my hands in gasoline, paint thinner & solvents, and inhaled the fumes. (Probably my worst environmental hazard was that I actually drank water out of a garden hose!) And did I mention that I was an asthmatic for the first 20 years of my life? Yet, at age 64, my lungs are clear, and I enjoy better overall health than most of my contemporaries. I may die tomorrow, but according to all the "studies", I should be dead already or at lesst suffering chronically from lung cancer, emphysema, or COPD. I know, I know--I'm just an anecdotal aberration. But I'm also a real world, long term "study" of my own. Had I been included, just think how I could have skewed the results of this study.
2nd. hand smoke
posted by K. Lemmer on 21 Aug 2010 at 12:08 pmThe risks of second hand smoke is the most overblown pseudo science there is, right up there with man made global warming!
nobody's buying this are they?
posted by peter on 21 Aug 2010 at 11:58 amthere's more crap in the air from industry than second hand smoke. if you believe the "science" presented here, you're a numbskull!
Add Your Opinion On This Article
'Second Hand Smoke More Harmful Than People Think'Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
