Exposure To Passive Smoking At Work Linked To Increased Adult Asthma
Main Category: Respiratory / AsthmaAlso Included In: Smoking / Quit Smoking; Public Health
Article Date: 06 Dec 2009 - 0:00 PDT
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) at work, mainly in the 1970s and 1980s, was associated with a 40% increased risk of developing asthma in young adults, according to new research presented today at The British Thoracic Society Annual Winter Meeting (Friday 4th December).
The major study, conducted at Imperial College, London in collaboration with other universities and occupational experts used information on the job history of over 10,000 people born in Britain in the first week of March 1958.
They examined the link between workplace exposure to a range of different agents including ETS, and the development of asthma between the ages of 16 and 33 (i.e. during the years 1974 to1991, well before the Smoke free Premises and Enforcement Regulations 2006).
The results showed that by age 33, over a third (38%) of the 1958 cohort had worked in a job in which exposure to agents known to cause asthma was likely.
About 1 in 20 (4.8%) reported they had developed asthma between 16 and 33 years.
Those working in jobs where exposure to environmental tobacco smoke was likely (for example waiters, bar workers) were 40% more likely to report the development of asthma than those unlikely to be exposed to ETS.
Professor Mike Morgan, Chairman of The British Thoracic Society and Respiratory Consultant says:
"This research highlights how important it was to ban smoking in workplaces across the UK. Sadly, a significant number of people who've developed asthma may have done so partly because of working in smoky work environments during the 70s and 80s.
But this is not the end of the story. Workplaces full of cigarette smoke in the UK may be a thing for the history books - but too many people are still exposed to other asthma causing chemicals at work. Employers must make sure they are informed about which chemicals cause asthma - and take appropriate action to minimise exposure and harm to staff."
Dr Elaine Vickers, Research Relations Manager at Asthma UK, says:
"Shockingly, up to 3,000 people develop occupational asthma every year after being exposed to potentially harmful substances at work. This research demonstrates the extent to which people in a variety of professions are put at risk.
Every seven minutes someone in the UK is rushed to hospital with a life-threatening asthma attack, and the financial cost to employers is also substantial, with almost 13 million working days lost to asthma each year.
Occupational asthma is completely preventable, unlike other types of asthma, so it is vital that all employers take asthma seriously to protect their staff as well their business.
To help employers tackle the issue of asthma in the workplace Asthma UK has set up the Business Against Asthma scheme. For more information visit asthma.org.uk."
Source
British Thoracic Society
Visit our respiratory / asthma section for the latest news on this subject.
MLA
12 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/173067.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/173067.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Junk Science To A Public Health Danger?
posted by Dave Atherton on 6 Dec 2009 at 2:02 pmAre reports like this straying from patronising junk science to being a source of public danger? It seems that all public health maladies seem to be rooted in second hand smoke (SHS) and the report which follows attracts the money, gets a nice right up in medical journals and copious pats on the back from fellow professionals.
Smoking in the UK reached its peak in 1948 when 66% of the adult population smoked and is now down to 22.5%. How is it that asthma has risen by 200%-300%? (1) Also before 2000 there were few restrictions where you could smoke too.
"Trends in asthma indicators from population surveys (prevalence) and routine statistics (primary care, prescriptions, hospital admissions and mortality) in the UK were reviewed from 1955 to 2004. The prevalence of asthma increased in children by 2 to 3-fold....%
The article says "Those working in jobs where exposure to environmental tobacco smoke was likely (for example waiters, bar workers) were 40%."
Bar workers are twice more likely to smoke, so you could also argue that smoking reduces Asthma. (2)
What evidence is there in other studies of smoking, asthma and atopy? The two I am aware of suggest it is highly protective. This study reported up to a staggering factor of 82%.
"MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand.
Writing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Robert Hancox (University of Otago, Dunedin) and colleagues explain that "the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the immune-suppressant effects of cigarette smoke protect against atopy."
"Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders...
"They conclude: "The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it. Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them." (3)
This Swedish study said:
"Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7).
"CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children." (4)
What confounding factors were involved in this paper? Bars and restaurants tend to be near main roads, was exhaust and industrial pollution taken into account? Rather serendipitously this was reported today.
"A decline in aspirin use, exposure to household sprays and cleaners and lack of vitamin D may all help explain surging asthma rates in the past few decades...
"The incidence of asthma has doubled in the United States since the 1980s......
"The concern with household cleaners is that the spray mist can be inhaled and irritate the lungs, increasing risk for asthma. The biggest culprits appear to be glass cleaners and air fresheners. A major European study of cleaning product use in 10 countries found that people who used the cleaners four days a week faced double the risk of adult asthma. Weekly use increased risk by 50 percent. Australian researchers have also found a link with household cleaning sprays and asthma in children." (5)
As the report says those people using cleaners between once and four times a week have raised risks of between 50%-100%, are not bar workers cleaning tables 2, 3 or more times a night? Was this interviewed for?
To show you how narrow minded and may I say bigoted the medical profession can be this piece on Cancer Research UK's website. With an RR of 1.5 cervical cancer was blamed on SHS/ETS. We now know it is the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). It just happened that promiscuous people were more likely to smoke.
"Members of the HPV family have been detected in cervical tumours worldwide with studies showing the presence of HPV in virtually all cervical tumours tested." (6)
They add "The authors concluded that even though smoking was not a risk factor for HPV, smoking acted with HPV to cause cervical neoplasia."
They don't give up do they?
What makes me angry is that, while accepting the evidence on ACTIVE smoking, this alchemic crusade against SHS/ETS prevents real research into why people are ill. It also suppresses dissent (Climategate anyone?) in what should be literally a pure science. I will leave it to Dr. Jerome Arnett who is a pulmonologist. (7)
"The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty “scientific” outcomes (through the use of pseudo-science) have led to deception of the American public on a grand scale, and to draconian government over-regulation and the squandering of public monies. Millions of dollars have been spent promoting SHS as a killer and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in non-smokers."
Should anyone want to debate me Medical News have my unreserved permission to pass on my contact details.
Conflicts of interests: Director of Freedom2Choose a smokers rights organisation. We receive no money or expenses from pharmaceutical or tobacco companies.
1. http://thorax.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/1/85
2. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v15664h75x2k8u6l/
3. http://www.medwire-news.md/48/72330/Respiratory/Smoking_linked_to_reduced_allergic_sensitization_.html
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/ 11422156
5. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/new-risk-factors-linked-to-asthma-rise/
6. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/cervix/riskfactors/index.htm#source6
7. http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/23613.pdf
Add Your Opinion
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.




