Second hand smoke, can it cause relapse?

21 Nov 2001, 18:46#1

Contrary to popular opinion or misconceptions, the risks of second hand smoke exposure are nothing compared to actually smoking yourself. As far as causing a relapse to needing nicotine, it can't do that. The trace amount of nicotine that can be absorbed from second hand smoke exposure is usually under 1% of what a smoker gets from smoking. Inhaling a puff or even puffing on a lit cigarette without actually inhaling and absorbing nicotine through the oral mucosa does not deliver trace amounts though, it delivers a significantly large dose of nicotine that is fully capable of causing a full-blown relapse.



As far as second hand smoke and nicotine goes, you would have to be in a smoke filled room, non-stop for 100 hours, yes I am saying over 4 days to get the equivalent dose of nicotine delivered to a smoker from one cigarette. This is a unique property of nicotine though. Other chemicals in second hand smoke can reach some pretty toxic levels much quicker than that, in minutes not days.
The side effects felt from being exposed to second hand smoke are from Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen Cyanide and some other noxious chemicals that can reach levels that are well above OSHA standards for safety. If a non-smoker happens to have a heart condition or an asthmatic or bronchial problem, and exposure to second hand smoke induces an incident on the spot, it would be said by all that the second hand smoke was more dangerous to that non smoker than the first hand smoke was to the smoker him or herself at the time. But rest assured, if the second hand smoke could induce the attack, if that person had smoked him or herself it would have induced a lot earlier and probably more severely. I have to say probably because the second hand smoke exposure may have fatal consequences for the predisposed non-smoker. But again, if second hand smoke did it, if that person were a smoker they would likely have experienced much sooner from their own self induced exposure.

The best way to keep your exposure to nicotine and the 4000 other chemicals and poisons to a bare minimum is to never take another puff!

Here is a string that visually explains the difference between actually smoking and second hand smoke exposure: Another slant on how to watch people�smoke

Joel




Last edited by Joel on 28 Aug 2012, 15:01, edited 10 times in total.
Reply
Like

27 Nov 2001, 09:38#2

Last edited by Joel on 09 Nov 2013, 19:13, edited 5 times in total.
Reply
Like

27 Nov 2001, 11:08#3

Thank You Joel. Somehow I knew you would come through. I really remember this artical but it seems to have even more impact on me now. I might have still been under the "It won't happen to me" thinking when I first read them. But I was reading them then to help me to keep my quit, to convince me that sticking with it through the tough times would be worth it in the end.And It is very worth it. I am very comfortable in my quit. Still guarding it though. I do not want to get too complacent.
I guess I am just bothered that I still feel I can smell and taste the cigaretts. Talked to hubby about it and he said it was all in my mind. Nope, I can smell them.It is not a good smell and it does reenforce my desire to keep quit.
I want these people to still be my friends but think I will have them here at our house instead of going to their house. Course then they will be in a hurry to leave to get their fix but not my problem. I do feel sorry for them.I did talk to them about my quitting and this site and how much it has helped me, educated me, put the steel in my resolve to stay quit. For this I will be forever greatful to all that have unselfishly taken their time to reply to posts.
A HUGE THANK YOU !!! Chris
One year, three weeks, four days, 15 hours, 28 minutes and 51 seconds. 2734 cigarettes not smoked, saving $478.54. Life saved: 1 week, 2 days, 11 hours, 50 minutes.
Reply
Like

11 Feb 2002, 20:42#4

For Tea4Sue and anyone else going to a smoking concert or any smokey environment and are possibly afraid of second hand smoke exposure threatening a quit. Second hand smoke can't cause a relapse--only first hand smoke has that potential. To prevent first hand smoke is a simple as knowing to never take another puff!

Joel
Reply
Like

12 Feb 2002, 04:57#5

WENT TO A BAR THIS AFTERNOON. TRIED A COUPLE OF ADULT BEVERAGES TO CHECK OUT THE WATERS. I think I did great in fact it was an experience that made me wonder why in the world did I smoke for so long.
My customer and I sat at the bar for lunch. A man was already sitting at the stool next to mine and i notice he had a pack of smokes. I was kind of worried about being so close. this guy smoked and smoked and smoked. I was never a chain smoker but this guy sure and the heck was.
the worst of the experience is that when we left i smelt like i was wearing nicotine. But no desire to light up NONE NOT THE LEAST...
not cured yet but hey i feel great.
AND i WILL NEVER TAKE ANOTHER PUFF.

AND THANKS FOR THE INFO JOEL I WAS A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT THE INTAKE OF SECOND HAND SMOKE
ZIG
1WEEK 2DAYS 22 HOURS
Reply
Like

20 Dec 2002, 09:45#6

Have to admit still being scared to get too near the smoke from a lit cigarette until recently. Few weeks ago, I just arrived at the pub, and a friend was outside smoking. I went to hug her, and was breathing in as I did so, and inadvertantly got a full mouthful of her second hand smoke.

I was running this thread through my mind, hoping that it was true, but was still fairly terrified. I believe the second hand inhale was also a trigger, because almost immediately afterward, I got that familiar feeling. I worried whether there had somehow been enough nicotine in that breath.

I went up and played darts by myself and worried and fretted for about 20 minutes. Next thing I knew, I'd forgotten about it until the next day. Never thought about it again the entire night. Never thought about cigarettes at all for the rest of that night.

Obviously, it IS true that second-hand smoke does not pass enough nicotine to cause a relapse... Thank God.
Reply
Like

16 Feb 2003, 00:30#7

I just saw the issue of second hand smoke raised in another post. When examining second hand smoke it is important to note that it is in no way as dangerous as first hand smoke would be to the specific individual. As far as nicotine being absorbed and a subsequent relapse because of second hand smoke, this too is pretty much a non-issue.

But other chemical exposures from second hand smoke can reach quite dangerous and even deadly levels for a person who has preexisting conditions making them vulnerable to such chemical exposures. The effects on indoor air quality from second hand smoke exposure will often far exceed levels that would ever be tolerated in outdoor air exposure.

If a manufacturer was exposing the environment to such levels of some of these chemicals produced from tobacco smoke, air pollution standards would mandate that they shut the operation down for endangering the environment. In the past you were exposing those closest to you to such irritation and danger. Your whole world became cleaner the day you put in force your plan to never take another puff!

Joel
Reply
Like

16 Feb 2003, 00:46#8

Thanks Joel. I really needed to read this. Excellent information and VERY good to know !! I was really scared there that my trip to the bar had ruined everything I'd worked so hard for.

It does make me angry though. I really think it should be federal law (just like when they made it illegal to smoke in grocery stores) that no indoor places can be smoked in. I've heard that the people of California are very happy with this. Including still-smokers. They don't seem to mind not being able to smoke in the bars at all, from what I hear. They just go outside.

Well, I guess until that day comes, I just won't be going to any more bars. LOL. I'm not putting my lungs (not to mention the rest of me!) through THAT again. no way.

Lazuli
~ Quit Proud For 3 Weeks 6 Days 9 Hours 29 Seconds!
821 Forlorn Gag-a-rettes
still sitting on the store shelves, unloved, unwanted & Definitely NOT smoked ! ~
Reply
Like

17 May 2003, 05:58#9

Part of the below 2010 study examined cotinine levels (primary chemical nicotine breaks down into) in both smokers and those breathing passive or second hand smoke.  If I'm reading this correctly the cotinine level in the urine of smokers was 634 times greater than in passive smokers.  If worried about passive smoking causing relapse, cotinine levels are a marker of where nicotine has been.  Hopefully this finding helps give you peace of mind, at least in regard to relapse.  John (Gold x11) 



Urine cotinine underestimates exposure to tobacco-derived
lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone
(NNK) in passive compared to active smokers

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Published OnlineFirst August 30, 2010.

Neal L. Benowitz, Maciej Goniewicz, Mark Eisner, Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce, Wioleta Zielinska-Danch, Bartosz Koszowski, Andrzej Sobczak, Chis Havel and Peyton Jacob III

Abstract

Objectives: Cotinine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) are widely used biomarkers for tobacco-derived nicotine and the lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), respectively. The discrepancy between cotinine levels in relation to disease risk comparing active vs. passive smoking suggests a non-linear tobacco smoke dose-response and/or that cotinine is not providing an accurate measure of exposure to tobacco smoke toxic constituents from secondhand smoke.

Methods: Cotinine and NNAL were measured in urine of 373 active smokers and 228 passive smokers.

Results: Average cotinine levels were 1,155 (IQR 703-2,715) for active smokers and 1.82 (0.45-7.33) ng/mg creatinine for passive smokers. Average NNAL levels were 183 (103-393) and 5.19 (2.04-11.6) pg/mg creatinine, respectively. NNAL/cotinine ratio in urine was significantly higher for passive smokers when compared to active smokers (2.85×103 vs. 0.16×103, p<0.0001).

Conclusions: Cotinine measurement leads to an underestimation of exposure to the carcinogen NNK from second-hand smoke when compared with active smoking.

http://cebp.aacrjournals....27/1055-9965.EPI-10-0497





 
Last edited by John (Gold) on 01 Sep 2010, 12:15, edited 3 times in total.
Reply
Like

13 Nov 2003, 04:24#10

This article discusses the issue of trace amounts of nicotine. The only souces capable of delivering nicotine in levels high enough to cause a relapse are first hand use of the various forms of tobacco and nicotine replacement products.
Reply
Like

23 Dec 2003, 05:58#11

Although the below story does not speak to relative risks between those sucking down mainstream smoke and those breathing sidestream smoke, or even tell us the amount of cotinine in the average study participant's system prior to going into the casino, I think you'll agree that studies such as this will fuel new burning passions within thousands of nonsmokers who don't want their families breathing the emissions of permissible indoor burning by smokers. The days of society allowing indoor smoking around other humans may be a thing of the past much sooner than we think. To not have these issues ever again be a major souce of concern in our lives is as simple as Never Taking Another Puff!

Casino Cough
Secondhand Smoke Is Real Cancer Risk, Casino Study Shows
By Marc Lallanilla, ABC News

Dec. 22, 2003 - A few hours in a casino may cost you more than your paycheck. According to a new study, the amount of secondhand cigarette smoke in a casino or any other smoke-filled room may present a substantial cancer risk to nonsmokers.

Researchers at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, found elevated levels of a cancer-causing agent, NNAL, in the urine of nonsmokers after they spent just four hours in a commercial casino. Researchers also found elevated levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine, in the samples. Both NNAL and cotinine are specific to tobacco and were not found in the nonsmokers' urine before their casino visit.
"This evidence could be dynamite," says Robert West, an epidemiologist at University College London. "It is one thing to know that one is breathing in carcinogens; psychologically it is another to know that one's own body has been contaminated by them."
The study, published today in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, provides additional evidence to the long-held belief that secondhand smoke poses a health risk. The research is also expected to add fuel to the drive for anti-smoking regulations in public spaces.
Research Offers Real-World Evidence of Exposure
In the study, Kristin Anderson, epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota's School of Public Health, analyzed urine samples of 18 volunteers before their visit to a casino in the upper Midwest. The volunteers, four men and 14 women, spent an average of 4.25 hours in the designated smoking area of the casino. Samples were also collected within 24 hours following the visit.
The samples taken after the casino visit showed a 112 percent average increase in NNAL. The average increase in the amount of cotinine following the casino visit was 456 percent.
Public health professionals note the study adds a real-world element to the evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. "The unique aspect of this research is that it simulates real-life exposure," says Andrew Hyland, epidemiologist with the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.
"The results show that even a four-hour stay in a smoky casino results in a significantly elevated body burden of a potent carcinogen," adds Hyland. "Previous epidemiologic studies have focused on long-term exposure, but this study shows that nonsmokers are being put at risk every time they go to a smoky establishment."
The use of individuals adds value to the study, according to Dr. John Spangler of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, N.C.
"This takes data from the population level down to specific individuals. It is one thing to say that populations who are on average exposed to secondhand smoke have a higher risk of cancer. It is quite another to say an individual does," says Spangler.
He notes that, at the population level, it is difficult to determine what caused those in a group to get cancer.
"The current study nails down the fact that a potent carcinogen is are found in the urine of individuals exposed to secondhand smoke," Spangler adds. "If it is in their urine, it certainly has circulated throughout their system."
More Anti-Smoking Regulations to Come?
Anti-smoking advocates may find this research bolsters their case for smoke-free indoor air. According to Hyland, air monitoring in New York showed a 90 percent decrease in indoor air pollutants after the implementation of that state's smoke-free regulations for restaurants and bars.
"The comprehensive clean indoor air regulations now present in California, Delaware, New York, Maine and Connecticut, which prohibit smoking in virtually all indoor public places including bars and restaurants, are the best way to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke," says Hyland.
Twenty-one percent of the nations' population lives in the five states that have comprehensive smoke-free indoor air policies that cover all workplaces, according to Hyland. Many more states and communities are looking into similar regulations.
"Data showing that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke have significantly elevated levels of carcinogens will be powerful in advocating for these policies," adds Hyland, "and I suspect the increase in clean indoor air regulations observed nationally will continue."
Like many parents, Spangler, who recently spent 90 minutes with his children in a smoky restaurant, is eager to see these nonsmoking regulations enacted. "We were in a situation where it would have been very difficult to leave," he says. "It infuriates me that their cancer risk has been elevated. It is hard to argue in light of these findings that smoking affects only the individual who smokes; carcinogens show up in innocent bystanders."

Copyright © 2003 ABCNEWS Internet Ventures
Reply
Like

02 Feb 2004, 04:12#12

Really glad to hear that. I was starting to blame second hand smoke withdrawal for a few bad days. I found a link that seems to explain what is really going on at this point. Thanks. This is good information.I have been quit for 4 Weeks, 15 hours, 59 minutes and 40 seconds (28 days). I have saved $128.99 by not smoking 859 cigarettes. I have saved 2 Days, 23 hours and 35 minutes of my life.
Reply
Like

04 May 2004, 12:50#13

Thank you for this posting Joel. The opening thread explained some issues I've been dealing with that have to do with job related smoke exposure. I went over the issues in My First Post Diary for the posting dated May 3, 2004.

I also see from reading this thread that I'm not the only one to have had this issue arise in their minds.

Dale - Free and Healing for Twenty Eight Days, 22 Hours and 50 Minutes, while extending my life expectancy 1 Day and 7 Hours, by avoiding the use of 376 nicotine delivery devices that would have cost me $156.00.
Reply
Like

17 May 2004, 22:31#14

Relative Risks

I guess the best thread to share the latest story about the world's growing concerns over secondhand smoke (SHS) is here in this thread where we try to put such concerns into proper perspective. Take the below story for example. If the below data is anywhere near accurate, although extremely tragic that 4,300 entirely innocent British non-smokers a year are dying due to SHS at work or home, 27 times as many wonderful British citizens (120,000 a year) are being buried due to breathing mainstream smoke. Their crime? For almost 90% their crime was in toying with a legal adult activity - smoking one of earth's most chemically captivating substances - while a child or teen.



As I was discussing with Rickdabler this morning, who brought the below story to our attention, sharing such stories as this here at Freedom can cut two ways. Most of us see such stories as providing positive motivation to not ever again become part of the problem in exposing others to lesser but very real risks associated with active dependency.



But for members and visitors forced to breathe SHS at work or home such stories can tend to a bit demoralizing and actually provide a source of junkie thinking during times of challenge. "I have to breathe it anyway so why not just go back to smoking." Such non-sense rationalizations are the relapsing addict's refuge as what they're really saying is that "I'm so concerned about the lesser harms of SHS and the damage it inflicts that "I'm going to **** 27 times as much risk into my lungs and bloodstream as those dying from SHS experience." "I'm so concerned about a risk that is 2,700% less likely than what I used to face as a mainstream smoker that I'm going to take a 50% chance that I will smoke myself to death about 14 years early." "I'm going to again become part of the problem and at times expose others to the smoke, smells and chemicals that my badly damaged sense of smell will no longer find offensive."



You're each going home to not only a calm, mentally quiet and comfortable "you" but to a gradually changing world where there is an ever increasing awareness about the harms of lighting a toxic waste dump on fire indoors. With each new story such as this it gets a bit easier to convince smokers who are still insensitive to the risks of SHS that it is wrong to allow their addiction to harm those around them. Times are changing! Thanks Rick. Only one rule, no nicotine today, Never Take Another Puff.

John (a comfortable member of Freedom's Gold Club)



Smoking at work 'kills hundreds'
BBC News UK Edition, Sunday, May 16, 2004
The government is reluctant to ban smoking in the workplace

 
Second-hand tobacco smoke at work kills hundreds of Britons each year -
including almost one hospitality industry worker a week, a study says.
Thousands more are dying from passive smoking at home, according to researchers at Imperial College London.
The figures were released ahead of a conference on smoking in London.
Doctors said they highlight the need for a workplace smoking ban, but pro-smoking group Forest called for hard evidence passive smoking was a killer.
Statistics
Professor Konrad Jamrozik looked at the number of people who died from lung cancer, heart disease and stroke in England and Wales in 2002.
He then calculated how many of these would have died as a result of being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke using a special mathematical formula.
This formula was based on information from other studies on the risks of dying from lung cancer, heart disease and cancer as a result of passive smoking.
"Where is the hard evidence that passive smoking is killing people?"
Simon Clark, Forest
About 30% of adults under the age of 65 smoke. An estimated 42% of people under the age of 65 are exposed to tobacco smoke at home and 11% at work.


According to Professor Jamrozik's calculations, approximately 700 people die from lung cancer, heart disease or stroke because of passive smoking at work.
Another 3,600 people die as a result of second-hand smoke at home.
He also estimated that passive smoking kills one person working in the hospitality industry every week.
Ban urged
Professor Jamrozik said the figures were probably the most accurate estimates available at the moment.
"In the absence of a direct observational study, I feel this research is the best evidence we have in this country to show the effects of passive smoking in the workplace," he told the BBC.
Professor Carol Black, president of the Royal College of Physicians, urged the government to ban smoking in workplaces.
"Environmental tobacco smoke in pubs, bars, restaurants and other public places is seriously damaging to the health of employees as well as the general public.
"Making these places smoke-free not only protects vulnerable staff and the public, it will also help over 300,000 people in Britain to stop smoking completely."
'Hard evidence'
However, Forest rejected that idea.
"Once again we are presented with estimates, calculations and 'likely risk'," said Simon Clark, its director.
"Where is the hard evidence that passive smoking is killing people? If one person dies every week from passive smoking at work, as the anti-smokers claim, it's time to name names.
"Let's have proof, not statistics based on very dubious science."
He added: "A total ban on smoking indoors should be a last resort, not a first option.
"What's wrong with a choice of designated smoking areas or better ventilation that allow people to smoke without bothering non-smokers?"
The UK government has so far resisted calls to ban smoking in the workplace. This is despite calls to do so from the chief medical officers of England and Scotland.
Ministers have said they prefer a voluntary approach rather than following Ireland and introducing a ban.
Copyright BBC NEWS 2004
Last edited by John (Gold) on 01 Sep 2010, 03:47, edited 1 time in total.
Reply
Like

09 Jun 2004, 03:20#15

For Elaine:

The side effects felt from being exposed to second hand smoke are from Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen Cyanide and some other noxious chemicals that can reach levels that are well above OSHA standards for safety.
Reply
Like

16 Oct 2004, 11:12#16

Study says air worse in smoky
bars than on truck-choked roads
TOM RAUM Associated Press Writer 09/20/2004
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

TRENTON, N.J. -- If you're wondering whether a smoky bar or a city street filled with diesel truck fumes is more harmful to your health, you might want to skip your next happy hour.
Smoky bars and casinos have up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in the air than highways and city streets clogged with diesel trucks at rush hour, according to a study that also shows indoor air pollution virtually disappears once smoking is banned.
Conducted by the researcher who first showed secondhand smoke causes thousands of U.S. lung cancer deaths each year, the study found casino and bar workers are exposed to particulate pollution at far greater levels than the government allows outdoors.
"This paper will help localities pass smoking bans," predicted the author, James Repace, a biophysicist who works as a secondhand smoke consultant after spending 30 years as a federal researcher. "It shows how beneficial smoking bans are for hospitality workers and patrons."
Repace tested air in a casino, a pool hall and six taverns in Delaware in November 2002 and January 2003, two months after the state imposed a strict indoor smoking ban.
His detectors measured two substances blamed for tobacco-related cancers: particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a group of chemicals called PPAHs for short, and respirable particles -- airborne soot small enough to penetrate the lungs.
"They are the most dangerous" substances in secondhand smoke, said Repace, a visiting assistant clinical professor at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.
Repace said his research also showed ventilation systems -- sometimes touted by tavern, restaurant and casino groups as an alternative to smoking bans -- can't exchange air fast enough to keep up with fumes from smokers.
The study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, was partly funded by the nation's largest health care philanthropy, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation of Plainsboro, N.J.
Repace found an average level of respirable particles of 231 micrograms, or millionths of a gram, per cubic meter of air in the eight Delaware venues. That's 15 times the 15-microgram U.S. Environmental Protection Agency limit for outdoor air, 49 times the rush-hour average on Interstate 95 in Wilmington and even tops the 199-microgram rush-hour level at Baltimore Harbor Tunnel tollbooths.
The eight venues' average PPAH level was 134 nanograms, or billionths of a gram, per cubic meter -- five times the level in the air outside, which Repace also tested. By
comparison, the average rush hour levels of PPAHs on Interstate 95 in Wilmington and in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood, heavily polluted by diesel and truck emissions, were 7 and 18 nanograms, respectively.
Levels of both cancer-causing substances dropped 90 percent or more after the smoking ban in all locations tested, with the air quality in the venues nearly indistinguishable from outside air.
"It demonstrates really clearly that a smoking ban results in a massive improvement in air quality," said Dr. Jonathan Foulds, director of the tobacco dependence program at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's School of Public Health. "Here in New Jersey, and in many other states that don't have an indoor smoking ban, this should be used to put pressure on the legislators."
Timothy Buckley, associate professor of environmental health science at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, said other research has shown dramatic air quality improvement after smoking was banned in workplaces, but this appears to be the first study in bars or casinos.
"The magnitude of that effect is striking," Buckley said.
Foulds and Buckley both noted there is mounting evidence of the health hazards of the substances Repace tested.
"He's identified a place where we can have a big impact of public health in this country," Buckley said.
EPA has been studying indoor air quality for nearly two decades and proved in 1992 that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, said Bob Axelrad, senior adviser in the agency's indoor environments division. Its focus is producing evidence to aid in decisions on smoking bans and working with pediatricians and other groups to discourage smoking in homes with children.
Meanwhile, consumer and health groups have been pushing local and state governments for workplace smoking bans -- usually with strong, well-organized opposition from the tobacco, casino and hospitality industries, said Bronson Frick, associate director of the nonprofit American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation.
He said more than 100 studies of sales tax revenue show the bans don't reduce income for bars or restaurants, as their industries often argue, yet many ballots for the fall election include measures to repeal existing bans.
"A third of the country already is covered" by workplace, bar or restaurant bans, Frick said.
As of July, 1, 727 U.S. municipalities had some smoking restrictions, with 312 banning smoking even in bars and restaurants, according to the foundation.
Delaware, New York and Massachusetts prohibit smoking in all workplaces, restaurants and bars. California and Connecticut have similar bans, but with exemptions for workplaces with five or fewer employees. Starting in March, Rhode Island imposes a ban in most workplaces and bars. Five other states have some restrictions on smoking in public places.
A proposed ban in New Jersey was shelved in June 2003 after amendments were added that would allow smoking in casinos, bars and restaurants.
But in smoker-friendly Europe, restrictions are coming into vogue in airports, train stations and some restaurants. In March, Ireland became the first nation to ban smoking in workplaces, including pubs and restaurants, and Norway followed in June. Frick said bans begin soon in Sweden and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom is considering one.
Even office-only bans have a big impact. Axelrad noted testing showed that as smoking in offices was increasingly restricted, the level of a nicotine byproduct called cotinine in the blood of nonsmokers plunged 70 percent from 1990 to 2001.
Link to source: http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?news ... 0732&rfi=6

©The Herald News 2004

Thanks Sten for bringing this story to our attention. If you see a story that you feel supports our mission here in helping motivate all to remain nicotine free today, please email the link to one of the managers and allow them the opportunity to concur in your assessment.
Reply
Like

26 Aug 2005, 22:48#17

We have a few posts up this morning talking about trace amounts of nicotine found in certain foods. This string also clarifies how trace amounts of nicotine pose no real risk to ex-smokers:

As it says in the string tomatoes and nicotine:
Yes there is nicotine in tomatoes but it is truly trace amounts. It is like fruits and vegetables that contain natural occurring amounts of cyanide and arsenic, powerful poisons yet in the quantities in these foods basically harmless. You may note that whenever I write avoiding consumption of nicotine I write something to the effect that to avoid relapsing avoid administration of nicotine from tobacco product or any nicotine replacement products and as far as cigarettes go always know to never take another puff. Tobacco and nicotine replacement therapy products are the only products that can deliver nicotine in sufficient quantities to effect a relapse. The trace amounts that you can get in tomatoes is likely less than the quantities you can get from

Second Hand Smoke
Reply
Like

13 Dec 2005, 01:37#18

The below German news article was translated by Katharina (PinkFlowers). Thanks Katharina!

New [German] Cancer Research Study
3,300 Victims of Second-Hand Smoke
8 December 2005 -
Scientists conclude that tobacco smoke in confined spaces is not just an annoyance but indeed a lethal danger. They demand a new law in order to extensively protect non-smokers in public areas and a no-smoking policy in restaurants and bars.

Every year, almost 3,300 people in Germany die from diseases directly caused by unintended nicotine consumption. This is the conclusion of a study published by the DKFZ (Deutsches Krebsforschungsinstitut, German Cancer Research Center, which for the first time in history has calculated the number of the victims of second-hand smoke in Germany.

The authors conclude that tobacco smoke in confined spaces is not just an annoyance but a lethal danger. They demand a new law in order to extensively protect non-smokers in public areas and a mandatory no-smoking policy in restaurants and bars.

Scientists from the universities of Heidelberg and Münster mainly attributed heart deseases, strokes and lung diseases to second-hand smoking. Every year, more than 170,000 children are exposed to the harmful substances from cigarette smoking while still in their mothers' wombs.

Sixty babies die due to these substances. Thirty-five million grown-up non-smokers are threatened by hydrocyanic acid, ammoniac, carbon monoxide and myriads of carcinogen substances while at home, at work or during their leisure time.

The German government stressed the fact that it takes this topic very seriously. Second-hand smoke is "a great health risk", said Sabine Bätzing, Social Democratic Party, an assistant to the Federal Drug Commissary. She referred to the fact that everyone has a right to work in a smoke-free environment.

Further she declared that in March, a campaign to promote non-smoking had been launched in cooperation with the German Hotel and Restaurant Association. Next spring, the results are to be analysed.

The Deutsche Krebshilfe,(German Cancer Aid), also demanded the German government to insist on the protection of non-smokers.

Source Link:
Copyright © sueddeutsche.de GmbH/Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH
Reply
Like

13 Dec 2005, 16:30#19

No problem, John... Always happy to help.

As I wrote to John in an e-mail, I had never seen any proper figures to do with second-hand smoking, and I suspect people still underestimate the danger. That is why I agree with the authors of that study: The government should definitely do more for the protection of non-smokers, especially children and teenagers.

Just imagine: It is only now that they are slowly banning smoking areas in SCHOOLS. *ohmygod*

I hope that the image shift is working: Slowly but surely, the image of smoking seems to be shifting from cool/glamorous/elegant to lower class/uneducated/unacceptable. I am very glad about that. Young people would do anything to achieve a good image among their friends, therefore I hope that not so many will start smoking in the future.

Hoping that my theory is correct...

PinkFlowers
Grasped it on 2 March 2005
Reply
Like

13 Dec 2005, 19:30#20

I loved to see that article, Katharina. Thank you.

When I read the article, I thought of how ironic it is that when I was 16 and at school, we were fighting for the right to smoke in public and we celebrated the day we were allocated a room where we were allowed to smoke without having to go outside in bad weather. How sad is that?

We were taught about addictions like heroin, alcoholism etc but cigarettes / nicotine was only ever mentioned as being bad for your health ... I suppose it was still thought of as just a nasty little habit.

It is great for me to see that people and pupils / students are now fighting for their right to learn in a smoke free environment. I agree with you that the image shift is certainly working.

Just wondering if (and hoping that) if I were a student today, I would be among those fighting for a smoking ban at school. )


Gitte
382 days and a bit
Reply
Like

28 Mar 2006, 09:37#21

Thanks Sal (and Joel, and Kat)--

This thread helps, answering yet another question that arises in the midst of a quit. Second-hand smoke will not let the nicotine back into my system-- those smoke-filled rooms are to be avoiding for the other 3999 poisons, then :-).

It is much better to be asking these questions and continuing education, rather than residing in the state-of-denial necessary to allow indulging my nicotine addiction.

Jim (11 days)
Reply
Like

25 Mar 2008, 01:59#22

Video Title Dial Up High Speed MP3 Length Created
The Palmolive bottle demonstration 2.84mb 19.1mb 3.55mb 07:45 10/11/06
Lung cancer 3.04mb 6.55mb 8.58mb 18:48 11/05/06
See how smoking destroys the lungs 1.55mb 4.59mb 1.87mb 04:13 11/27/06

These three videos, especially the first one illustrate the differences between second hands smoke and you smoking yourself.
Reply
Like



01 Sep 2010, 03:46#25

Part of the below study examined cotinine levels (primary chemical nicotine breaks down into) in both smokers and those breathing passive or second hand smoke.  If I'm reading this correctly the cotinine level in the urine of smokers was 634 times greater than in passive smokers.  If worried about passive smoking causing relapse, cotinine levels are a marker of where nicotine has been.  Hopefully this finding helps give you peace of mind, at least in regard to relapse.   


Urine cotinine underestimates exposure to tobacco-derived
lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone
(NNK) in passive compared to active smokers

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Published OnlineFirst August 30, 2010.

Neal L. Benowitz, Maciej Goniewicz, Mark Eisner, Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce, Wioleta Zielinska-Danch, Bartosz Koszowski, Andrzej Sobczak, Chis Havel and Peyton Jacob III

Abstract

Objectives: Cotinine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) are widely used biomarkers for tobacco-derived nicotine and the lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), respectively. The discrepancy between cotinine levels in relation to disease risk comparing active vs. passive smoking suggests a non-linear tobacco smoke dose-response and/or that cotinine is not providing an accurate measure of exposure to tobacco smoke toxic constituents from secondhand smoke.

Methods: Cotinine and NNAL were measured in urine of 373 active smokers and 228 passive smokers.

Results: Average cotinine levels were 1,155 (IQR 703-2,715) for active smokers and 1.82 (0.45-7.33) ng/mg creatinine for passive smokers. Average NNAL levels were 183 (103-393) and 5.19 (2.04-11.6) pg/mg creatinine, respectively. NNAL/cotinine ratio in urine was significantly higher for passive smokers when compared to active smokers (2.85×103 vs. 0.16×103, p<0.0001).

Conclusions: Cotinine measurement leads to an underestimation of exposure to the carcinogen NNK from second-hand smoke when compared with active smoking.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/ea ... PI-10-0497
Reply
Like