Currently, there is
widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand
smoke is harmful. The link between passive smoking and health
risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific
organization, including:
The World Health Organization
The U.S. National Institutes of Health
The Centers for Disease Control
The United States Surgeon General
The U.S. National Cancer Institute
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency
The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and
American Cancer Society
The American Medical Association
The American Academy of Pediatrics
The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health
The governments of 151 nations have signed and ratified the
World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco
Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific
evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco
smoke causes death, disease and disability.
While there is scientific agreement regarding the existence of a
link between passive smoking and heart disease, the magnitude of
the increased risk remains debated by a minority of
epidemiologists. For example, John Bailar of the National
Academy of Sciences questioned the proportionality of the
passive smoking risk, stating:
Regular smoking only increases the risk of cardiovascular
disease by 75%, so how could second-hand smoke, which is much
more dilute, have an effect one-third that size?
One proposed explanation is that secondhand smoke is not simply
a diluted version of "mainstream" smoke, but has a different
composition with more toxic substances per gram of total
particulate matter. The more toxic makeup of secondhand smoke
was first recognized in the tobacco industry's own research,
though it never published its findings. Some scientists believe
that the risk of passive smoking, in particular the risk of
developing coronary heart diseases, may have been substantially
underestimated.
The health benefit to non-smokers of smoking bans has also been
disputed by a small number of epidemiologists, who call for a
prospective trial to more accurately determine the benefit.
These epidemiologists advocate indoor smoking bans, but express
a concern that widespread outdoor smoking bans, as implemented
by some towns in the U.S., may be unsupported by the evidence
available thus far.
Current state of
scientific opinion Public opinion >>
|
Second Hand Smoke Passive smoking
Long-term
effects
Short-term
effects
Causal
mechanisms
Epidemiological studies of passive smoking
1. Studies of passive smoking in animals
2.
Risk level of passive smoking
Current state of scientific opinion
1. Public
opinion
Controversy over harms of passive smoking
1. Critique of individual studies and epidemiology
2. World Health Organization controversy
3. EPA lawsuit
4. Tobacco-industry funding of research
Tobacco industry response
1. Position of major tobacco companies
|
