From: afoxland@starband.net
Date: Mon, 01/06/03
Anne Landman Posting Date: Monday, January 6, 2002Environmental Tobacco Smoke:
Why Is It A Problem?
Company/source: Brown & Williamson
Document Date: Post-1986
Length: 32 pages
Bates No. 620002353-620002384
URL: http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/976657.html [Create
Footnote]
PDF Format:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=kug93f00&fmt=pdf&ref=results
This Brown & Williamson (B&W) report, "Environmental Tobacco
Smoke: Why is it a Problem?", appears to be an internally produced presentation
about secondhand smoke. It is undated, but references a 1986 National Academy of
Sciences report, which places it after that date.
The document presents reasons for dealing with the "Worst Case
Scenario" about secondhand smoke, specifically pointing out that:
"1. ETS is chemically different than MS [mainstream] smoke.
2. ETS exposure is chronic.
3. The shape of the biological dose-response curve is unknown."
The document lists studies that have shown that secondhand smoke
causes harm, and specifically points out the dangers is said to pose to pregnant
women, children and the lung function of adults:
"Dose-response relationships exist between low birthweight
children and pregnant women with daily ETS exposure, number of cigarettes smoked
by father...Household ETS exposure is linked to retarded growth and development
and chronic ear infections."
"ETS exposure causes respiratory symptoms in some children,"
"Decreases in lung function due to ETS: 0 to 0.5% per year.
This effect not clinically important but may:
--reflect pathophysiological effects
--may be a factor is later development of chronic airflow
obstruction."
The document also makes statements about the inadequacy of
ventilation to deal with ETS. On page 17 (Bates No. 620002369) it states that a
ventilation rate of 50-60 cubic feet per minute (cfm) per person is required to
provide satisfactory indoor air quality when ETS is present. According to Don
Shopland, (who brought this document to Doc-Alert's attention), under the old
ASHRAE guidelines a rate of just 20-35 cfm per occupant was suggested when
smokers were present.
The document goes on to state that, "There is probably no practical
ventilation rate that could satisfy 80% of more nonsmoking visitors," and that
"segregation of smokers and nonsmokers is not a solution" because the "rate of
migrations of smoke from smoking to nonsmoking areas is unknown," and "common
ventilation/filtration systems negate any benefits of segregation."
The above report could hold important ramifications for public
health authorities who are working to protect the public from exposure to
secondhand smoke.
Quotes:
[From Page 9-10, Bates No. 620002361/2362]
REASONS FOR ACCEPTING WORST CASE SCENARIO
1. ETS IS CHEMICALLY DIFFERENT FROM MS [mainstream] SMOKE,
2. ETS EXPOSURE IS CHRONIC.
THE SHAPE OF THE BIOLOGICAL DOSE-RESPONSE CURVE IS UNKNOWN.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM STUDIES REVIEWED
CHILDHOOD STUDIES
1. RATIOS FOR INCREASED PREVALENCE OF RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS:
1.2 - 1.8, THEREFORE ETS EXPOSURE CAUSES RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS IN SOME CHILDREN.
2. DECREASES IN LUNG FUNCTION DUE TO ETS: 0 TO 0.5% PER
YEAR. THIS EFFECT IS NOT CLINICALLY IMPORTANT BUT MAY:
- REFLECT PATHOPHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
- BE A FACTOR IN LATER DEVELOPMENT OF CHRONIC AIRFLOW
OBSTRUCTION,
3. DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIPS EXIST BETWEEN LOW BIRTHWEIGHT
CHILDREN AND:
- PREGNANT WOMEN WITH DAILY ETS EXPOSURE.
- NUMBER OF CIGARETTES SMOKED BY FATHER.
4. HOUSEHOLD ETS EXPOSURE IS LINKED TO RETARDED GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT AND CHRONIC EAR INFECTIONS.
[From Page 15-17, Bates Nos. 620002367/2369]
IMPACT OF ETS ON INDOOR AIR QUALITY
ODOUR
l. ETS AROUSES ODOUR RESPONSES. OBJECTIONABLE ODOUR
GENERATED BY ETS GREATLY EXCEEDS THAT GENERATED BY SIMPLE OCCUPANCY UNDER
COMPARABLE CONDITIONS OF OCCUPANCY, DENSITY, TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY.
2. TOBACCO SMOKE ODOUR IS STABLE OVER TIME. CURRENT
VENTILATION AND AIR CLEANING REQUIREMENTS DO NOT REMOVE ODOUR.
3. 0DOUR DERIVES PRIMARILY FROM THE VAPOUR PHASE.
4. 0DOUR GOVERNS REACTIONS OF VISITORS. IRRITATION GOVERNS
REACTIONS OF OCCUPANTS.
IRRITATION
1. EYE IRRITATION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT NEGATIVE FACTOR.
2. EYE BLINK CORRELATES WITH SENSORY IRRITATION AT HIGH
LEVELS OF ETS (C0>5 PPM).
3. IRRITATION CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE PARTICULATE PHASE.
4. IRRITATION MAY REMAIN AFTER REMOVAL OF IRRITANT,
5. CUTANEOUS SENSITIVITY TO TOBACCO LEAF OR SMOKE EXTRACTS
DOES NOT CORRELATE WITH SUBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS.
VENTILATION
1. LOW HUMIDITY EXACERBATES ODOUR AND IRRITATION TO ETS.
2. VENTILATION RATES OF 50-60 CFM PER PERSON ARE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE SATISFACTORY INDOOR AIR QUALITY WHERE ETS IS PRESENT.
3. THERE IS PROBABLY NO PRACTICAL VENTILATION RATE THAT
COULD SATISFY 80% OR MORE NON-SMOKING VISITORS.
4. SEGREGATION OF SMOKER/NON-SMOKERS IS NOT A SOLUTION.
ASHRAE GUIDELINES FOR VENTILATION
TARGET: SATISFY 80% OF VISITORS TO A ROOM.
NON-SMOKING: 5-8 CFM PER OCCUPANT.
SMOKING: 20-35 CFM PER OCCUPANT.
ASHRAE GUIDELINES CONSIDERED INADEQUATE DUE TO:
1. BASED ON LITERATURE VALUES, ASHRAE GUIDELINES SATISFY
50-75% VISITORS AND NON-SMOKING OCCUPANTS NOT 80%.
2. NON-SMOKERS HAVE LOWER THRESHOLD VALUES FOR OBJECTIONS
WHICH SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE.
SEGREGATION OF SMOKERS / NON-SMOKERS
NOT A SOLUTION:
1. RATE OF MIGRATION OF SMOKE FROM SMOKING TO NON-SMOKING
AREAS IS UNKNOWN.
2. COMMON VENTILATION/FILTRATION SYSTEMS NEGATE ANY BENEFITS
OF SEGREGATION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Notes
Thanks to Don Shopland of Georgia for bringing this document
to Doc-Alert's attention, and for summarizing some of the very important points
made in the document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Company: Brown & Williamson
Subject: Secondhand Smoke
Secondhand Smoke/Constituents
Secondhand Smoke/Health Effects
Secondhand Smoke/Perception
Secondhand Smoke/Toxicity
Region: United States
Type: Report
Litigation: 10004026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tobacco document information service is provided through the combined
efforts of
The American Lung Association of Colorado and Tobacco Documents Online.
Looking for documents on a particular topic? Visit the Daily Document
Archives. The Archives contain over 650 past postings of the Daily Document. The
entire text of the Archives are now fully searchable by keyword.
Doc-Alert has been posting information from the tobacco industry's
internal documents since August of 1999, and now is seen regularly by more than
4,000 people in over 35 countries around the globe.
To subscribe to Doc-Alert, send a message to
doc-alert-subscribe@smokescreen.org
To unsubscribe from this list at any time, send a message to
doc-alert-unsubscribe@smokescreen.org
To change your email delivery address:
1. Go to http://www.smokescreen.org
2. Sign in with your old email and password (which may be blank).
3. Click on "My Page" in the left-hand column.
4. At the bottom of the screen in the gray box, click [Change Email]
Address comments or questions to:
Anne Landman
American Lung Association of Colorado
Tobacco Document Research Annex
P.O. Box 23105
Glade Park, CO 81523
(970) 263-9199
Fax (970) 263-9799
afoxland@starband.net
| 
