Right at the end of an artlcle in The Daily Mail about smoking bans in the USA:
Studies proved that bans in restaurants, bars and businesses improved air quality of air and reduced exposure to second hand smoke.
Smokers are also more likely to quit the habit in areas where the bans are in effect, while there is a potential reduction in heart attack rates in adults and rates of asthma attacks amongst children.
‘All states that have not done so already could protect the health of their residents by adopting laws that prohibit smoking in workplaces, restaurants and bars,’ the CDC report advises.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization released a study in 2002 that proved that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens by tobacco smoke as active smokers...
The CDC’s report concludes that although smoking bans have put the health of Americans at less risk than in 2000, further action could be made to improve the health of non-smokers.
The report indicated that casino workers are routinely exposed to second-hand smoke, and those who live in apartments adjacent to heavy smokers are exposed.
A University of Rochester study found that up to 99% of children living in apartment buildings had a tobacco by-product in their blood, likely from second-hand smoke exposure.
Friday 22 April 2011
Policy Based Evidence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
99% of children living in apartment buildings had a tobacco by-product in their blood
Easier just to light up.
".. a tobacco byproduct in their blood".
Would that be cotinine?
--------------------------------
"To assess passive smoke exposure, the volunteers had their blood checked for a byproduct of nicotine, called cotinine, which is made when the body comes into contact with tobacco smoke.
Also when it comes into contact with potatoes, tomatoes and all sorts of other vegetables."
LegIron
VFTS, yes, that's the sort of thing I mean.
Something that bugs me in my business is that technological advances have improved the sensitivity of tests to detect the presence of chemicals. However what this means is that background levels are ALSO more sensitively recorded. Which means that a (safe) background level of zero can no longer be assumed to be correct. Often accurate measures of background levels are not considered in risk assessments leading to false conclusions. This has implications in many areas - as diverse as radiation safety and sports doping.
Post a Comment