DRAFr - 27/3/95
    ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
    ("ETS")
    Is ETS or second-hand smoke harmful?
    It has not been scientifically proven that second-hand smoke exposure causes disease
    in non-smokers.
    Isn't ETS exposure the same as smoking, only a little less risky?
    A non-smoker breathing second-hand is not "passive smok-ing". There are enormous
    differences between exposure to tobacco smoke in the air and actively smoking. There
    are obvious differences in the amount of exposure, the che rmcal and physical nature of
    the smoke, and the way the smoke is inhaled (through the nose for a non-smoker,
    through the mouth, in a gulp, for a smoker). You simply cannot compare smoking
    with second-hand smoke exposure and the term "passive smoking" is quite misleading.
    g,'h.v would the US EPA say that ETS is a know human carcinogen if it isn't?
    It seems clear that the United States Environmental Protection Agency approached the
    second-hand smoke issue with a pre-determined political agenda - and did all it could
    to make.the science fit its anti-smoking policy.
    Why should anyone take the tobacco induspy's vicnvs over that of independent
    doctors and scientists?
    It is certainly not just the tobacco industry that has 'Views on the ETS science that
    differ from that of the World Health Organisation and the US EPA- Whiist it might
    now be "politically correct" in some countries to suggest that second-hand smoke
    causes disease, many highly respected scientists from top research establishment
    around the world have analysed the data and concluded that secondtha~ smoke has not
    been proved to cause disease.  A
    Does living with a smoker increase the non-smoker's risk of lung cancer?
    Nearly forty studies have.addressed this question. The overwhelming ma~Jority of the
    studies report no statistically significant association between livingwrith a smoker and
    lung cancer. These studies do not establish that ETS exposure causes lung cancer. ful
    C:)
    BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 20 October 1999

    




    2
    Does working with a smoker increase lung cancerriskJor co-workers?
    The overwhelming majority of studies that have looked at smoking in the workplace
    have failed to find a statistically significant relationship between working with a
    smoker and lung cancer in non-smoking co-workers. Workplace smoking bans simply
    cannot be premised on the notion that these studies establish that ETS smoke causes
    disease.
    Does ETS cause heart disease?
    The scientific studies on reported second-hand exposure at home and at work and
    cardiovascular disease do not establish a causal link. Moreover, no-one has been able
    to prove a mechanism by which ETS causes heart disease. Even the US Surgeon
    General has been unable to conclude that second-hand smoke causes heart disease, and
    the US EPA limited the scope of its report to an analysis of * respiratory effectz.
    Does ETS cause asthma?
    Manv statistical studies have looked at second-hand smoke and asthma. Whilst some
    of the research su.agests that some asthmatics might have their condition aggravated in
    smokv environments, it has not been proven that ETS is a cause of asthma.
    Does ETS cause cot death?
    Some have suggested that ETS might be a cause of cot death, sometimes known as
    sudden infant death syndrome. Wbilst some studies, though by no means all, have
    reported associations that cot-deaths may occur more frequently in families where
    there is a smoker, the studies have been unable to establish ETS as a cause for cot
    death. No-one understands what causes cot death, though Government advice on the
    sleeping position of babies has apparently led to a reduction in the incidence of cot
    deaths.
    Does ETS increase respiratory disease in young children?
    Statistical studies suggest a relationship between parents' smoking and the number of
    coughs and wheezes in very young children, usually under the age of three. It is
    uncertain whether these statistical associations are due to the presence of ETS in the
    homes or are due to other factors that differ from smokers' to non-smokers' homes.
    Overall the studies of older children do not report such associations.
    Un
    CD
    U4
    X_
    ON
    OD
    ___4
    ON
    BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 20 October 1999

    




    3
    Surely smoking is a major cause of indoor air pollution?
    Despite being able to see and smell tobacco smoke in the air, scientific studies report
    that rarely is ETS smoke a major source of pollution in the air. Indoor air contains
    many substances, originating from outdoor pollution, ftimishings and fittings, from
    cooking and heating devices and even from occupants. Banning smoking does not
    remove these substances. The answer to indoor air quality is proper ventilation.
    Isn't the only cost effective way of dealing with ETS to ban smoking?
    It is simplistic in the extreme to think that smoking bans cost nothing. Outright bans
    clearly have an effect on smokers, and in many countries that means that bans will
    effect on a large proportion of the adult population. A ban in the workplace may result
    in a drop in productivity, whilst bans in restaurants will most probably lead to smokers
    spending less time, and less moneyl over their meal.
    Ae
    U-1
    (Z:)
    C711
    BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 20 October 1999