May 15, 1978
PUBLIC S,'OKI?:G
The tobacco industry acknowledges that there
is controversy over many aspects of the general
problem of
smoking and health. There Is disagreement among
medical
experts as to whether the reported associations
between
smoking and various diseases are causal or not.
Accordingly,
there is a continuing need for further research
into the
causes of such diseases and it remains the.policy
of the
tobacco industry to support such research.
"Public Smoking," to wit, smoking in the pres-
ence. of another person, has become increasingly
the subject
of debate with mounting pressure for restriction.
This
Issue has also been variously referred to as
"passive smok-
Ing" or "involuntary smokIng"; however, in this
paper these
terms are intended to be subsumed under "Public
Smoking."
It is self-evident that, since there is disagree-
ment among niedical experts as to whether the
reported asso-
ciations between smoking and various diseases are
causal
or not, there is no compelling evidence amounting
to proof
that there is any causal link between "Public
Smoking" and
various diseases. This paper will, therefore,
address the
issue according to the present state of scientific
knowledgeN
but will make no judgments on the varying vie-ws
of the ex-
perts which are quoted or referred to.
*This paper will be updated periodically.
Accordingly,
before use it would be well to check to determine
that t-he
information to be used is up to date.
NJ
C>
N)
__J
CN
\0
CO
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


I. Public Smoking as a Public Issue
In the last few years, controversY has arisen
about public smoking and health; claims and
charges have
escalated; campaigns to ban or restrict smoking in
public
have taken place and continue to increase. Thus,
the
public smoking issue has become a matter where the
tobacco
industry's position should be clear.
There are three major points upon which to
.focus.
First, claims that tobacco smoke in the atmos-
phere causes disease in nonsmokers are
unsubstantiated;
nevertheless, a large portion of the
population--both
smokers and nonsmokers--believe these claims.
Second, leaders of the drive to prohibit smok-
ing in public frequently resort to scare tactics
to make
nonsmokers believe their health is being harmed by
tobacco
smoke in the atmosphere.
Third, igainst this background of misinformation
public bodies are making rules about public
smoking that
intrude into personal liberty.
Although the public smoking issue arose in the
1970's, it stemmed from the smoking and health
controversy
of the last 25 years. As a supplementary method to
dis-
suade people from smoking, the notion of a crusade
to make
smoking socially unacceptable was evolved. The
mechanism
to do this was to paint smoking as a health hazard
to the
-2-
N)
C)
Ni
LP4
N-)
___J
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


nonsmoker.
At the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and
Health in New York in 19755, this was considered a
viable
plan for curtailing smoking. Since then, efforts
along
these lines have intensified.
The problem that advocates of this tactic faced
in 1975, and still face today, is-the fact that
there is
no proof that tobacco smoke in the atmosphere
causes dis-
ease in the nonsmoker.
The most that can be said about atmospheric
tobacco smoke is the possibility that there is a
small
group of exceedingly sensitive or otherwise ill
people
who have conditions which may be exacerbated by
various
environmental influences including environmental
tobacco
smoke. However, the contribution of tobacco smoke
to
atmospheric constituents is minimal.
Even so, efforts were undertaken to make non-
smokers-b elieve that their health was being
adversely
affected by atmospheric tobacco smoke. Thus, a
small but
determined corps of antismokers set out to get
smoking
banned in the work place, either by court or
governmental
regulation; to get laws passed regulating smoking
in
public places; and to get smoking restrictions on
public
transport. These forces are still at.work and
today the
public smoking issue is receiving widespread
attention.
In generating this public issue, the corps of
antismokers
-3-
C:)
r1 j
Lt4
N)
__4
BAT industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


uses tactics based on misinformation and
emotionalism
not justified by facts.
II. Atmospheric Tobacco Smoke and Health
There is no scientific proof that tobacco smoke
in the atmosphere causes disease in nonsmokers.
Despite
the contrary claims of a few, the view that
atmospheric
tobacco smoke does not present a health hazard to
the non-
smoker is supported by numerous reports of
independent
scientists and governmental bodies that have
examined this
issue. rtor ena plc, the 1973 rep-rt hy
ite
United K ng
an expert group appointed by the in antism~okir
'p rt group ppoi
e e ~a~ ed b he Un ~din
'It y t t; K
organization known as Action oking and
Health--concluded
king and H-a
ct
ni -a ti on kn a- A i n
..m0 g
that there is evidence" that smoking is "dangerous
to
t there is vide~n.e "tha k n da
t v . ,.I,
h__ thy nencmol-9-v
h n
In 1974, a workshop (organized, among others,
by Dr. Rylander of the Universities of Geneva and
Gothen-
burg) was-attended by scientists from all over the
world
to consider the fiealth consequences of
atmospheric tobacco
smoke. These scientists were unable to conclude
that
cigarette smoking is a hazard to nonsmokers.
Further.,
these scientists stated that:
"For the majority of the population
the average exposure burden due to
environmental tobacco smoke is prob-
ably much lower than that due to
industrial air pollutants and in many
cases also environmental air pollution
or the lung burden due to dust clyuds
or other indoor air pollutants."
-4-
CD
NJ
~A
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


In 1971, a joint study by the Federal Aviation
Administration, the United States Department of
Health,
Education and Welfare and the National Institute
of Occu-
pational Safety and Health examined the health
aspects of
smoking on transport aircraft. Its conclusion was
as
follows:
it is concluded that inhalation
of the by-products from tobacco smoke
generated as a result of passengers
smoking aboard commercial aircrAft does
not represent a significant health hazard
to nonsmoking passengers.,, 3
This conclusion is supported by that of the U. S.
Inter-
state Commerce Commission's study of smoking on
bLises:
"We agree with the examiner's conclu-
sions that petitioner has failed ade-
quately to demonstrate the deleterious
effects of second-hand smoke upon the
health of motor bus passengers." 4
In 1977, a symposium on the topic of smoking
in the work place sponsored by the Bavarian
Academy of
Industrial and Social Medicine was held in Munich,
Germany
and attended by eminent German scientists,
lawyers, as
well as government leaders.. The chairman of this
symposium,
Professor- Doctor H. Valentin of the University of
"Erlangen-
Nurenburg stated as follows:
"In conclusion, with regard to medical
and legal facts of passive smoking at
the work place, the following must be
considered. Under our present day work
place conditions, no clear and signifi-
cant untoward health effects from passive
smoking have been shown. Therefore, we
should, as in other everyday situations,
observe the following rules:
-5-
r1 j
CD
rQ
__j
ON
\0
-th.,
BAT Industries document for Province of British
ColUrnbia 2 November 1999


. . . as much state intervention
as necessary_- as much freedom as
possible.'" :~
Quite recently (1978), the Ger-qa.n Society of
Occupational Medicine --which includes
approxinately 700
scientists and other persons interested in
occupational
health--examined the issue of smoking in the work
place
and found that
"To date, according to our knowledge, scien-
tifically unequivocal and objective proof of
damage to health, as a result of passive
smoking, has not be n established in any
population group." 9
Accordingly, the Society concluded that a smoking
ban in
the work place cannot be justified on a scientific
basis.
In view of these conclusions by independent
scientists. and governmental bodies, it is not
surprising
that some of the most avowed critics of tobacco
have
acknowledged that smoking has not been established
as a
cause of disease in nonsmokers.
For exaTple, Dr.. Ernest L. Wynder of the Ameri-
can Health Foundation admitted that he does not
believe
that "passive smoking really hurts the health
of'somebody
who sits next to you. Dr. Jonathan Rhoades, Chair-
man of the National Cancer Advisory Board,
admitted in
commenting upon atmospheric tobacco smoke and
health that
to his knowledge "it is not, in fact, actually
harmful.', 8
And on cancer, Dr. E. Cuyler Hammond of the
American '
Cancer Society stated that there "was no shred of
evidencell
0 \
`10
U1
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


that a nonsmoker can get cancer from "second hand"
smoke
and that there is a lot of evidence that he
cannot.
Dr. Hammond added that to suggest passive
smoking could cause cancer is dishonest, and that
he
would be prepared to testify as much in a court.9
And
even the then Surgeon General of the United
States-
Dr. Jesse Steinfeld--admitted after the 1.972
Public
Health Service Report was issued that lie could
not "say
with certainty that exposure to tobacco snoke can
cause
serious illness in nonsmokers.1110 As further
examples,
the footnote lists a dozen others* who are usually
critical of smoking and who have voiced the view
that
atmospheric tobacco smoke has not been established
as
being harmful to the health of nonsmokers.
These opinions are supported by the findings
of Hinds and First of the Harvard School of Public
Health.
Their study, which was financed by the
Massachusetts Lung
Association, measured tobacco smoke (by
extrapolating
from nicotine) in various public places such as
restau-
rants, cocktail lounges, bus and airline terminals
and stu-
*Wilb&rt C A--,, Richard Doll, Dean F. Davies,
John R. Goldsmith, Gio Gori, Roy Korson, David
Owen, Irwin
Schnieltz, Dietrioli Reuel Stallones,1R. D.
Stewart
and 'r-rry.11
-7-
C)
QN
%~D
CN
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


dent lounges, and found that the amounts were very
small
indeed.12 In editorial comment, appearing in the
New
England Journal of Medicine which reported this
study, Dr.
Gary Huber of the Harvard ,:edical School stated:
"Under the most severe concentrations
of exposure in their study, the non-
smoker could consume an amount of tobacco
so small that the risk of development
of any adverse health effect would be
non-existent, on the basis of any avail-
able data In the literature today.,,13
Scientific facts notwithstandirfg, claims are
sometimes made that smoking causes chronic
degenerative
diseases in nonsmokers. However, one recent study
re-
viewed the data from a number of other studies,
includ-
ing an American Cancer Society epidemiological
study,
and found no evidence that nonsmokers constantly
exposed
to tobacco smoke have an increased risk of lung
cancer.14
It.is frequently asserted that atmospheric
tobacco smoke causes or contributes to the
development
of atherosclerosis.in nonsmokers, as a result of
carbon
monoxide. Those that make this assertion point to
studi.es
by Astrup, et al., which reported a higher
cholesterol
content in animals chronically exposed to carbon
monoxide
compared with animals not so exposed. 15 While
these
studies also reported that the exposed animals had
ar-
terial changes indistinguishable. from early
atherosclerosis,
they ignored observations in humans (bridge and
tunnel
workers) indicating that persons chronically
exposed to
C:)
N)
LJ-4
O\
\0
__4
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


carbca monoxide do not have any increased
incidence of
atherzsclerosis.16
For those who advance the carbon monoxide-
athemsclerosis theory, the Astrup work is
conclusive;
anyone suggesing a contrary view is discounted.
Very
recenzly, however, Astrup has admitted that he has
been
unable to reproduce his previous experiment, He
stated
that his "present study suggests that applying the
gen-
erally accepted criteria for intimal damage no
direct
IT
toxic effect of CO can be demonstrated.
A similar situation exists as to chronic ob-
structfve pulmonary disease (COPD), principally
bronchi-
tis and enphysena. No one seriously claims that
atmos-
pheric tobacco smoke causes such diseases In
nonsmokers.
However, it is frequently claimed by some--usually
the'
same vcca:1 minority-who make assertions about
cardiovas-
cular disease and cancer--tbat parental smoking
causes
respiratory illness in children. Those making this
claim
point -to various questionnaire -type studies by
Colley and
others,18 which report that children of smoking
parents
have ar Increased incidence of respiratory illness
compared
to children of nonsmoking parents. They cite these
studies
-9-
CD
r\)
(A
CN
%`0
00
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Colurnbia 2 Novernber 1999


as p.roof of their theory, even though some of
these
studies also find a correlation between
respiratory ill-
ness in the parents and si,-,iilar such illnesses
in the
children, irrespective of smoking. Thus, the
question
recognized by Colley himself of whether the
children's
respi-ratory illness is caused by cross-infection
from the
parents or by a genetic predisposition to such
illnesses
in both parents and childrenP is simply ignored by
those
who argue that smoking'Is the established-cause of
the.
reported respiratory illness in these children.
Likewise,
they ignore other studies, including one by the
Environ-
mental Protection Agency, that do not find such an
assoc-
iation. 20 For them, the parts of the
questionnaire-type
studies that appear to support their position
settle the
issue.
21
Recently, a study by Bouhuys--an avowed critic
of smoking--and coworkers reported data that
parental
smoking does not cause respiratory illness in
children or
other family members. These researchers studied
respira-
tory synptoms, diseases and lung function in 376
families
with 816 children in three towns and "found no
significant
relation between parent smoking and respiratory
symptoms
or lung function in their children." They
concluded "that
exposure to low levels of smoke produced by
cigarette
smokers does not result in chronic respiratory
symptoms or
loss of lung function among children nor among
adults."
_10-
ON
BAT IndustrieS document for Province of BritiSh
Columbia 2 November 1999


Another recently reported clinical study by
Kerrebijn,
et al., on chronic nonspecific respiratory
diseases in
children confirms the findings of Bouhuys, et al.
Their
study found that
"Smoking and nonsmoking parents have
about the same proportion of children
with respiratory symptoms. The number
of cigarettes smoked by the parents has
no influence on resplratory symptoms in
their children . . . if 2
Quite apart from disease causation, questions
have been raised about whether there exists a
small group
of extremely sensitive or otherwise ill persons
whose con-
ditions might be exacerbated by atmospheric
tobacco smoke'.
For example, former Surgeon General Luther Terry,
after
discounting the causation of disease in
nonsmokers, stated
that "there are a few people who are genuinely
sensitive,
allergic to tobacco smoke and who can be made ill
by being
exposed to tobacco smoke.1123
Contrary to Dr. Terry's belief, the question
whether digarette sinoke, or any of its
constituents as
found in smoke, Is alrespiratory tract allergen is
unre-
solved. Claims about tobacco allergy stem
primarily from
the many studies that have been done over a long
period of
time in which extract from tobacco leaf has been
tested
and found to cause allergic response usually in
people--
both smokers and nonsmokers--who are otherwise
allergic,24
NJ
C:)
N)
(_q
N)
C)
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Colurnbia 2 NoveMber 1999


However, studies with tobacco lear extract do not
resolve
the issue or whether cigarette smoke or any or its
constitu-
ents is allergenick one recent study reported the
isolation
of a large molecular weight molecule from tobacco
smoke,
which the authors claim to be an allergen.25
However' Dr.
Gerald Gleich of the Mayo Clinic reported to the
American
Academy of Allergy, as recently as 1976, that he
and his
colleagues had failed to rind any evidence of
tobacco smoke
allergens in their tests of 30 subjects wh6
reportedly ex-
perienced.allergic type symptoms on exposure to
tobacco or
tobacco smoke.26 Dr. Gleich, as well as Dr. John
Salvaggio
and coworkers at Tulane University, are currently
doing
scientific research in this area. Their work to
date has
not found any4allergens in tobacco smoke.
. Another group believed to be particularly vul-
nerable-to various environmental impingements,
including
tobacco srmoke, are asthmatics. This belief is
based on
several subjective-reports that asthmatics are
bothered by
such smoke. However, there is no objective
evidence to
support these reports. And, one recent study by
Pimm, et
al.,-failed to find any significant changes in the
lung
function of asthmatics who had been exposed to
cigarette
smoke in a small test chamber.27 Further research
is also
needed in this area.
Persons with severely compromised cardiovascular
systems are another group believed to be adversely
affected
by environmental tobacco smoke, especially carbon
monoxide
_12-
N)
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


whatever its source. This belief stems largely
from
Aronow's studies of angina patients in which he
used
"pure" carbon monoxide, as %,ell as tobacco smoke,
to ele-
vate their COHb* levels. He found that a certain
COHb
level obtained by exposure to "pure" carbon
monoxide
caused certain changes in cardiac function, but
that the
same COHb level obtained from tobacco smoking did
not
result in such changes-28 The reason for these
differ-
ences in cardiovascular function are as yet
unknown.
Whatever the reason for these findings, this study
raises
a substantial question about the relevancy of
"pure"
carbon monoxide type studies to the nonsmokers
situation.
This is another area where further research is
needed.
Aside from matters of disease causation and
persons who are either extremely sensitive or
otherwise
ill, there is a small group of nonsmokers who
overreact
strongly to the presence of tobacco smoke in the
atmos-
phere. Mere the question is whether there are
sufficient
amounts of atmospheric smoke to account for this
phenomenon
on a physiological basis, or,. whether the
overreaction of
this.small 'group of nonsmokers is better
explained in
psychological terms. The slightest smell of
tobacco smoke
causes them to overreact, even though the
atmospheric levels
. *COHb is the combination formed by carbon
monoxide and red blood pigment.
-13-
N)
C)
N)
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


of such smoke are generally "much lot-ter than
assumed by
convinced nonsmokers," as recently noted by
Professor G.
Wagner of the German Cancer Research Center?9
To support their claims, the overreactors cite
d.-& "4- L-A..A:.hk, CDPUJ;~,
laboratory studies treport Jag that/ high
concentrations of
tobacco smoke can be irritating and, therefore,
produce
various respiratory and other symptoms. ~these
symptoms,
however, are usually alleviated shortly after the
smoke
is removed. As a practical matter, however, it bas
been
observed that when the concentration of smoke
sufficient
to produce such symptoms is reached in real-life
situations,
persons respond appropriately, eog. they may
either quit
smoking or open a window.30
Studies have measured tobacco smoke constitu-
ents in the atmosphere under realistic conditions;
these
have not found levels sufficiently high to account
for
the overreaction of this small group of
nonsmokers. In-
stead, these studiqs indicate that under realistic
con-
.ditions, indoor atmospheres do not nornally have
high
concentrations of tobacco smoke constituents. For
example,
there have been a considerable number of studies
on carbon
monoxide in the atmosphere from smoking. The
combined
results of these studies indicate that under
realistic
conditions carbon monoxide in the atmosphere from
smoking
will rarely exceed 10 parts per million (ppm).31
One exception was reported in a study of a
-14-
NO
BAT Industries document for Province of British
ColuMbia 2 Novernber 1999


sports arena which permitted smoking but was not
air
conditioned. There the carbon monoxide CCO) level
reached
25 ppm.32 Another exception was the studies
performed
in taverns and night clubs where CO levels as high
as
42 ppm were recorded.33 It should be noted,
however,
that these studies were performed with an
instrument known
to exaggerate the level of CO in the presence of
alcohol
vapors.34 Moreover, all of the values obtained in
real-
life situations a-re below 50 ppm, which ii the
level set
by.various health administrations (e.g. U. S.
Occupational
Safety and Health Administration) as the limit for
indus-
trial exposure over an 8-hour period.
Many studies have measured COHb levels in
smokers and in nonsmokers exposed to tobacco
.smoke.
Other studies have observed CORb levels in persons
ex-
posed to carbon monoxide not derived from
cigarette 'smoke.
The combined results of these studies indicate
that under
realistic conditions smokers wi'll rarely
experience COHb
levels greater than 10Z and that nonsmokers will
not
usually exceed 2 to 3%. And, even these relatively
low
levels of CORb will drop within a few hours after
the
cessation-of exposure to smoke. 35
The scientific studies notwithstanding, the
antismokers continue to complain about the alleged
build-
up of carbon monoxide in offices and other places
smoking is allcwed. One recent study showed that
the
-15-
C)
NJ
N
CD
-th.
BAT IndustrieS document for Province of BritiSh
ColUrnbia 2 Novernber 1999


CoHb levels of office workers were higher when
they came
to work than when they left at the end of the day,
even
though they were exposed to cigarette smoke
throughout
the day.36 The results of this study indicate that
the
antismokers should be more concerned about the
outdoor
levels of CO from car exhaust and other sources
that non-
smokers are exposed to on their way to work than
tobacco
snoke in the office.
It should be noted that no one has ever estab-
lished that the health of nonsmokers is adversely
affected
by even the small amount of CO that might be in
the at-
mosphere as a result of cigarette smoke. CO is a
natural
body constituent which is even present in very
small
quantities in the blood without any exposure to CO
in the
atmosphere. The body can and does get rid of CO by
vari-
ous means. And, it should be noted, persons with
COHb
levels of 15% or less rarely even suffer any of
the first
symptoms of CO difficulties, such as headache,
nausea,
etc. 37
One claim that is frequently made about exposure
to low levels of CO is that it affects certain
performances,
such as ability to distinguish between short
intervals of
time and to solve mathematical oroblems. There is
still
disagreement in the scientific literature,
however, as to
whether such performances are affected by COHb
measurements
in the neighborhood of 100. or less. Some studies
indicate
_16-
Nj
CD
NJ
(-P4
NJ
C)
Cn
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


that these levels of GO will affect such
performance,38 -
while other studies do not so indicate.39 This is
another
area that requires additional research.
In contrast to studies performed under realistic
conditions, the overreactors frequently cite
studies con-
ducted under highly aritficial situations as
evidence that
high concentrations of GO from cigarette smoke can
be at-
tained. One such study by Srch placed two smokers
and
two nonsmokers in a small closed car in a..garage
and had
the smokers smoke ten cigarettes in one hour. 4o
Another
study by Harke placed a European car in a wind
tunnel and
then had nine cigarettes smoked inside the c -ar,
one after
another, without any ventilation in the car and no
out-
side wind movement. 41 Of course, in situations
such as
these, a rapid buildup of GO occurs; however, as
Doctor
Farke observed, these conditions do "not
correspond to a
normal traffic situation." And the subjective
reactions
of the test subjects to the Increased levels of
smoke con-
centration were revealing:
a threshold is reached at roughly
20 ppm Cof CO] which normally prompts one
to open a window or to turn on the ventil-'
ation."
Studies on nicotine indicate that atmospheric
42
levela are minimal. No one has suggested that the
min-
uscule amount of nicotine that might be absorbed
by a ,
nonsmoker has anything to do with the production
of human
disease. Indeed one recent study that monitored
heart
-17-
NJ
CD
NJ
Q4
CD
()N
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


rate in nonsmokers exposed to cigarette smoke
under labor-
atory conditions concluded that the amount of
nicotine in-
haled by nonsmokers under their rigorous test
conditions
was too small to alter heart rate.43
Studies of other tobacco smoke constituents
indicate that smoke's contribution to atmospheric
levels
44
of these compounds is minimal. Thesestudies are
usually conducted in the context of an exaggerated
claim
about the danger of exposure to some compound
attributable
to tobacco smoke. One such study of "volatile"
organic
compounds recently concluded that the amount of
such com-
pounds added to the atmosphere as a result of
cigarette
smoking is "insignificant.,,45
The'laboratory measurement of smoke constitu-
ents often is done as a purely analytic study
without
taking account of real life situations. A current
example
is Dr. Brunneman's recent report of nitrosamines
in tobacco
46 b0L-eA)c--, KLS
smokei , In prccc.nting and diccuccin.- hio
findingg d,,r
*47 n-
study was intended as a model study and not as an
imitation
of reality.
Because the overreaction of some nonsmokers to
smoking cannot be explained on the basis of a
physiologi-
cal response to atmospheric tobacco smoke or any
of Its
constituents, the question arises whether this
reaction can
be explained on an emotional basis. While this
auestion
--4-19n on ucc in Footn,2te ?17
N)
(-N
N)
BAT IndustrieS document for Province of BritiSh
Columbia 2 November 1999


is far from settled, At least one researcher, Dr.
Gary
Huber, has suggested that this might be the case,
noting
that the odor of smoke comoonents "may trigger
emotional
48
responses not yet well understood." This theory
finds
some support in a recent study by Rummel, et al.,
49 in
which college students, who were first
characterized as
to their attitudes.concerning tobacco smioke, were
exposed
to such smoke. The authors reported a significant
differ-
ence in heart rates of those who "disliked" smoke
compared
with those who were "indifferent-to smoke, with
the
higher rates among those who "disliked" the smoke.
The
authors could not determine from the data whether
the
"dislike" group had a true higher heart rate
initially,
or whether the anticipation of sitting and
inhaling the
"disliked" cigarette smoke caused an increased
heart rate.
This is not to say that perfectly normal people
are not sometimes annoyed or irritated by
atmospheric
tobacco.smoke. Especially in places that are
poorly ven-
tilated, concentrations of atmospheric tobacco
smoke may
themselves or in combination with other
environmental in-
fluences give rise to eye or nasal irritation.
Whatever the basis of the overreaction of some
nonsmokers to smoking, one thing is clear:
atri-iospheric,
tobacco smoke has not been proven hazardous to the
health
of nonsmokers. Accordingly, as Dr. Pimm. noted in
connec-
tion with his research on asthmatics exposed to
tobacco
_19-
N)
CD
N)
C)
00
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


smoke, if smoking is to be restricted, it will
have to
be on the basis of annoyance and visual
disturbance and
not on health grounds.50
Ill. Government Rep:ulations and Individual Rights
While common sense dictates no smoking for
safety reasons In certain instances (e.g. near
gasoline
pumps), measures against public smoking, based
upon un-
founded claims that tobacco smoke causes disease
in the
nonsmoker, are unjustified. Beyond this, for
government
to regulate smoking in public or other places
because
it may annoy or irritate some nonsmokers
constitutes an
unwarranted Intrusion into.people's private lives.
Contrary to the claims or the antismoking
leaders, the vast majority of people--s.-nokers
and
nonsmokers--are not usually annoyed by public
smoking.
For example, a recent U. S. survey found that when
people
were asked about the kinds of things that annoyed
or ir-
ritated'them in their everyday lives, only about
2% of
the annoyances mentioned were related to smoking.
51 Indeed
919 of those in the survey didn't even mention
smoking.52
The American Express Company found little In-
terest in nonsmoking tours that they sponsored. 53
Numer-
ous surveys demonstrate that diners have little or
no in-
terest in the nonsmoking sections of restaurants.
Por,
example, one Seattle, Washington restaurant
reported that
in a 3-month period in which the restaurant had
served
-20-
CD
N)
U4
CD
%10
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


30,000 customers, there were only seven requests
for
seating in the nonsmoking area.54
Why then this outcry about public smoking by
a small but vocal minority of anitsmoking leaders?
They claim to seek protection for the nonsmoker,
pCj,,jj ()_,c OLj.%,#cJ4A O.V +UL."_
but their e~~' ni~ i-, tn
of mw&k==s*,c %rv,,akv\-
As stated at the 3rd World Conference on Smok-
ing and Health in response to a question:-
and of even more consequence,
is what nonsmokers' social action can
contribute to the solution of the total
smoking problem and its devastating
effects on smokers."55
A campaign to harass and otherwise inhibit smokers
is not'
a legitimate concern of government.
Public smoking policy should be set in light
of the facts, not upon unfounded health claims
that at-
mospheric tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.
In any event, the antismokers are sometimes
successful. They get laws and other regulations to
ban
or limit the rights of smokers, but at a high cost
to
society. Thousands of hours of time are spent on
an issue
that is of little real consequence. Moreover, the
end
results of these costly proceedings are laws and
regula-
tions that are frequently impractical and
unenforceable.
Laws and other regulations that ban or limit
-21-
N)
(-N
N)
CD
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November `1999


smoking, whether aimed at the smoker or the
nonsmoker,
constitute an unwarranted intrusion into the lives
and P
rights of citizens. People in a free society
should be
allowed to make informed choices about smoking.
Nor can these laws and other regulations be
justified on the basis of annoyance to nonsmokers.
If.
the problem is one of annoyance, it can best be
dealt
with by mutual courtesy between smokers and
nonsmokers
rather than by governmental regulation or
Ueprivation
of individual freedom..
IV. Future Action by the Tobac'co' 'rndust'ry
In order to understand why public smoking has
developed into a publi c issue when there is no
real basis
for public actions, when there are not real public
inter-
ests invo~lved and when public actions infringe on
private
rights (freedom), the tobacco industry proposes
the fol-
lowing actions:
1. Social science research programs:
What causes nonsmokers to accept unsubstantiated
accusations about public smoking.
(ii) What is the depth and extent of opinion and
feel-
ing about smoking as a public annoyance.
(iii) is the public smoking issue part of a
broader
range of social issues of which cigarette smog_
ing is currently the most visible.
-22-
r1 j
C)
N
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


2. Medical science research programs directed
toward:
(I) Determining .-thether or not there are any
groups
of extremely sensitive or otherwise ill people
whose conditions nay be exacerbated by various
environmental influences, including tobacco smoke.
(ii) Investigating any evidence asserting that
public
smoking causes disease in these or any other
-groups.
(III) Determining why certain nonsmo kers
overreact to
even small amounts of tobacco smoke In the at-
mosphere.
3. Public information programs:
(I) To inform the smoking and nonsmoking public of
the truth about tobacco smoke in the atmosphere
and health.
(ii) To urge smokers and nonsmokers to be mutually
courteous.
(III). To cooperate in public safety programs.that
en-
courage awareness of possible fire hazards.
Beyond these research and information programs,
the tobacco industry will strengthen Its
activities In
support of legislative freedom of smokers and
nonsmokers
alike.
-23-
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


REFERENCES
1. Action on Smoking and Health. "Pipe and cigar
smoking:
the report of an expert group appointed by 'Action
on
Smoking and Health'." The Practitioner 210 (1259):
645-
652; 1973.
2. Corn, M., et al. Workshop summary and
recommendations.
Report from a workshop on Environmental Tobacco
Smoke
Effects on the Non-Smoker, Bermuda, I-larch 27-29,
1974.
Scand. J. Resn. Dis. Suppl. 91: 88-90; 1974.
3. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Adminis-
tration, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health.
Health aspects of smoking In transport aircraft.
Rockville, Md. AD-736097, December 1971. 85 PP.
4. U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission. Smoking by
passen-
gers and operating personnel on interstate buses.
Washington, D.C. No. mc-c-6748, motor Carrier
Cases,
114: 256-278; November 17, 1971.
5. Valentin, H. In: Passive Smoking at the
Workplace.
Reports and discussions from a meeting of*the
Bavarian
Academy of Industrial and Social Medicine, March
31-
April 1, 1977, p. 24.
6. Arbeitzmedicin; Social Medicine, Preventive
Medicine
2/785. 39.
7. Wynder, E.L. Statement made on Barbara Walters'
tele-
vision program "Not for Women Only". WRC-TV, IIIBC
Network, Washington, D.C. April 18, 1974, 9:00
A.M.-
Radio TV Reports, Inc. Washington, D.C., p. 11.
8. Rhoades, Jonathan Jr., Comment during "A
discussion of
smoking and health", Newsprobe, WTAF-TV,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, p. 9, July 16, 1975.
9. Hammond, E.C. "What.are the high risk groups
for public
education? How does epidemiology identify them?"
In:
Sumnary Proceedings of the International
Conference on
Public Education'About Cancer. UICC Technical
Report
'Series, Vol. 18, Geneva, 1975, P. 13.
10. Steinfeld, J.L. II. The public's
responsibility: a bill
of rights for the non-smoker. Rhode Island Med. J.
55
(4): 124-126, 138; 1972.
-24-
CZ)
BAT IndustrieS doCUrnent for Province of BritiSh
Colurnbia 2 Novernber 1999


11. a) Aronow, W.S. Statement before the National
Commission
on Smoking and Public Policy, The American Cancer
Society "Forum", Los Angeles, March 22, 1977, P.
11.
b) Doll, R. "Cigarette Smoking", Newsbeat, BBC
Radio,
pp. 1-4. December 23, 1976.
c) Davies, D.F. "Cancer, Cigarette Smoking as a
Cause".
American Journal of Nursing 61 (4): 65-66, April,
1961.
d) Goldsmith, J.R. Statement before the National
Commis-
sion on Smoking and Public Policy, The American
Cancer
Society "Forum", Los Angeles, March 22, 1977. As
cited by ACS LA Film.
e) Gori, G. "Nine in the Morning", WTOP-TV., CBS,
Wash-
ington, D.C., January 4, 1977.
f) Korson, R. Statement before the National
Commission7
on Smoking and Public Policy, American Cancer
Society'
"Forum", Boston, Mass., June 2, 1977. Tape 1, Side
2,
Rev. 872.
g) Owen, D. "Smoking in Public", British Med. J.
2: 399-
400; May 17-1975.
h) Schmeltz, I., Hoffmann, D., Wynder, E.L. "The
Influence
of Tobacco Smoke on Indoor Atmospheres".
Preventive
Med. 4:. 66-82; 1975.
i) Stallones, R. Quoted in "Old Pete: He Smokes
and It's
His Business", Reading Times, Reading, Pa.,
September
17, 1976.
J) Stewart, R,D. "The Effects of Low
Concentrations of
Carbon Monoxide in Man". Report from a Workshop on
Environmental Tobacco Smoke Effects on the
Non-Smoker,
Bermuda, March 27-29; 1974. Scand. J. Respir. Dis.
Suppl. 91; 56-62; 1974.
the New Jersey Public
X) Terry, L. Testimony before
.
Health Council, Trenton, N.J. Octobe.r 20, 1977.
pp-33-4.
12. Hinds, W.C.,' First, M.W. "Concentrations of
Nicotine and
Tobacco Smoke in Public Places." New Enx. J. Med.
292 (16):
844-845; 1975.
13. Huber, G.L. "Smoke and heat" Letter to the
Editor,
8
4
-
New Eng. J. Med. 293 (1): 4
9 ; 1975.
14. Garfinkel, L. "Questions and answers an
cancer: bron-
chial ca in non-smokers." CA - A Cancer Journal
for
Clinicians 26 (3): 181-182; 1976.
-25-
C:)
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


15. a) Astrup, P., KJeldsen, K., Wanstrup, J.
"Enhancing
influence of carbon monoxide on the development or
atheromatosis in cholesterol-fed rabbits.". J.
Athero-
scler. Res. 7: 343-354; 1967.
b) Wanstrup, J., Kjeldsen, X., Astrup, P.
"Acceleration
of spontaneOUS intimal-subintinal changes in
rabbit
aorta by a prolonged moderate carbon monoxide
exposure."
Acta. Path. Microbiol. Scand. 75: 353-362; 1969.
c) Kjeldsen, X., Astrup, P., Wanstrup, J.
"Ultrastruc-
tural Intimal changes in the rabbit aorta after a
moderate carbon monoxide exposure."
Atherosclerosis
16 (1): 67-82; 1972.
d) Kjeldsen, K., Thomsen, H.K., Astrup, P.
"Effects of
carbon monoxide on myocardium. Ultrastructural
changes
in rabbits after moderate, chronic exposure."
Circu-
lation Research 34(3): 339-348, March 1974.
e) Thomsen, H.K., Njeldsen, X. "Threshold limit
for carbon
monoxide-induced myocardial damage. An electron
micro-
scopic study in rabbits." Archi-Ves of Environ.
Health
29 (2): 73-78, August 1974.
f) Thomsen, H.K., Kjeldsen,, K. "Aortic intimal
injury
In rabbits: an evaluation of.a threshold limit."
Arch.
Environ. Health 30 (12): 6o4-607; 1975.
16. a) Ayres, S.M., Evans, R., Licht, D., et al.
"Health
effects of exposure to high concentrations of
auto-
motive emissions. Studies in bridge and tunnel
workers
In New York City." Arch. Environ. Health 27 (3):
168-
178; 1973.
b) 'Sievers, R.F., Edwards, T.L., Murray, A.L.,
Schrenk,
H.H. "Effects of exposure to knoi-m concentrations
of
CO." J. Am. Med. Assoc. 118: 585-588; 1942. ..
c) Jones, J. G., Sinclair, A. "Arterial disease
amongst
blast furnace workers." Ann.' Occup. Hyp:. 18:
15-20; 1975.
17. a) Hugod, C., Hawkins, L., Kjeldsen, K.,
Thomsen, H.K.,
Astrup, P. "Influence of carbon monoxide on
intimal
morphology." Paper presented at the International
Conference on Atherosclerosis, Milan, November 9,
1977.
b) Stender, S., Astrup, P., Kjeldsen, K. "The
effect of
carbon monoxide on cholesterol in the aortic wall
of
rabbits." Atherosclerosis 28; 357-367; 1977.
c) Hugod, C., Hawkins, L., Astrup, P. "Exposure of
passive smokers to tobacco smoke constituents."
Manuscript submitted for publication.
-26-
r1 i
Q~o
N)
~_4
N.)
BAT Industries doCUrnent for Province of British
ColUrnbia 2 Novernber 1999


18. a) Colley, J.A.T. "Respiratory symptoms in
children
and parental smoking and phlegm production.~'
Brit.
Med. J. 2: 201-204; 1974.
b) Colley, J.R.T., Holland, W.W., Corkhill, R.T.
"Influence of passive smoking and parental phlegm
on pneumonia and bronchitis in early childhood."
Lancet 2 (7888): 1031-1034; 1974.
19. a) Leeder, S.R., Corkhill, R., Irwig, L.M.,
Holland, W.W.,
Colley, J.R.T. "Influence of family factors in the
incidence of lower respiratory illness during the
first year of life." Brit. J. Prev. Soc. Med. 30
(4): 203-212; 1976.
b) Leeder, S.R., Colley, J.R.T., Corkhill, R.,
Holland,
W.W. "Respiratory symptom prevalance in adults:
the
comparative importance of smoking And family
factors."
Am. J. Epidem. 105 (6): 530-533; 1977.
20. Environmental Protection Agency. Health
Consequences of
Sulfur Oxides: A Report from CHESS, 1970-1971.
(EPA
650/1-74-004). Office of Research and Development.
National Environmental Research Center. Researcb
Triangle
Park, North Carolina. May, 1974.
21. Schilling, R.S.F., Letal, A.D., Hui, S.L.,
Beck, G.J.,
Schoenberg, J.B.,, Bouhuys, A. "Lung function,
respira-
tory disease and smoking in families." Am. J.
Epidemiol.
106 (4): 274-283; 1977.
22. Kerrebijn, K.F., Hoogeveen-Schroot, H.C.A.,
Van der Wal,
M. C. "Chronic nonspecific respiratory disease in
children,
a five year follow-up study." Acta Paed. Scand.
Suppl. 261:
1-72; 1977.
23. Terry, L. Testimony before the New Jersey
Public Health
Council, Trenton, New.Jersey, October 20, 1977.
24. a) Harkavy, J. "Tobacco allergy in
cardiovascular
disease: a review." Ann. Allergy 26: 447-459;
1968.
b) Fontana, V.T., Redisch, W., Nemir, R.L., Smith,
M.K.,
Decrinis, K., Sulzberger, M.B. "Studies in tobacco
hypersensitivity III. Reactions to skin tests and
peripheral vascular responses." J. Allergy'30:
241-
249; 1959.
c) Peshkin, M.M., Landay, L.H. "Cutaneous.
reactions to
tobacco antigen in allergic and nonallergic
children
with the direct and indirect (local passive
transfer)
methods of testing." J. Allergy 10(3): 241-245;
1939.
d) Speer, P. "Tobacco and the non-smoker. A study
of
subjective symptoms." Arch. Environ. Health 16
(3):
443-446; 1968.
_27-
C~)
r1 i
cr%
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Colurnbia 2 Novernber 1999


25. a) Becker, C.G., Dubin, T., Wiedemann, II.P.
"Hyper-
sensitivity to tobacco antigen." Proc. ~Iat- Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 73 (5): 1712-1716; 1976.
b) Becker, C.G. , Dubin, T. , Wiedemann, H.P.
"Tobacco
allergy: immediate cutaneous hypersensitivity to
an
antigen purified from cured tobacco and present in
cigarette smoVe." Fed. Proc. 35 (3): 673; 1976.
c) Becker, C.G.,' Levi, R., Zavecz, J. "Induction
of
IgE antibodies to antigen Isolated from tobacco .
leaves and from cigarette smoke condensate."
Abstract.
Circulation 56 (4): 111-169; October 1977.
d) Becker, C.G., Levi, R., Zavecz, J.H., Holland,
B_
"Cardiac and pulmonary anaphylaxis induced by
tobacco
glycoprotein (TOP)." Abstract. Fed. Proc. 37 (3):
590; March 1, 1978.
26. McDougall, J.C., Gleich, G.J. "Tobacco
allergy--fact or
fancy?" J. Allerxy Clin. Immunol. 57 (3): 237;
1976.
27. Pimm, P.E., Shephard, R.J., Silverman, F.
"Physiological
effects of acute passive exposure to cigarette
smoke in
asthmatics." Fed. Proc. 36 (3): 606; 1977. ...
28. a) Aronow, W.S., Cassidy, J., Vangrow, J.S.,
March, H.,
Kern, J.C., Goldsmith, J.R., Khemka, M., Pagano,
J.,
Vawter, M. "Effect of cigarette smoking and
breathing
carbon monoxide on cardiovascular hemodynamics in
an-
ginal patients." Circulation 50 (2): 340-347;
1974.
b) Goldsmith, J.R., Aronow, W.S. "Carbon monoxide
and
coronary heart disease; a review." . Environ. Res.
10:
236-248; 1975.
29. Wagner, G. Refero-Med. Sobort-Kongress-Dienst
29, 1975.
30. a) Harke, H.P., Liedl, W., Denker, D. "The
problem of
passive smoking. II. Investigations of CO level in
the automobile after cigarette smoking." Int.
Arch.
Arbeitsmed. 33 (3): 207-220; 1974.
b) Weber, A., Fischer, T., Sancin, E., Grandjeanj
E.
Air pollution due to cigarette smoke:
physiological
and irritating effects. Soz. Praeventivmed. 21
(4):
130-132; 1976.
31. a) Andersson, G., Dalhamn, T.. "Health risks
due to
passive smoking." Lakartidn. 70: 2833-2836; 1973.
-28-
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


b ) Bridge, D.P., Corn, M. "Contribution to the
assess-
ment of exposure of non-smokers to air pollution
from
cigarette and cigar smoke in occupied spaces."
Environmental Fes. 5 (2): 192-209; 1972.
c) Cole, P-V. "Comparative effects of atmospheric
pollution and cigarette smoking on
carboxyhemoglobin
levels in man." Nature 255 (5511): 699-701; 1975.
d) U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Adminis-
tration, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health.
Health aspects of smoking in transport aircraft.
Rockville, Md. AD-736097, December 1971. 85 pp.
e) Harke, H.P., Liedl, W., Denker, D. "The problem
of
passive smoking. 11. Investigations of CO level in
the automobile after cigarette smaking.11 Int.
Arch.
Arbeitsmed. 33(3): 207-220; 1974.
f) Szadkowski, D., Harke, H.P. Angerer, J. "Body
burden
of carbon monoxide from passive smoking in
offices."
Inn. Med. 3 (6): 310-313; 1976.
g) Yaglou, C.F. "Ventilation requirements for
cigarette
smoke." ASRHAE Transactions 61: 25-32; 1955.
32. Elliott, L.P., Rowe, D.R. "Air quality during
public
gatherings." J. Air Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 25 (6):
635-
636; 1975.
33. a) Cuddeback, J.E., Donavan, J.H., Burg, W.R.
110ccu-
Pational aspects of passive smoking." Am. Ind.
Hyg,
Assoc. J. 37 (5): 263-267; 1976.
b) Sebben., J., Pintm, P., Sbephard, R.J.
"Cigarette smoke
in enclosed public facilities." Arch. Environ.
Health
32 (2): 53-58; 1977.
34. First, M.W., Hinds, W.C. "Ambient; tobacco
smoke measurement."
Am. Ind. Fyg. Assoc. J. 37 (11): 656-657; 1976.
35. a) Andersson, G., Dalhamn, T. "Health risks
due to
passive smoking." Lakartidn. 70: 2833-2836; 1973.
b) Cole, P.V. "Comparative effects of atmospheric
pollu-
tion and cigarette smoking on carboxyhemoglobin
levels
in man." Nature 255 (5511): 699-701; 1975
c) Harke, H. P. "The problem-of 'passive
smoking'.11
Munchen. Med. Wschr. 112(51): 2323-2334; 1970.
-29-
r1 j
C.Z)
_,j
00
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


d) Jones, R.M., Fagan, R, "Carboxyhemaglobin in
non-
smokers: a mathematical model." Arch. Environ.
Health 30 (4): 184-189; 1975.
e) Klosterkotter, W., Gono, E. "On the problem of
passive smoking," Zbl. Balct. HyX. , 1. Abt.
Orip,.
162: 51-69; 1970.
f) Russell, M.A.H., Cole, F.V., Brown, E.
Absorntion
by non-smokers of carbon monoxide from room air
polluted by tobacco smoke. Lancet 1: 576-579;
19T3.
g) Stewart, R.D., Peterson, J.E., Baretta, E.D.,
et al.
"Experimental human exposure to carbon monoxide.
Arch. Environ. Health 21 (2): 154rl64; 1970.
h) Szadkowski, D., Harke, H.P., Angerer, J. "Body
burden
of carbon monoxide from passive smoking in
offices.
Inn. Med. 3 (6): 310-313; 1976.
36'. Szadkowski, D., Harke, H.P.,'Angerer, J.
"Body burden of
carbon monoxide from passive smoking in offices."
Inn.
Med. 3 (6): 310-313; 1976.
37. a) Henderson, Y., et al. "Physiological
effects of
automobile exhaust gas and standards of
ventilation
for brief exposures.". J. Industr. HYP:. 3 (3):
79-
92 ; 1921.
b) Henderson, Y., et al. "Physiological effects of
automobile exhaust gas and standards of
ventilation
for brief exposures." J. Industr. Hyo:. 3 (4):
137-
146; 1921.
c) Kensler, C.J. "Components of pharmacologic
interest
in tobacco smoke." Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 90 (Art.
I)-
43-47; September 1960.
d)' Sayers, R.R., et al. "Effect of repeated daily
ex-
posure of several hours to small amounts of
automobile
exhaust gas." Public Health Bulletin No. 186,
United
States Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.;
1929.
e) Stewart, R.D., et al. "Experimental human
exposure to
carbon monoxide." Arch. Environ. Health 21 (2):
154-
164; 1970.
-30-
N)
C)
N)
(A
N)
--4
--4
.10
BAT Industries document for Province of British
ColUmbia 2 November 1999


38. a Beard, R. R. , Wertheim, G.A. "Behavioral
inaipairment
associated u*ith snall doses of carbon monoxide."
Am. J. Pub. Health 57: 2012-2022; 1967.
b) Beard, R.R., Wertheim, G.A. "Behavioral
manifestations
of CO absorption", Read before the 16th
International
Congress on occupational Health, Tokyo; 1969.
a) Bender, W., Goethert, M., Malorny, G. "Effect
of
low carbon monoxide concentrations on
psychological
functions." Staub. Reinhalt. Luft. 32 (4): 54-60;
1972.
d) Grandstaff, N.W. "Early detection of
occupational
hazards: carbon monoxide and human function." In:
Behavioral Toxicology. Xintaras,_C., Johnson,
B.L-,
de Groot, I., Editors. U.S. Dept. of Health,
Education
and Welfare. Public Health Service. National
institute
for Occupational Safety and Health, 1974. pp.
292-305.
e) Groll-Knapp, E., Wagner, H., Hauck, H., Haider,
M.
"Effects of low carbon monoxide concentrations on
vigilance and computer-analyzed brain
-potentials."
Staub. Reinhalt. Luft. 32 (4): 64-68; 1972.
f) Halperin, M H., McFarland, R.A., Niven, J.I.,
Roughtan,
F.J.W. "Th; time-course of effects of carbon
monoxide
on visual thresholds." J. Physiol. 146: 583-593;
1959.
g) Horvath, S.M., Dahms, T.E., O'Hanlon, J.P. 11C0
and
.human vigilance." Arch. Environ. Health 23: 343-
347;
1971.
h) Ray, A.M., Rockwell, T.H. "An exploratory study
of
automobile -driving performance under the
influence of
low levels of carboxyhemoglobin." Ann. N.Y. Acad.
Sci. 174: 396-40; 197o.
i) Wright, G., Randell, R., Shephard, R.J. "CO and
driving
skills." Arch. Environ. Health 27: 349-354; 1973.
39. 'a) Beard, R.R. First Annual Conference an
Environmental'
Toxicology, September 9-11, 1970. Statement made
to
the audience of scientists during the discussion
of
his paper; 1970.
b) Beard, R.R., Grandstaff, N.W. Carbon
monoxide,and
human functions. In: Behavioral Toxicology. Weiss,
B., Laties, V.G., Editors. Plenum Press, New York,
1975. pp. 1-27.
-31-
-4
r_.)
CD
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November `1999


c ) Ettema, J.H., Zielhuis, R.L. "Effects of
alcohol,
carbon monoxide and trichloroethylene exposure on
mental capacity." Int. Arch. Occup. Environ.
Health
35 (2): 117-132; 1975. -
d) Fodor, G.G., Winneke, G. "Effect of low GO
concen-
trations on resistance to monotony and on
psychomotor
capacity." Staub. Reinhalt- Lurt. 32 (4): 46-54;
1972.
e) Hanks, T.G., Hackney, J., Farquhar, R. "Human
perfor-
mance of a psychomotor test as a function of
exposure
to carbon monoxide." Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.'174:
421-
424; 1970.
f) -Milkulka, P., O'Donnell, R., Hein1g, P.,
Theodore, J.
"The effect of carbon monoxide on human
performance."
Ann. N.Y. Acad. S.di. !74 (1): 09-420; 1970.
g) O'Donnell,'R.D., Chirkos, P.M_ Theodore, J..
"Human
sleep patterns and psychomotor performance during
exposure to moderate concentrations of carbon
monoxide."
Proc. Ann. Conf. Environ. Toxic.,.PP. 31-47;
1970..
h) O'Donnell,.R.D., et al. "Low GO exposure and
human
psychomotor performance." Toxic. Anol. Pharmacol.
18 : 593-602; 1971.
i) O'Donnell, R.D., Chirkos, P. and Theodore, J.
"Effect
of GO exposure on human sleep and psychomotor per-
formance." J. Appl. Physiol. 31: 513-518; 1971.
J) Stewart, R.D., Newton, P.E., Hosko, I.I.J.,
Peterson,
J.E. "EffQct of carbon monoxide on time
perception."
Arch. Environ. Health 27 (3): 155-160; 1973.
k) Stewart, R.D., Newton, P.E., Hosko, M.J.,
Peterson, J.E.
Mellender, J.W. "The effect of carbon monoxide on
time perception, manual coordination, inspection,
and
arithmetic." In: Behavioral Toxicology. Weiss, B.,
Laties, V.G., Editors. Plenum Press, New York;
1975,
pp. 29-60..
1) Weber, A., Jermini, C., Grandjean, E. "Effects
of a
low concentration of carbon monoxide on man." Soz.
Praeventivn,ed. 20(5): 218; 1975.
-32~
C3
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


m) Winneke, G. "Early detection of occupational
hazards:
behavioral effects of methylene chloride and
carbon
Pionoxide as assessed by sensory and psychomotor
per-
formance." In: Behavioral Toxicology. Xintaras,
C.,
Johnson, B.L., de Groot, I., Editors. U.S. Dept.
of
Health, Education and Welfare. Public Health
Service.
National Institute-for Occupational Safety and
Health;
1974, pp. 13o-144.
40. Srch, M. "On the importance of carbon monoxide
due to
cigarette smoking in cars." Deutsche Z. Gerichtl.
tied.
6 o: 80-89; 1967.
41. Harke, H. P. , Liedl, If. , Denker, D*. "The
problem of passive
smoking. II. Investigations of CO level in the
automobile aftc
cigarette smoking.-" Int. Arch. Arbeitsmed. 33(3):
207-220; 19,
42. a) Andersson, G., Dalhamn, T. "Health risks
due to
passive smoking. " Lakartidn.' 70: 2833-2836;
1973.
b) Cano, J.P., Catalin, J., Badre*, R., Dumas,
C-., Viala,
A., Guillerme, R. "Determination of nicotine by
gas-phase chromatography. II.- Applications."
Annals
Pharmaceutiques Francaises 28 (11): 633-64o; 1970.
a) Harice, H.F. "The problem of 'passive
smokinS1.11
Munchen.Med. Wschr. 112 (51): 2328-2334; 197o.
d) Harke, H.P. "Passive smoking concentration of
smoke
constituents in the air of large and small rooms
as
a function of number of cigarettes smoked and
time."
International Archives of Occupational Health 29
(4)r
323-339; 1972.
e) Hinds, W.C., First, M.W' "Concentrations of
nicotine
and tobacco smoke in public places." Ne,.-r En4.
J. Med.
292 (16): 844-845; 1975.
~f) Holzer, G., Oro, J., Bertsch, W. "Gas
chromatographic-
mass spectrometric evaluation of exhaled tobacco
smoke."
Journal of Chromatography 126: 771-785; 1976-
g) Klosterkotter, W., Gono, E. "On the problem of
passive
smoking." Zbl. Bakt. Hyg. I. Abt. Orig. 162:
51-69; 1976.
43. ~arke-' H.P., Bleichert, A. "On the problem of
passive
smoking. " Int. Arch. Arbeit6med. 29: 312-322;
1972.
-'3-
C:)
BAT IndustrieS document for Province of BritiSh
Columbia 2 November 1999


44. a ) Andersson, G., Dalhamn, T. "Health risks
due to
passive smoking. " Lalcartidn. 70: 2333-2836;
1973.
b) Binder, R.E. , Mitchell, C. A. , Hosein, H.R. ,
Bouhuys, A.
"Importance of the indoor environment in air
pollution
exposure." Arch. Environ. Health 31 (6): 277-279;
1976.
c) Bridge, D.P., Corn, M. "Contribution to the
assess-
ment of exposure of non-smokers to air pollution
from
cigarette and cigar smoke in occupied spaces."
Environ-
mental Research 5 (2): 192-209; 1972.
d) Cuddeback, J.E., Donovan, J.R., Burg, W.R.
"Occupational
aspects of passive smoking." Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc.
J.
37 (5): 263-267; 1976.
e) Elliott, L.P., Rowe, D.R. "Air quality during
public
gatherings." J. Air Pollut. Contr. Assoc. 25 (6):
635-636; 1975.
f) U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Adminis-
tration, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health.
Health aspects of smoking in transport aircraft.
Rockville, Md. AD-736097, December 1971. 85 PP.
g)- Galuskinova, V. "3,4-Benzypyrene determination
in the
smoky atmosphere of social meeting rooms and
restau-
rants. A contribution to the problem of the
noxious-
ness of so-called passive smoking.'! Neoplasma 11
(5):
465-468; 1964.
h) Just, J., Borkowska, M., Maziarka, S. ."Tobacco
smoke
in the air of Warsaw coffee rooms." Rocz. Panstw.
Zakl. Hisz. 23 (2): 129-135; 1972.
i) Klosterkotter., W., Gono, E. "On the problem,
of passive
smoking." Zbl. Bakt. Hyg., I. Abt. Orig. 162 :
51-69;
1976.
Lefcoe, N.M., Inculet, I.I."Particulattes in
domestic
premises: II. Ambient levels and indoor-outdoor
relation-
ships." Arch. Environ. Health 30 '12): 565-570-1
1975.
k) KcNal2, P. E. "Practical methods of reducing
airborne
contaminants in interior spaces." Arch-. Environ.
Health 30 (11): 552-556; '1975.
-34-
r"i
Q4
N)
BAT Industries document for Province of British
Columbia 2 November 1999


I ) Perry, J., Bonham, ~;.H. "Pasten your seat
belts:
no smokinl,." Brit. Columbts red. J. 15 (10):
30!1-
305; 1973.
ETeber-Tschopp, A., Fischer, T., Grandjean, E.
"Physiological and psychological errects of
inassive
siroll,ing. "Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 37
(4):
277-2a8; 1976.
n) Weber, A., Jermini, C., Grandjean, E_
"Irritating
effects on man of air pollution due to cigarette
smoke." Am. J. Pub. Health 66 (7): 672-676; 1976.
o) Hugod, C., Hawkins, L., Astrup, P. "Exposure Of
passive sirokers to tobacco smoke constituents."
Manuscript submitted for publication.
'
45. Holzer,.G.
, Oro, J., Bertsch, W. "Us' chromato graphic -
mass spectrometric evaluation of exhaled tobacc.o
smaoke."
J. Chromatography 126: 771-785; 1976.
46. a) Brunnemann, K.D., Foffmann, D. "Volatile
N-nitrosa-
mines in tobacco srroke and in polluted indoor
environ-
ments.,, Paper presented at the 2nd Joint
Conference
sponsored by The Chemical Institute of Canada and
American Chemical Society, Montreal," Quebec,
Canada;
May 29-June 2, 1977. 24 pp.
b) Brunnemann, K.D., Yu, L.'Hoffmann, D.
"Assessment
of carcinogenic volatile N-nitrosamines in tobacco
and in mainstream and sidestream. smoke from ciga-
rettes." Cancer Re3earch 37: 3218-3222; 1977.
47. Y T) .1, t- " t- t- i ~ V..""'..In.
January 12-13, 1978. Before public i1-- _f c-nis
state-
ment-, please clear with F,'-i.. . . Jacob, c/o
Jacob &
Medinger, 127n A-riue of the Americas, New York,
New
yorl. T-e-1. -212 765 410Q,
48. Huber, G.L."Smoking and non smokers - what is
the issue?
Editorial. New Eng. J. Med. 292 (16): 858-859;
1975.
49. Rummel, R.M., Crawford, M., Bruce, P.. "The
physiological
effects of inhaling exhaled cigarette smoke in
relation
to attitude of the nonsmoker." J. Sch. Health XLV
(9):
524-529; 1975.
50. Pimm, P.E. "Physiological effects of acute
passive
exposure to cigarette smoke in asthmatics." Oral
etate-
ment. Fed. Amer. Soc. Exper. Biol., 61st Annual
Meeting,
Chicago, Ill., April 1-8; 1977.
-35-
r1 i
C:)
r1 i
LA
NJ
_Ij
__4
BAT IndustrieS document for Province of BritiSh
Columbia 2 NovOrnber 1999


51. "Annoyances and Irritations in Everyday
American Life",
unpublsibed report of public opinion survey by
Response
Analysis, Princeton, New Jersey; 1977.
52. "Annoyances and Irritations in Everyday
American Life",
unpublished report of public opinion survey by
Response
Analysis, Princeton, New Jersey; 1977.
53. Morris, Leavitt F., "No-smoking Tours Won't Be
Rescheduled,
Unless. . .", The Christian Science Monitor,
October 26,
1976, p. 28.
54. Tobacco Institute Newsletter, No. 125 (June
17, 1975)*, P. 3.
55. Gouin, Clara b., "Non-Smokers and Social
Action", Pro-
ceedings of the 3d World Conference on Smoking and
Health,
Vol. II. DHEW Publ. No. (NIH 77-1413).-1975, P.
355.
-36-
tA
BAT IndustrieS document for Province of BritiSh
Columbia 2 November 1999