Roommates and Second Hand Smoke

          Even though you don’t smoke, your friends and roommates might. This leaves you with the opportunity to be exposed to second hand smoke, which is proven to have chemicals that cause cancer! These chemicals can be found both in mainstream smoke (the smoke that a smoker exhales) as well as sidestream smoke (smoke that floats from a burning cigarette).

         The truth is that unless you have a home that is 100% smoke free you will in fact be exposed to second hand smoke. Even if you roommate only smokes in their room or by an open window or door, the smoke is still able to spread throughout the house. This is because the smoke is able to travel through doors, plumbing, windows, heating systems AND electrical outlets! Surprising, I know!

         There are both short and long term effects of second hand smoke that will affect you and pets as well.  Short-term effects can include dizziness, nausea, headaches and even more frequent colds! This could lead to slowing academic and fitness activities! In the long run you can increase risks for heart disease, respiratory disease, lung cancer and breast cancer!

         So, how do you talk to a roommate about smoking? It is best to negotiate house rules prior to moving in. These rules can include rules regarding cleaning, guests, drugs and 100% smoke free rule! These rules should include no indoor smoking, smoking outdoors 10m away from doorways (smoke can travel through doors after all!) and ensuring guests follow the same rules. You could maybe even discuss with your landlord about making a 100% smoke free policy for the entire building. Some landlords will already have this in place!

         Want more information? Come check out our booth - we have a pamphlet about how smoke travels through the home! Look at our facebook page for times and locations of our booth J

References

Leave the Pack Behind – Smoke and Multi-Unit Dwellings

http://www.ltpb.org/tob_muds.php

 Banning Smoking in outdoor Spaces: Realistic or Ridiculous?

            Ever since smoking was found to be harmful and to cause cancer, policy makers have been working hand in hand with health care professionals and researchers to create healthier spaces for Canadians. A few years ago, it was banning smoking indoors at public places, such as bars and restaurants. There was little argument from the public for this policy – as most could agree smoking indoors at bars was unfair to the health of non-smoking patrons.

            However, a recent recommendation by Middlesex-London Public Health Unit to ban smoking in the outdoor areas of bars and restaurants has restaurant owners up in arms. The public health unit maintains that adding this policy is a necessary next step to keeping the public safe, as many patios can be quite confined even though they are “outside”. On the other hand, many restaurant owners feel that this policy would be too much – that there is already a huge amount of restrictions on smokers and that this one is going too far. Although smokers are the minority in the population, many bar and restaurant owners in the area are concerned that this new policy will drive customers away.

            The idea of banning smoking in these outdoor spaces even has policy makers themselves in conflict. One councillor in the area does not support the idea, as he says that adults can choose if they want to be on a patio where people are smoking and they are exposed to second hand smoke. The public health unit however maintains the necessity of this policy coming into place, and they are not the only Ontario community to bring forth the idea. 

Across Ontario, this potential policy has been popping up in the news – so what do YOU think UW? Is banning smoking in outdoor spaces at bars & restaurants reasonable or ridiculous?

Reference: http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/2011/11/patio-smoking-ban-recommendation-lights-debate/

Electronic cigarettes

A harm reduction strategy for tobacco control? 

          First of all, to give you a clue, an electronic cigarette is a battery-powered device that provides inhaled doses of nicotine vaporized solution. The vapor can also provides a flavor and physical sensation similar to that of inhaled tobacco smoke, although there is no tobacco, combustion or smoke present. They use a rechargeable lithium ion battery.

           It was invented by a Chinese pharmacist Hon Lik in 2003. The company he worked for, Golden Dragon Holdings, changed its name to Ruyan (meaning "to resemble smoking") and started exporting its products in 2005-2006.

          Nicotine solutions are sometimes referred to as "e-liquid" or "e-juice", with hundreds of different flavors available, including regular tobacco and menthol, fruit , chocolate, vanilla, caramel, coffee, and cola. Also different nicotine solution concentrations are available, to let the user decide the amount of nicotine to be taken in. Concentrations range from Zero Nicotine, low and mid-range doses (6–8 mg/ml and 10–14 mg/ml respectively), to high and extra-high doses (16–18 mg/ml and 24–36 mg/ml respectively).


            The solutions consist of nicotine dissolved in propylene glycol (PG) and/or vegetable glycerin (VG). Both PG and VG are common food additives. PG has been used as a water-based chemical additive in asthma inhalers and nebulizers since the 1950s, with no serious side effects known. Seems like a good idea to help people quit smoking. So why don't we see them being sold in stores in Canada?

          Health Canada hasn't approved the electronic cigarettes for use until they have completed their studies to evaluate their safety. They are concerned they may cause nicotine poisoning or addiction. "Although these electronic smoking products may be marketed as a safer alternative to conventional tobacco products and, in some cases, as an aid to quitting smoking, electronic smoking products may pose risks such as nicotine poisoning and addiction," Health Canada said. 

          A study done by the U .S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Division have identified several problems with the e-cigarettes:

·        Diethylene glycol (poisonous) was detected in one of the cartridges.

·        Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) were detected in all of the cartridges from one brand and two of the cartridges from the other brand.

·        Actual nicotine levels did not always correspond to the amount of nicotine the cartridges purported to contain

·        The analysis found traces of nicotine in some cartridges that claimed to be nicotine-free

·        Inconsistent amounts of nicotine delivered when drawing on the device

          In New Hampshire a group of students, joining with a group called “Breathe New Hampshire” petitioned the state government to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors. While sale of electronic cigarettes to minors remains legal, some worry that electronic cigarettes will serve as a gateway to smoking cigarettes, especially with flavours such a chocolate. One teen involved in the legal proceedings claims that her peers will see electronic cigarettes as similar to “having a new cell phone. It’s cool. It’s electronic.”

          However there are many organizations such as the American Association of Public Health Physicians which support the use of e-cigarettes. In their petition to the FDA, they stated: "We have generated these petitions because reclassification of E-cigarettes to tobacco products could open the door to a new harm reduction component to current tobacco control programming. That new component, in turn, could rapidly and substantially reduce tobacco-related illness and death without increasing the numbers of teens initiating nicotine use"

          Numerous studies point out the potential of harm reduction in using e-cigs. They generally say that an e-cigarette produces less harm than the 4000 chemicals and 40 known carcinogens in tobacco smoke A recent study led by Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) researchers reports that electronic cigarettes are a promising tool to help smokers quit, producing six-month abstinence rates nearly double those for traditional nicotine replacement products. 


          Many countries including the UK, Netherlands, and China allow the sale of e-cigs, and even allow their use indoors in pubs. So is Electronic cigarettes good or bad? You decide!


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110208171442.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2009/03/27/electronic-smoking.html

Light cigarettes vs. regular cigarettes

          Our society has become so health conscious these days. We are constantly concerned with what we are putting in our bodies. Marketers use the words ‘light’, ‘low fat’ to sell a product, as individuals feel as if they are eating healthier.

           The same goes for cigarettes. For decades now, cigarette makers have markets so-called light cigarettes – which contain less nicotine than regular smokes –with the implication that they are less harmful, however a study at UCLA shows, that they deliver nearly as much nicotine to the brain. 

What is a light cigarette?

     Tobacco manufacturers have been redesigning cigarettes since the 1950s. Certain redesigned cigarettes with the following features were marketed as “light” cigarettes:

           ◦    Cellulose acetate filters (to trap tar).

           ◦    Highly porous cigarette paper (to allow toxic chemicals to escape).

            ◦    Ventilation holes in the filter tip (to dilute smoke with air).

Different blends of tobacco.

          Light cigarettes have nicotine levels of 0.6 to 1 milligrams, while regular cigarettes contain between 1.2 and 1.4 milligrams.

          Cigarettes with less nicotine than regular cigarettes, such as 'light' cigarettes, still occupy most brain nicotine receptors. Thus, low-nicotine cigarettes function almost the same as regular cigarettes in terms of brain nicotine-receptor occupancy.

          In an earlier study, researchers determined that smoking a regular, non-light cigarette resulted in the occupancy of 88 percent of these nicotine receptors. However, that study did not determine whether inhaling nicotine or any of the thousands of other chemical found in cigarette smoke resulted in this receptor occupancy.

          Developed in the 1960s, lower-tar or specially filtered cigarettes grew in popularity and now represent 97 percent of all cigarette sales. Despite a widespread consumption of the so-called "safer" cigarettes, NCI found that lung cancer rates continued to rise steadily between the late 1960s and early 1990s. An overall decline in lung cancer rates since the 1990s can be attributed to the decrease in smoking prevalence, and not to changes in cigarette design, says the NCI. Results of studies conducted in the United Kingdom produced similar results.

          Smokers who switch to low-tar or low-nicotine cigarettes from regular cigarettes "compensate" for the lower nicotine level by inhaling more deeply; taking larger, more rapid, or more frequent puffs; or by increasing the number of cigarettes smoked per day," thus canceling any possible benefit from smoking "low-tar" cigarettes.

          In addition, NCI found that tobacco industry marketing strategies for "low-tar" cigarettes, intended to reassure smokers, tended to prevent them from quitting.

          Moreover, there is no such thing as a safe cigarette. The only guaranteed way to reduce the risk to your health, as well as the risk to others, is to stop smoking completely.