Is the tobacco control movement misrepresenting the acute cardiovascular health effects of secondhand smoke exposure? An analysis of the scientific evidence and commentary on the implications for tobacco control and public health practice.

Michael Siegel
{"title":"Is the tobacco control movement misrepresenting the acute cardiovascular health effects of secondhand smoke exposure? An analysis of the scientific evidence and commentary on the implications for tobacco control and public health practice.","authors":"Michael Siegel","doi":"10.1186/1742-5573-4-12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While chronic exposure to secondhand smoke has been well recognized as a cause of heart disease in nonsmokers, there has been recent speculation about the potential acute cardiovascular effects of transient exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers; in particular, the possibility that such exposure could increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction even in an otherwise healthy nonsmoker. This paper reviews the claims being made by a number of anti-smoking and public health groups regarding the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke exposure among otherwise healthy adults, analyzes the validity of these claims based on a review of the scientific evidence, and discusses the implications of the findings for tobacco control and public health practice. Based on the analysis, it appears that a large number of anti-smoking organizations are making inaccurate claims that a single, acute, transient exposure to secondhand smoke can cause severe and even fatal cardiovascular events in healthy nonsmokers. The dissemination of inaccurate information by anti-smoking groups to the public in support of smoking bans is unfortunate because it may harm the tobacco control movement by undermining its credibility, reputation, and effectiveness. Disseminating inaccurate information also represents a violation of basic ethical principles that are a core value of public health practice that cannot and should not be sacrificed, even for a noble end such as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure. How the tobacco control movement responds to this crisis of credibility will go a long way towards determining the future effectiveness of the movement and its ability to continue to save lives and protect the public's health.</p>","PeriodicalId":87082,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I","volume":"4 ","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100052/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiologic perspectives & innovations : EP+I","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5573-4-12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While chronic exposure to secondhand smoke has been well recognized as a cause of heart disease in nonsmokers, there has been recent speculation about the potential acute cardiovascular effects of transient exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers; in particular, the possibility that such exposure could increase the risk of acute myocardial infarction even in an otherwise healthy nonsmoker. This paper reviews the claims being made by a number of anti-smoking and public health groups regarding the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke exposure among otherwise healthy adults, analyzes the validity of these claims based on a review of the scientific evidence, and discusses the implications of the findings for tobacco control and public health practice. Based on the analysis, it appears that a large number of anti-smoking organizations are making inaccurate claims that a single, acute, transient exposure to secondhand smoke can cause severe and even fatal cardiovascular events in healthy nonsmokers. The dissemination of inaccurate information by anti-smoking groups to the public in support of smoking bans is unfortunate because it may harm the tobacco control movement by undermining its credibility, reputation, and effectiveness. Disseminating inaccurate information also represents a violation of basic ethical principles that are a core value of public health practice that cannot and should not be sacrificed, even for a noble end such as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure. How the tobacco control movement responds to this crisis of credibility will go a long way towards determining the future effectiveness of the movement and its ability to continue to save lives and protect the public's health.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
烟草控制运动是否歪曲了二手烟暴露对心血管健康的急性影响?科学证据分析及对烟草控制和公共卫生实践影响的评论。
尽管长期暴露于二手烟已被公认为是非吸烟者患心脏病的原因之一,但最近也有人猜测非吸烟者短暂暴露于二手烟可能会对心血管产生急性影响;特别是,即使是健康的非吸烟者,这种暴露也可能会增加急性心肌梗死的风险。本文回顾了一些反吸烟团体和公共卫生团体关于二手烟暴露对健康成年人急性心血管影响的说法,在回顾科学证据的基础上分析了这些说法的有效性,并讨论了这些研究结果对烟草控制和公共卫生实践的影响。根据分析,大量反吸烟组织似乎都在不准确地宣称,健康的非吸烟者一次急性、短暂的二手烟暴露会导致严重甚至致命的心血管事件。反吸烟组织为支持禁烟而向公众传播不准确的信息是令人遗憾的,因为这可能会损害烟草控制运动的可信度、声誉和有效性。传播不准确的信息也违反了基本的道德原则,而这些原则是公共卫生实践的核心价值,即使是为了保护非吸烟者免受二手烟暴露等崇高目的,也不能也不应该牺牲这些原则。烟草控制运动如何应对这场公信力危机,将在很大程度上决定该运动未来的有效性及其继续拯救生命和保护公众健康的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Extending the sufficient component cause model to describe the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA). Use of the integrated health interview series: trends in medical provider utilization (1972-2008). Social network analysis and agent-based modeling in social epidemiology. The use of complete-case and multiple imputation-based analyses in molecular epidemiology studies that assess interaction effects. Attributing the burden of cancer at work: three areas of concern when examining the example of shift-work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1