Posted By David Bramall What is all the fuss about smoking on this forum? Do all us "learned" individuals really see it as a H&S matter. I dont! It does, however, appear to me,that as H&S people we tend to jump on the bandwagon - passive smoking kills - how far do we have to be from the source - one sniff of smoke will do the damage - how far again - walking in the city centre is safe (exhaust fume ... must be safer than a bit of tobacco smoke) - the list goes on ... ... ... Has anyone ever really examined the evidence particularly in relation to passive smoking and the supposed health issues - personally I have very severe doubts about the claims that are made. Any thoughts ?

Posted By Edward Shyer If smoking affects people in the workplace then it IS an H&S issue. Yes smoking is a form of drug taking but (and it is a big but) it still a legal drug taking activity just the same as alcohol (another drug) is. The problem you have is the education of individuals, as many people will probably remember the days where the dinner hooter rang out at work and there was a mass exodus to the pub to drink as much as you could in the dinner break. It has taken a generation to educate people that work and excessive alcohol do not mix and I think it will be the same with smoking. Ted

Posted By David Bramall Mr Murgatroyd You do make some good points in your response, however, I still have a slight problem, perhaps you can enlighten me. You say that if you put non smokers in a room where smoke is present that soon the non smokers will have trouble breathing (more or less); I assume you have carried out this experiment with willing volunteers - if they have started to have trouble breathing, is this then your fault?

Posted By Edward Shyer It is not the smokers that need to be slated for the unofficial smoke breaks. the root cause is the inability of management to control these breaks by stopping this practice other than official break times. Smoking in certain areas has been banned in many areas of public access for many years an example would be public transport. If anyone wants to know about the health hazards that were associated with public transport just cast your mind back 30 years ago ( if you are too young to remember ask someone who experienced this )when the top decks of buses were always full of cigarette smoke, and everyone was coughing and spluttering, thankfully this is now eradicated. Most offices and workplaces are now virtually smoke free due to the acknowledgement that cigarette smoke is a hazardous substance and smokers have accepted this and go outside for a cig. What i do object to is that when I am in my local with my friends in the tap rooms (also called smoke rooms) is that i will soon be stopped from enjoying a cig with my pint. And to those who say good you shouldn't smoke I will abide by the law and cease this in enclosed areas when the law is introduced and just go outside for a cig. I just hope that there are no anti smokers around to be contaminated by my smoking activity. Ted

Posted By MT Here's an interesting link: http://www.emaxhealth.com/58/7819.html A study of the lung function in bar workers was carried out in Scotland before and after the ban took effect.

Posted By jackw. Hi, As ever the smokers and non smokers will be in conflict re the ban, health etc. The study in Dundee Scotland on Bar staff pre and post the ban has shown, in the short time the ban has been in place, a year today, a remarkable improvement in the lung function of staff who did/do not smoke. Also bar workers who suffer from asthma have reported a marked decrease in their reliance on inhalers to help keep their lungs clear. Personally as a non smoker i am happy with the ban. I suppose I could also put some blame on smokers re second hand smoke over a long period as a contributory factor to contracting cancer myself. However as smokers will no doubt point out I can't evidence that. Cheers and happy no smoking day to my English and Welsh friends. Cheers

Posted By Philip McAleenan You seem desperate Doc for a response to your query so I'm posting an old one from a year or so back when the issue was fairly controversial (which I note is no longer so ;) Anyway it concerns a WHO study, and as far as I am aware they are a fairly respectable group of people. So here it is:- As some responses pointed out it is important to establish what the risk is of exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). In 1998 the WHO published their report, “Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe”, which showed that the Odds Ratio (OR) for exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.93-1.44). The OR for exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45). A ratio of one equates to no-effect likely. A ratio between 0 and 1 shows a decreased likelihood of the event happening. A ratio greater that one shows in increased likelihood of an event happening. The Confidence Interval refers to the precision of the ratio and usually is expressed as a range of values. Where the CI crosses the 1 the indications are that the risk may well be nil. In epidemiological studies ORs up to 2 or 3 (i.e. two to three times more likely) are considered to be statistically insignificant. The same WHO report found that childhood exposure to ETS has a decreased likelihood of developing cancer, (odds ratio for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64–0.96). So what can we conclude? Basically that exposure to ETS may decrease the likelihood of developing cancer, have no effect or have a statistically insignificant effect. In other words the evidence does not support the contention that passive smoking will kill. More information: http://jncicancerspectru...rint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf Regards, Philip

Posted By J Knight Hi Folks, Just to respond to a couple of points here. In my organisation I have the smoking hat whether I like it or not, or should I say I share it with an HR person and our clinical governance lead, so this is all relevant to me. And thanks John for pointing out that its NOT 'JUST' CANCER; sorry for shouting but as somebody with asthma I do feel quite strongly about this. It is quite hard to find studies which link second-hand smoke with cancer, but evidence abounds on the links with asthma, CHD, and COPD; and COPD is the fourth biggest cause of preventable death in the UK. Glad I got that off my chest, John

Posted By John Murgatroyd And at least 15% of COPD cases are likely to be caused by working in dusty or smoky workplaces.