Dangers in Smoke: Serious Business
FROM APRIL 1: I am writing in response to Steve “Leader” Adams’ letter titled “Wrong on Smoking Ban.” Mr. Adams stated that he was unaware of one single case in the world where an individual has died from secondhand smoke. I would like to take this opportunity, as a physician, to share the latest evidence-based statistics on the dangers of secondhand smoke.
The definition of secondhand smoke is key to understanding why secondhand smoke is dangerous. It is a mixture of 15 percent mainstream smoke (the smoke exhaled by the smoker) and 85 percent sidestream smoke (smoke from the lit end of a cigarette). Sidestream smoke contains the same harmful chemicals, which are unfiltered and formed at lower temperatures, therefore emitting even larger amounts of cancer-causing substance. Do you know:
1. Exposure to secondhand smoke contributes to approximately 81 deaths due to lung cancer and 945-1,674 deaths due to coronary heart disease in North Carolina each year.
2. Exposure to secondhand smoke for 30 minutes causes your heart to work like that of a regular smoker for up to 24 hours.
3. Nonsmoking workers exposed to secondhand smoke are 34 percent more likely to get lung cancer. Waiters and waitresses have a 50 percent greater risk of lung cancer than other workers mostly because of secondhand smoke exposure.
4. Restaurants that allow smoking can have six times the pollution of a busy highway.
Drinking and driving is regulated through law, however smoking is not. That is why we need our legislators to advocate for policy change to protect us from secondhand smoke; it causes death every day.
Andy C. Kiser, MD
Chest Center of the Carolinas
Carthage
New Automobiles,But Old Technology
FROM APRIL 3: Cars have been in production for more than 100 years, always being run on gas. During that period of time, we have had airplanes, atomic bombs, nuclear submarines, rockets and space ships not to run on gas. I think there is something wrong with this picture.
As many engineers and scientists as we have, not to mention our colleges with their engineering skills, they could surely find an alternative to run our cars on. My father had a 1940 Chevrolet that got over 20 miles per gallon. That was 60 years ago, and they don’t do much better now. I have a 1996 Dodge Dakota and was told it would get 22 miles per gallon. I get about 14.
I don’t think poking holes in the Alaskan Refuge is going to help much. I say spend our tax dollars on new research. Maybe hydrogen fuel, something cheaper and better for the environment.
David L. Comer
Carthage
