Smoker's Breath Creates Indoor Air Pollution "Harmful" to Children and Perhaps Adults // Study's Findings Create New Legal Problems in Child Custody Cases and Workplaces

\"SMOKER\'S BREATH IS HARMFUL TO HEALTH\" // Smoker\'s Breath Creates Indoor Air Pollution \"Harmful\" to Children and Perhaps Adults // Study\'s Findings Create New Legal Problems in Child Custody Cases and Workplaces

2008-06-22 09:03:41 - "SMOKER'S BREATH IS HARMFUL TO HEALTH." That's the message from a new Australian study which showed that smokers who smoked only outdoors nevertheless emitted enough respirable suspended particles in their breath when they returned indoors to create air pollution which is "harmful" to children.

The study found that the chemicals in the smoker's breath were sufficient to cause or aggravate respiratory illnesses including asthma, coughs, and colds among children in such homes as compared with kids in homes where the air was not contaminated by the breath of a smoker.

Respiratory illnesses were found to be much more prevalent in homes with smokers. Children exposed to higher air nicotine levels were three times more likely to have asthma or wheeze than those not exposed.

"This study suggests that society must go beyond merely protecting children from being in the presence of parents and others who smoke in their homes, and think about more effective measures to protect children from parents who smoke anywhere.

t also provides a strong scientific basis for agencies which already refuse to permit smokers to adopt children, even if the potential adoptees claim that they only smoke outdoors, and never in the presence of the child," says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, whose organization, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), is leading the legal battle to protect children from tobacco smoke.

Judges in almost three-fourths of the states have issued orders prohibiting smoking in homes to protect children involved in custody disputes.

But this study would permit the parent who obtained the order to go back and strengthen it, perhaps requiring the smoking parent to change clothing and use a mouthwash before the child visits, predicts attorney Banzhaf, who has helped nonsmokers obtain some of these court orders. T

he same thing could happen in the dozen states which already prohibit parents from smoking in homes where foster children reside.

Although the study only validated the harm to children, it did show that "harmful" levels of several known toxic chemicals are present in the air of homes where a smoker lives but smokes only outdoors.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that smoker's-breath air pollution inside homes or workplaces could also be harmful to workers with allergies and/or other special sensitivities, putting them at risk of asthmatic attacks which could even trigger a cardiac event.

Banzhaf notes that two legal actions attacking tobacco residues have already been successful. In the first it was held that the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] applied, and that the employer therefore had to make a reasonable accommodation to protect the nonsmoking employee from tobacco residues.

A second proceeding involved a woman who worked for a university which banned smoking in its offices, but did permit workers to go outside for a smoke.

Two doctors determined that the smoker's breath, and other tobacco residue from his clothing once he returned to the office, endangered the health of the woman as well as that of her unborn child. A formal complaint filed by Banzhaf resulted in immediate action to protect the woman.

"We've always known that a smoker's breath stinks. Now we know that it also creates indoor air pollution which can harm children and perhaps some adults."

PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // ash.org