|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
Michael J. Stark, Kristen Rohde, Julie E. Maher, Barbara A. Pizacani, Clyde W. Dent, and Ronda Bard are with Program Design and Evaluation Services, Multnomah County Health Department and the Oregon Department of Human Services, Portland. Steven G. Carmella, Adam R. Benoit, Nicole M. Thomson, and Stephen S. Hecht are with the University of Minnesota Cancer Center, Minneapolis.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael J. Stark, PhD, Program Design and Evaluation Services, Multnomah County Health Department/Oregon Department of Human Services, 800 NE Oregon St, Suite 550, Portland, OR 97232 (e-mail: mike.j.stark{at}state.or.us).
Objectives. We studied the impact of clean indoor air law exemptions and preemption policies on the prevalence of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen—4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)—among nonsmoking bar and restaurant workers.
Methods.secondhand smoke were compared with results from participants who were exposed to it.
Results. Participants exposed to workplace secondhand smoke were more likely to have any detectable level of NNAL (P=.005) and higher mean levels of NNAL (P < .001) compared with nonexposed participants. Increased levels of NNAL were also associated with hours of a single workplace exposure (P=.005).
Conclusions. Nonsmoking employees left unprotected from workplace secondhand smoke exposure had elevated levels of a tobacco-specific carcinogen in their bodies. All workers—including bar and restaurant workers—should be protected from indoor workplace exposure to cancer-causing secondhand smoke.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Eriksen and F. Chaloupka The Economic Impact of Clean Indoor Air Laws CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2007; 57(6): 367 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |