Anti-tobacco ads about secondhand smoke false: prof.

A Boston University professor has come up with some controversial results unfavorable to anti-smoking campaigns after analyzing the effects of secondhand smoke on non-smokers' health.

Michael Siegel, a School of Public Health social and behavioral sciences professor, said he used scientific evidence in his October 2007 study to counter anti-smoking groups' claims that just one 30-minute exposure to secondhand smoke could cause severe or fatal heart episodes in a healthy non-smoker.

"It seemed to me that these were absurd claims," Siegel said. "How can [you], if you're perfectly healthy, walk into a bar for 30 minutes and drop dead from a heart attack?"

Siegel said he decided to uncover the exact facts on the health effects of secondhand smoke, and his study has received attention in light of legislation regarding smoking bans, including potential bans on college campuses.

Siegel's evidence suggests although a 30-minute exposure to secondhand smoke affects the heart by causing damage to cell linings and arteries, the adverse effects are only temporary.

"What the literature reveals is that chronic exposure to secondhand smoke over many years does cause hardening of the arteries and heart disease, but it's not going to happen from a single 30-minute exposure - yet those are the exact claims that many anti-smoking groups are making on their websites," he said.

The anti-smoking campaign "truth" claims on its website that in the United States, "50,000 people die from secondhand smoke-related diseases" each year. Although this may be true, some other more immediate effects of secondhand smoke are not completely accurate, Siegel said.

Earlier this year, Siegel challenged a Harvard School of Public Health study that stated some tobacco companies had been increasing their cigarettes' nicotine levels since 1997.

Siegel, who has worked with anti-smoking groups, said he decided to speak out on the issue to help preserve the groups' integrity and ensure they make valid claims.

"If [anti-smoking groups] lose the public's trust, they're not going to believe anything we say," he said. "It's kind of like the boy who cried wolf - if we're lying to them about the effects of secondhand smoke, then [the public is] not going to believe us when we tell the truth about the effects of smoking."

School of Management junior Tim Mercurio said anti-smoking groups should correct their facts regarding the effects of tobacco.

"It's not like [anti-smoking groups] don't have an arsenal of other facts to back up their cause," Mercurio said. "They may have lost this battle, but nobody in this day and age should question the fact that they're ultimately right and that smoking is unhealthy and eventually bad for your heart."

Siegel said he hopes leaders of the anti-smoking movement will try to correct their information.

"I think the anti-smoking groups are promoting this to get smoking bans," he said. "I think smoking bans are a good end, and I support them in over 100 different cities, but I don't believe you should use an inappropriate means to get there, and I believe lying and misrepresenting the facts is not a good means to this end."

Although other campuses across the country are adopting complete no-smoking policies, BU has no plans to follow suit, said school spokesman Colin Riley in a Nov. 15 Daily Free Press article.