Responses

Download PDFPDF

Designated “no smoking” areas provide from partial to no protection from environmental tobacco smoke
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    “No smoking” areas in restaurants are not sufficient

    Sir, I read with interest the paper by Cains et al. (2004) on the effect of “no smoking” areas in licensed clubs in the metropolitan area of Sydney. They found only an insufficient effect of “no smoking” zones especially when this was only a subsection of the whole room without separation. In spite of this finding this poor protection of the non-smokers is still much favoured in the hospitality industry around the world. T...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Partial protection provided by "no smoking" areas may be over-estimated

    Cains et al., studying the extent to which designated "no smoking" areas provide protection from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), conclude that such areas achieve some reduction in the level of exposure of individuals to ETS. They indicate an average 53% reduction in nicotine levels and 52% reduction in PM10 levels. These numbers, although not marginal, are not sufficient to provide an adequate level of protection....

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.