eLetters

439 e-Letters

  • Hawaii Calling
    Graham Ellis

    As Director of a program very similar to '2 smart 2 smoke' l was thrilled to read of your study and positive results. Our tobacco use prevention show "Naturally High" targets the same audience with identical objectives and has been performed at over 89 schools in Hawaii and California since October 1996. It is a drama featuring six children performers using juggling, unicycling, stiltwalking, balancing and other circus...

    Show More
  • Re: Re: Re: Nomenclature re passive smoking
    Phillip Whidden

    I wonder if we are being a bit too condescending to the general public in this discussion about what to call passive smoking. I agree that this proliferation of terms is probably somewhat confusing. All of the terms currently in use by scientists and laypeople have their drawbacks. However, my experience in conversation with the wo/man in the street is that we are all fairly good at decoding our imprecise language....

    Show More
  • Re: Re: Nomenclature re passive smoking
    Allyn Taylor

    I agree with John Slade that ETS is not a satisfactory term and that a new term, incorporating the idea of pollution, should be utilized. I prefer to describe it as "environmental tobacco pollution."

    Incorporating the term "pollution" appropriately reflects that so called second hand smoke is more than just a mere nuisance as the tobacco industry claims. "Environmental tobacco pollution" adequately reflects the...

    Show More
  • Re: Nomenclature re passive smoking
    Eric Lindblom

    "Secondhand smoke" seems like the most unappetizing name for smoke inhaled by nonsmokers, and using the most unappetizing name possible should probably be the goal for those working to prevent and reduce smoking. [For the same reasons "spit tobacco" is a wonderful replacement for "smokeless tobacco."]

    While "involuntary smoking" has the right idea, refering to "involuntary smoke" sounds a bit odd.

  • Re: Re: Re: Nomenclature re passive smoking
    Phil Wilbur

    I applaud the effort to create consensus on how we should describe this stuff. To me, it's a strategic question: Which term is most likely to encourage support for clean indoor air regulations and most likely to generate negative feelings toward the manufacturers? Although my bet would be on "involuntary smoking", I don't have the evidence to back that up. But surely that evidence must exist somewhere! Was the question...

    Show More
  • Re: Nomenclature re passive smoking
    John Slade

    As described, there are problems with both the term "passive smoking" and "ETS", but on balance I think ETS has advantages.

    To be difficult, I'd propose a different term altogether, Tobacco Smoke Pollution. The problem is, basically, one of pollution, and its most useful comparisons are to other pollution problems. Persons exposed to tobacco smoke pollution can have their exposures described using the same syn...

    Show More
  • Re: Re: Re: Nomenclature re passive smoking
    D Gordon Draves

    I would prefer if we could move away from using ETS--Environmental Tobacco Smoke, because it was either developed by the tobacco companies or was gleefully adopted by them. The term ETS is benign while the actual product is extremely dangerous. Some suggestions for substitutes would be TSP--tobacco smoke pollution, TSP--tobacco smoke poisons, TST--tobacco smoke toxins, TTS--toxic tobacco smoke. However, all except the f...

    Show More
  • Re: Re: Nomenclature re passive smoking
    Tac Tacelosky

    If Tobacco Control is looking for input as to what name to use, I urge "Secondhand Smoke". ETS is a great term for those that don't like to type, but it's a very neutral term. People hate secondhand smoke, they don't care much about ETS.

    Passive Smoking and Involuntary Smoking are good terms, but I don't think they'll catch on.

    Congrats to Tobacco Control for a great launch into Cyberspace!

    ...

    Show More
  • Re: Re: Nomenclature re passive smoking
    Simon Chapman

    Ron: "secondhand" implies to me "used". So it seems to apply more to the exhaled component of the total ETS mix than it does to the sidestream component. Before the sidestream component is inhaled by those exposd, it has yet to be "used" in this anthropocentric perspective on the subject.

  • Re: Nomenclature re passive smoking
    Ron Davis

    Simon:

    In your note, you appear to use "secondhand smoke" to refer to exhaled smoke. However, it seems as if many people use secondhand smoke synonymously with ETS, and that's how I use it. People talk about nonsmokers' exposure to secondhand smoke, but nonsmokers' exposure is typically to ETS, which is made up of exhaled smoke PLUS sidestream smoke. It would be difficult for someone to be exposed to pure exha...

    Show More

Pages