The "other" danger of playing in most casinos

Thunder

Well-Known Member
#1
Just something to keep in mind.

Stanford Report, March 25, 2011
Secondhand smoke raises the stakes in America's casinos

New research from Stanford and Tufts universities shows secondhand smoke is a danger to tens of millions of casino patrons and hundreds of thousands of workers. Threats range from heart attacks to cancer.
Courtesy of Lynn Hildemann Two men with backpacks concealing air monitors outside casinos.

James Repace, visiting assistant professor at Tufts University, and John Moye, professor at University of Nevada, Reno, who helped measure the smoke in casinos.

BY ANDREW MYERS

Millions of Americans visit casinos to unwind and test their luck against the hands of fate, but lurking in the shadows is a gamble few would contemplate before they stepped inside a casino's doors. The threat is not addiction. It's not the specter of losing a small fortune. The hidden danger is secondhand smoke.

According to a new study by scientists from Stanford and Tufts universities published in the journal Environmental Research, each year 50 million nonsmoking casino patrons and 400,000 nonsmoking casino workers gamble with their lives inside casinos that allow smoking. Less than 2 hours of exposure to secondhand smoke in half of the casinos surveyed is enough to impair the heart's ability to pump blood, placing susceptible casino patrons and workers at acute risk of heart disease.

Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States and is a major cause of disability, costing the country an estimated $151.6 billion in 2007. Approximately 8 percent of the population 45 to 64 years of age, and 20 percent of those aged over 65, suffers from coronary heart disease. These older people are at greater risk from exposure to secondhand smoke. Compounding the concern, the two age groups have higher gambling rates than those under 45.

The team of experts from Stanford and Tufts examined pollution levels in 66 smoky casinos in five states, and three casinos that are smoke-free, comparing them with the pollution levels outdoors. The study is a continuation of earlier research conducted at 36 casinos in California. An additional 30 casinos were tested in four other states.

To make their measurements, the researchers operated covertly. Two to three researchers at a time entered casinos carrying small monitoring devices tucked inside purses or jackets. Combining the Stanford/Tufts data with previously published measurements from three other states, the team developed nationwide averages and ranges for pollution levels inside casinos.

The study focused on two types of air pollutants blamed for tobacco-related cancers: fine particulate matter, which deposits deep in the lungs, and a group of chemicals called particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PPAHs, which include at least 10 different carcinogenic compounds. Results show that gamblers and casino workers in casinos that permit smoking are subject to levels of particulate air pollution 10 times higher than those who visit smoke-free casinos.

The researchers also found that ventilation and air cleaning do not control indoor smoke levels. "The only effective control for secondhand smoke was reducing the number of smokers," said Lynn Hildemann, a professor of environmental engineering and science at Stanford and the principal investigator for the study.

"The fewer smokers, the less polluted the air. If you switch to a nonsmoking casino, your exposure to harmful fine particulate matter levels indoors will be reduced by 90 percent, and your exposure to carcinogenic PPAH levels will decrease by 80 percent."

Unfortunately, smoke-free casinos are rare. In the United States, 88 percent of commercial casinos and nearly 100 percent of tribal casinos allow smoking.

Those patrons who seek refuge in nonsmoking areas attached to the smoking casinos – such as restaurants, where children are found – find scant protection. Unless these areas are completely sealed off from the casino, with closed doors and a separate ventilation system, the researchers found that secondhand smoke seeps in, resulting in pollution levels seven times as high as outdoors.

In contrast, the three smoke-free casinos surveyed had pollution levels as low as the outdoors. In more than nine-of-ten smoking casinos in the survey, the indoor pollution levels exceeded the World Health Organization standard for fine particulate matter.

"Casino patrons are gambling not only with their money, but with their health, and the odds are stacked against them," said Hildemann. "Casinos have always been huge draws, but in recent years we've seen an increase of family activities tied to casinos. So in addition to seniors, the health risks are starting to reach new, more vulnerable populations, particularly children."

The pervasive secondhand smoke indoors poses an even graver health threat to casino workers. In the new study, using published data measuring the levels of cotinine, a biomarker of tobacco that shows up in human tissue, Hildemann and colleagues added to earlier results and found amounts of cotinine in casino dealers who are nonsmokers were higher than in 95 percent of the nonsmoking U.S. population. Nevada casino dealers have triple the asthma rates of the general state population.

"Cotinine levels in these nonsmoking workers – who were exposed only while at work – significantly increased between the beginning and the end of their work shift. Similar results have been found in casino patrons with shorter exposures. This is clearly due to secondhand smoke in the casino," said James Repace, a biophysicist and visiting assistant clinical professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.

The study was funded by the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute.

Andrew Myers is associate director of communications at the School of Engineering.
 

Tree

Well-Known Member
#2
It'd be great if they would just ban smoking outright in all public venues with some well ventilated smoking rooms or patios (separate from the general patios). All establishments in Canada are currently smoke free unless the previous conditions are met, and frankly it's wonderful.

I was really surprised to hear that the casinos in Detroit still allowed smoking, then it occured to me that the US probably hasn't had the same luck Canadians have.
 
#3
Tree

Tree said:
It'd be great if they would just ban smoking outright in all public venues with some well ventilated smoking rooms or patios (separate from the general patios). All establishments in Canada are currently smoke free unless the previous conditions are met, and frankly it's wonderful.

I was really surprised to hear that the casinos in Detroit still allowed smoking, then it occured to me that the US probably hasn't had the same luck Canadians have.
In the US the money interest get what they want,,and in the casino case the state, city , get a cut of the take so they sell out your health for the money then scream about the cost of healthcare.:mad:

Nice post Thunder!!!:)

CP
 
#4
Interesting

creeping panther said:
In the US the money interest get what they want,,and in the casino case the state, city , get a cut of the take so they sell out your health for the money then scream about the cost of healthcare.:mad:

Nice post Thunder!!!:)

CP
I agree with the above

If second hand smoke is a real health hazard, it appears to be the case. It does need to be banned from public places. One's rights end at my nose. It is happening slowly over time? I don't think we want laws and rules that quickly swing from one extreme to the next.

A soap box opportunity. Any green/global warming activist who smokes should think about their impact on the environmnet!
 

Shoofly

Well-Known Member
#5
Smoking vs. non-smoking casinos

I live near the border of Illinois and Missouri. The local casinos in Missouri allow smoking; local casinos in Illinois do not.

The casinos in Illinois complain that not allowing smoking is costing them business. I wonder if they are just assuming that, or if they have some studies to verify. I personally, and many others, judging by the posts here, would rather be in a casino that does not allow smoking.

The only problem here is that the local casinos in Illinois have crappy BJ.
 
#6
They Would Have an Idea

Shoofly said:
The casinos in Illinois complain that not allowing smoking is costing them business. I wonder if they are just assuming that, or if they have some studies to verify. I personally, and many others, judging by the posts here, would rather be in a casino that does not allow smoking.
If casino A bans smoking does their business go up or down, all things being equal?

If casino A bans smoking and casino B does not ban smoking, what happens to the business of each casino?

So, a business can have an idea, but should not jump to conclusions. Less smoking may also bring in more business. Also; for the smokers, since they have shown a tendency to addiction? They will probably still come to the casino, there will just be an adjustment phase. There cig craving may have them betting more!
 

Sharky

Well-Known Member
#7
confident US will ban smoking in confined pubic places entirely at some point, except private clubs of course...insane that choices by others can affect your health...can't wait for that day!

just build it into your ev, frankly, i would not subject myself to those conditions unless it was really worth my while, if you get my drift
 

MangoJ

Well-Known Member
#8
Sharky said:
confident US will ban smoking in confined pubic places entirely at some point, except private clubs of course...insane that choices by others can affect your health...can't wait for that day!
It's so easy for a casino to make a sign claiming "private club" on the door.
Happened in a lot of other countries before.
 

kewljason

Well-Known Member
#9
MangoJ said:
It's so easy for a casino to make a sign claiming "private club" on the door.
Happened in a lot of other countries before.
I am pretty sure it is not as easy as you think. :rolleyes: If it were they would have done so to avoid following regualtions they don't like. In NJ every casino would have done so immediately after the Uston ruling.

As for smoking. It's simple. Don't breath when you are in the casino. :laugh:

Seriously smoking isn't the only hazzard in the air at casinos. Most of these places are closed in. They intentionally have no windows as they want to isolate you from the outside world. Who knows what other contaminates and germs are in that stale air that is recycled and forced back on you. :eek::( tabblehopping is the answer. Short sessions, then get outside for some fresh air on the way to the next casino. At least then, you know what you are breathing. In my case, car fumes from the strip. :laugh:
 
#10
While cigarette smoke is as annoying to me as anyone, it's status as a health hazard to the non-smoker is something created by lawyers, not scientists. A person who smokes a cigarette a day has no health risk and may even get some health benefit, while a person merely sitting in a smoky room all day receives far less contamination than a person smoking a single cigarette.
 

21forme

Well-Known Member
#11
Automatic Monkey said:
A person who smokes a cigarette a day has no health risk and may even get some health benefit...
I think you've been smoking that other kind of cigarette to make a statement like this.
 

Sharky

Well-Known Member
#12
i don't need a scientist to tell me that second hand smoke:

makes my hair and clothes smell badly
is not as healthy to breathe as fresh air
bothers my eyes

found all those out on my own, thanks.....huge sample size too...much larger than any scientific study trust me
 
#13
21forme said:
I think you've been smoking that other kind of cigarette to make a statement like this.
A cigarette a day? Lower stress, lower appetite, that alone is a health benefit, and statistically significant increase in lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, last research I read that started at around 10 cigs a day.
 

Tree

Well-Known Member
#14
Automatic Monkey said:
While cigarette smoke is as annoying to me as anyone, it's status as a health hazard to the non-smoker is something created by lawyers, not scientists. A person who smokes a cigarette a day has no health risk and may even get some health benefit, while a person merely sitting in a smoky room all day receives far less contamination than a person smoking a single cigarette.
With all due respect, this is so wrong I don't know where to begin...

There are accounts all over the place of people working in service (waitresses, etc) who have developed severe medical conditions ranging from asthma to cancer as a result of being in a smokey room for 8 hours+ a day. These accounts are usually taken from people who have never smoked a day in their life.

Even if you want to negate all of the stories, studies, etc, just take a look at the chemical composition of cigarette smoke and tell me there's anything there that has a positive health benefit.
 
#15
Tree said:
With all due respect, this is so wrong I don't know where to begin...

There are accounts all over the place of people working in service (waitresses, etc) who have developed severe medical conditions ranging from asthma to cancer as a result of being in a smokey room for 8 hours+ a day. These accounts are usually taken from people who have never smoked a day in their life.

Even if you want to negate all of the stories, studies, etc, just take a look at the chemical composition of cigarette smoke and tell me there's anything there that has a positive health benefit.
Same for a Twinkie. Nobody ever died from eating a Twinkie.

It's a drug, and for some people moderation in drugs has a benefit. For the longest time we thought alcohol was dangerous, now we know that moderate drinking is the best thing for you. Both tobacco and alcohol (and Twinkies) are addictive, and tobacco so much that nobody smokes just one cigarette a day but if you can resist getting hooked on it that one cigarette is probably not hurting you.

I sympathize with the non-smokers who have to work in a smoky environment, and I don't like the smoke in the casino any more than anyone else, but all the belief that this is going to cause anyone to get lung cancer seems more centered on scoring a big lawsuit than reality. Just like the vaccines/autism business. It's crap.
 
#16
Automatic Monkey said:
Same for a Twinkie. Nobody ever died from eating a Twinkie.

It's a drug, and for some people moderation in drugs has a benefit. For the longest time we thought alcohol was dangerous, now we know that moderate drinking is the best thing for you. Both tobacco and alcohol (and Twinkies) are addictive, and tobacco so much that nobody smokes just one cigarette a day but if you can resist getting hooked on it that one cigarette is probably not hurting you.

I sympathize with the non-smokers who have to work in a smoky environment, and I don't like the smoke in the casino any more than anyone else, but all the belief that this is going to cause anyone to get lung cancer seems more centered on scoring a big lawsuit than reality. Just like the vaccines/autism business. It's crap.
What about those with asthma or other respiratory diseases? Doesn't the freedom of the smoker end at their noses? Can smoking be considered a public nuisance under these circumstances? Is one allowed to blast a megaphone in peoples faces? Even though there is freedom of speech.

New businesses:
Smoke free or Structurally partitioned at owners discretion.
Existing businesses:
Smoke free, structurally partitioned or partitioned at owners discretion.

The above does give choice to consumers and business owners and allows a gradual change in the culture over time.

Basically, have existing businesses grandfathered against having the cost of structurally partitioning their business.

The restaurant turnover rate is so high that in short time most/all restaurants will be smoke free or structurally partitioned.

The focus on casinos, they change hands frequently and have major renovations. If one changes hands then smoke free or structural partitioning.

Saving the world, one post at at time! :)
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#17
Automatic Monkey said:
A cigarette a day? Lower stress, lower appetite, that alone is a health benefit, and statistically significant increase in lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, last research I read that started at around 10 cigs a day.
Spoken like an avid cigarette smoker!
 

aslan

Well-Known Member
#18
Tree said:
With all due respect, this is so wrong I don't know where to begin...

There are accounts all over the place of people working in service (waitresses, etc) who have developed severe medical conditions ranging from asthma to cancer as a result of being in a smokey room for 8 hours+ a day. These accounts are usually taken from people who have never smoked a day in their life.

Even if you want to negate all of the stories, studies, etc, just take a look at the chemical composition of cigarette smoke and tell me there's anything there that has a positive health benefit.
I go to a billiard cafe. When I leave, my clothes reek of cigarette smoke. It has been so bad that my wife hangs my clothes in the garage to air out because she can't stand the odor in the house. Now , some of you want me to believe that the amount of smoke and its effect on my lungs from being in that environment all day is de minimis. I would imagine that my lungs, like my clothes, are saturated with that smoke and that can not be good.

The cafe I frequent is subject to a smoking ban. They have partitioned off a small area, about 1/8 (or less) the size of the cafe and deemed it a "no smoking area." The rest, where 98% of the people are, is for smoking. Apparently, the law allows this. What a joke!
 

Katweezel

Well-Known Member
#20
Smoke the smokers

Automatic Monkey said:
A cigarette a day? Lower stress, lower appetite, that alone is a health benefit, and statistically significant increase in lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, last research I read that started at around 10 cigs a day.
Interesting that it apparently lowers your stress; seeing that the long-accepted findings show that smoking causes heart rate to go up. Hmmm, faster your heart beats, the less stress you feel? Amazing... Let's not even mention the 2000+ chemicals that are (primarily) added to the tobacco so that the damn stuff burns, and keeps on smouldering without going out. The vast army of chemists working for Tobacco companies are always fiddling with their formulae. Their job is to keep you hooked and make you believe your cigarette is helping your stress levels. Hey AM, as a physicist, I thought you knew all this stuff. It's been around a long time already.

So what is the effect of inhaling the hugely-toxic fumes of so many differing chemicals? As science has already proved; it's devastating for human health. Science also already has proved that side-stream (second hand) smoke is even more dangerous than 'normal' smoke.

Someone who smokes obviously doesn't give a sh*t about his own health. As for others' health, forget it. :eyepatch:
 
Top