Star Tribune Editorial on the U of MN "research" on tested reduction in "nicotine" after the state smoking ban.

Here is the editorial in the Saturday Star Tribune. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/17111696.html

I use "nicotine" in a generic sense here. The two chemicals tested for are "continan" and something called "NNAL". Both are byproducts of exposure to smoke. These were done by testing urine. The presence of the substance in the urine indicates that it is being flushed from the body. The human body does not replenish these substances so we can logically conclude that the "flushed level" of these substances in urine will decrease with time if there is no replenishment. For example, I don't smoke and have been exposed to less that one hour of second hand smoke per year since the 2005 Minneapolis bar smoking ban so we would expect my urine levels to be very low or "baseline". (According to wikipedia nicotine is found in low quantities in common foods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine )

This study is at best a "reaffirmation" study where you test to see if what you expect really happens. We would expect that if there is indeed no new exposure to secondhand smoke the "flush" level of the drugs would be reduced. This is precisely what happened. The study might be mildly useful for a baseline but it doesn't constitute "news". Most prisons are smoke free nowadays and at intake prisoners are routinely asked if they smoke or are around smokers. Military inductees in "boot camp" are routinely confined to base for the same four to six weeks so there is a "control".

That said, this study might be useful (with all the previous bans and billions spent on smoking health research has this not been done before?) but the urine "flush rate" following a cessation of new smoke exposure should be well known. This should reaffirm already well known information and as such is not newsworthy. The study of was being submitted for peer review and potential publication. It might past muster for newsworthiness if it contained a dramatically unexpected finding. If you flipped 100 of a new design coin (like the state quarter) and it turned out 50/50 this would not be newsworthy because the results were not anomalous. If they were it should still have peer review for errors if results are anomalous.

From what I can tell this survey was well run but the results were as expected and not anomalous. Basically the took 24 nonsmoking volunteers who worked at bars, restaurants and bowling alleys, test their ruling (flush out) just before the ban and then again four to six weeks later after a work shift of at least six hours. Like duhh! the level of nicotine related chemicals in urine went way down. This is the expected rate (like the Minnesota quarters if they flipped 50/50). There is nothing that could possibly make this newsworthy, especially before a peer review and publication. Then it might have a minor news value of "local peer reviewed and published" but that is in the future. Th original Star Tribune Story and this editorial seem curiously timed to counter the "smoke theater" effort with a story with a good headline but not much substance.

I consider this research to be good but not newsworthy because the findings were as expected. The timing of the news release is highly suspect. If you want to dig more into the details of the study here is a press release by Clear Way Minnesota which says it gets 3% of Minnesota's tobacco settlement money (which last I heard was $4.5 billion) http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-27-2008/0004780926&EDATE=

I have received email that the key researcher behind this is involved with pharmaceutical companies promoting smoking cessation "patches" and such. I have a major beef with these because of their commerical advertising. They show someone who just quit smoking, but wearing "a patch" going over to the outdoor railng talking to people who are curently smoking."

I favor the original clean indoor air act because I had to avoid cig smoke for the first six months after I quit. The commercials tell people, that when quitting the "patch is so powerful and you can be around smoke. Here is information sent to me about our esteemed U of MN researcher.

U researcher: Study shows smoking ban reduces risk
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/17035651.html

The doctor who did this study of 2nd hand smoke in bars is a Psychiatrist. (?)
She's also involved in the development of a nicotine addiction vaccine for a bio pharmaceutical company and is a cheerleader for Big Medicine smoking cessation products. Follow the money.http://cbs4denver.com/health/Colorado.news.Denver.2.550333.html
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ NicVax
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/ hatsukamitest603 .html

This has been considered in the proposed legislative compromise. Any bar that allows smoking will be required to have specific signage indicating smoking. If you just quit (even with the patch) it would be wise to stay away for a while.