STAT= -OF G~ :-iAH:; N . SChRAUMR, 'PH .D .

T-{y name is Ger:osd N . Schrauzer . Since 1963, I have

been Professor of C'nernistry at the Ur.~ver-sity of California, San
Diego . I hold a Ph .D . degree in chemjstry from the University of
IYhznich (1956) and am the president . and founder of the International
Association of Bioinorganic Scientists . I a-r. also a rwr,~ber of the
A.mrrican Chemical Society, the Association of Clinical Scientists,
the Am?rican Public Health Association, and Affiliate Fellow of the
*i-Le-rican College of Nutrition .

Ny ma3.n' research interests are in cancer-prevention,

cancer epidemiology, trace minerals in human and animal nutrition
a"_d related fields of experirr.ental cheristry . I am the author of
a .^proxirriately 200 research publications and have edited 2 books .
In 1977, I orgardzed a Conference on T7organic and Nutritional Aspects of Cancer .
In September of this year the Tob3cco Subcorrmittee
of the Committee on Agriculture of the U . S . House of Representativess
held a one-day hearing in S~Tzsl~noon to hear testirrnny from medical
experts on claims that tobacco smoke in the atmosphere is haxmflzl
to nonsmokers . Scientists from the United States and British Columbia
examined the question of winether or not these claims are valid .
Their consensus was that they are unfounded . Their conclusions support rrW ov~m independent examination of the scientific literature on

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/fmpl0104

this subject, which reveals that atmosp1hzric tobacco snoke does not
.kers .
cause disease in nonsm
In the United States today, people do not need to fear
ch~~onic or acute poisoning due to the presence of tobacco'sinoke in
the indoor atmosphere . Indeed, smoke-filled rooms have becom a

rarity due to substantial irprovements in air ventilation and air

conditioning technologies .
Since active srbking is claimed to cause lung cancer in
s:-r`_rs, it might be claimed that atmospheric tobacco sirdke -' either
f `:cT lighted cigarettes or exhaled fron smokers - could cause this
disease in nonsrr,okers . However, the etiology and pathogenesis of .
h=?n lung cancer is as yet unknown ; many authorities agree that ciga_rette srmking is only one of the many factors that might possibly
coztribute to the development of the disease .
In rrar~y countries significant differences in the lung
carcer incidences of r.ales and fenales are observed . In the Netherlands, about 15 tirnes nare :aen die of lung cancer than wornen . In
C~~le, Japan and Israel about 3 tim,es rrore men die of lung cancer
than women . 'ifiere are also differences from country to country airong
memhers of the sane sex . Thus, the male lung cancer r.artalities in
a964-1965 were the lowest in Portugal (10 .06 per 100,000 population,
age-corrected) and the highest in Scotland (75 .55 per 100,000 pop .,
age corrected) . These large differences in mortalities cannot be
explained by differences in cigarette consuiTptions, types of tobacco
used or the variation of smoking habits in these countries . Obviously,
other factors (genetic and dietary) control the hurran lung cancer

-2-

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/fmpl0104

.1

in c i

Clence .

In z:m:i_~*rP_1 exper3.~
._xits, tobacco is not a pu7=r :Y^y carcinogen on inh?Latac ;1 . In cca :i~~ntJLng upon experim-rita7, tobacco ca ..cinogenesis, Dr. '.Gi s ins':(Y - s-rho is now w3th the Oak Ridge Xa~,ional
Laborator9 - told Cor~g-ess in 1971 that ."3n spite of 20 yez.r's zro~~
on tobacco srwking w-e cannot identif)r or nobody has been able to

identify a carcinogen to e.epl2in thr incidence of lung cancer in mzn .'t

j4hile the role of active cigarette siWxft~ dn the etio3ogy
of lung cancer is still controversia .2; it may be stated kfith confidence
that the nonsrbker's exposure to tobacco s .aoke has no effect on the

lung cancer risk . Even the A:ericen Cancer Society's . Dr . E. C.

F~~or.d has said that there "eras no shred of evidence'T that a nonemoker can get cancer frors "second Yiand" s=Re and that there is a
lot of evidence that he czrnot . Tnis view is consistent i:ith a

I
I

?^ecer.t study that reviewed findings from severzll other studies, irc1 udi _ng an An,--r3c2n Ca.rncer Socie ty epide :a3.olo^~Lcel s tudy, and four_d
"no evidence . . .that nonsmc'ccrs e=- osed to tobacco srrn'.ce have a
h;=yrr - incidence of bronchial cznczr ."
SrJW then do we hear cl2irrs that tobacco smoke in the atmosphiere causes lurg cancer in no:s;m~akers? One reason might be
reports - mostl,y in the lay press but sa-retir:es in scientific journals - of suspected ca.rcinogens in the atmosphere fhom cigaxette
smoke . For ex2r7ple, a recent editorial in the British Medical Joumal
referred to a stu~ by Bznnezrann, et al . reportino the presence of
nitrosamines and benzo(a)pyrene in the atrosphere frbm cigarette s<r :oke .

~-e .

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/fmpl0104

~. .,. . . '

With the advent of sop'zzsticated detection techniques, co, .-pounds

such as nitrosamines and benzo(a)pyrene can no:a be identified a .t
levels lower than ever before . Tnis technolcgical advance in dztection does not mean, however, that the presence of such substances

in tobacco sardke or in other areas of our envlro :r:ent has etiolcg;ic

significance in cancer :
As to nitrosamd.nes, their. presence 3n nitrate cured
r:e-zt has generated a lang lasting controversy about the safety of
t:si ng nitrate in food tech-iology . Ho:r2vzr, while nitrose .ndnes have
been found carcinogenic in 2nim?1 tests, even the British M .sdical
Jv=n.a1 editorial ad:: ftts that they have not been "J_inked to hcunan

cancer."
Accor3in,o to ths editorial, B .^unnerrann, et al . found
.es in sidestream smoke are 50 ti~~s ~eater than
`~
L_ _~+
-= nitrosar
i
nit:~s2.'njnes in the mrainstream snoke . The editorial also referred .
to trei r est3.mate that a nonsmk-er in a su:okjv roon could inhat1e in
one hour a.n a~ot;nt of nitrnsamitzes equival ent to smolcing 15 filter
. ..nn
ciga-rettes . It is itrportant to point out, hoh-ever, that Brurne .and his colle_agues also noted significant dependence of the obserJed
levels of nitzros2mines in sidestream s :cs4ke on the experimental conditions . Their data ti~ere accumul .ated by collecting sidestream
smoke with air passing around the burning ciSarettes at flow-rates .
of 1500 rff.,lmdn (=25 m1,/sec) . Such flow rates are unlikely to occur
undar realistic smo'.~ conditions in roocis . The 2mount of nitrosar.i^es observed at slower airflo.r rates was significantly lower :
v,
f.,

NJ

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/fmpl0104

At 1500 mUmin, typically 680 nanograms of N-di.TetYylnitros2. .^:ir.e .

were produced per c3sarette . At flux rates of 1000, 500 and 250 mL
of 23r, per min ., the amcrts of N-dimetrYLnitrosa-^ir.e dropped to
530, 250 and 90 na7oa-mm per cigarette . Hence, it is difficult to

make reliable esti-nates on the 2nounts -of nitrbserrdnes generated t..*ndr real-life conditions . But, even if sidestream sndke from a
cigarette -did contribute 680 na .^.o~~s of W-diu+ethylnitrosamir.e to
the atsosphzre, the smOAqa, of as ne .n;,r as 100 cigar~ettes in a ssrall
ro^,mwi.th a total air volumn of 800 cubic feet (28 Ya3) trould result
in only about 3 nanc--*ans of the corrPound per liter of air . At
this concentration, carcinogenic effects could not be dernstrated
e?cperinentaLly .
Lile?wise, benzo(a)p;,n'ene - anotaer -well lmown animal

ca-rc,'nogen - is found in plants, soi?s ; foods, and the air in variable concentz2tions . Benzo(a)pyrene is formed w;zenever organic substa.nces are und~r~irg ccmbusticn . It has been estirrated that one

ch?r^oa1l broiled steak contains the same amount of benzo(a)pyrene

as that generated by about 300 cigarettes .

07ie Rritish Medical Journal editorial indicates that

one cigg-rette veZ~ give off 100 nar :o~..~*~ams of benzo (a)pyrene into the
air. The editori.21l then states tr.a_t this "scrn11" amaant of benzo-(z)pyrene "can be asswL .~d to cause at least som-e cases of lung cancer ."
This speculation, ho-wevzr, is inconsistent- with studies of hiurans
exposed to ] .arGe am.aunts of benzo(a)pyrene in their work envirorzw :7t .
Decause roofers in the iinited States are exposed to ] a~ a-~~ts of
i

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/fmpl0104

benzo(a)pyrene by virtue of their use of coal-tar pitch, petroleum

asphalts and other products, the question to vft-at extent this raised
their lung cancer risk was given serious attention by E . Cuyler
mnd and Irving J . Selikoff . Analyzing epidemiologic data for
5,707 roofing workers, the authors noted only a sligthtly higher mortality from lung cancer among these workers corrpared to all men of
the sarr.e age in the United States . They concluded, as a result of
their study, that it is "unlikely that the small benzpyrene content
of air in urban areas has an appreciable .effect upon lung canCer
death rates ." In light of this and other studies .reported in the
literature, ther e is no reason to believe that the rzxch siraller
a._unt of benzo(a)pyrene in the atmosphere as a result of cigarette
smky presents a health hazard to the nonsmoker . .
As to the claim that there is no thres'rsol .d dose, it is
based upon a highly technical theory which has not been validated by
sci entiftc zmer i.-centation . Until this scientific experimentation
e;=sts i see no reason to abandon the traditional view that the
body is able to detoxify and rid itself of low doses of caTpounds
considered potentially har nin ruch larger quantities .
In conclusion, there is no scientific proof .for the
claim that atmospheric tobacco srrake induces diseases in the non&Toker. Thus, regulations fornulated to protect the health of the
nonsmoker would accouplish nothing but act as a limitation of personal freedom.

6-

:r
I

Source: http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/fmpl0104