Submarine Update
The US Navy and Marine Corps state that The Smoker’s Club’s Michael J. McFadden was correct about Submarines and Smoking, based on the 2004 report, “Ventilation Even Protects Nonsmokers in Submarines.”
**********************
Evaluating the effectiveness of the US Navy and Marine Corps Tobacco Policy: an assessment of secondhand smoke exposure in US Navy submariners
Evaluating the effectiveness of the US Navy and Marine Corps Tobacco Policy: an assessment of secondhand smoke exposure in US Navy submariners
August 7, 2012
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of the US Navy and Marine Corps tobacco policy in protecting submariners from secondhand smoke (SHS) by determining if non-tobacco users experienced a significant increase in urinary cotinine.
… A previous study of SHS exposure in US submariners found non-statistically signi”cant increases in urinary cotinine,? depending on location of the smoking area and the individual’s workstation (pre-deployment urinary cotinine levels ranged from 0.9 to 3.1 ng/ml and deployment levels from 0.9 to 4.6 ng/ml).20 This study had a number of limitations as it was of small scale, submariners were recruited from only two submarines of the same class and was of short duration; however, these results were interpreted as evidence that “the US Navy’s submarine atmosphere control system is performing its designated task adequately (and) nonsmokers demonstrated urine cotinine levels well below the values indicative of signicant passive smoke exposure” (p6).20 It was interpreted as providing a degree of reassurance in maintaining the status quo and was even seized by some pro-smoking advocacy groups.21 …
Read the full study
?
Response to: Evaluating the effectiveness of the US Navy and Marine Corps Tobacco Policy: an assessment of secondhand smoke exposure in US Navy submariners
10/13/12
While it was pleasantly surprising have my writing on submarine smoking quoted in Tobacco Control, I was quite disappointed with the quality of the overall article.?
Why disappointed?? Well, the conclusion of the study was basically that the secondary smoke exposure of the sailors on the sub was something worthy of actual serious concern.? However the actual numbers found in the research do not seem to bear that out.? Those numbers showed that nonsmoking sailors had their blood cotinine content rise from roughly 2ng/ml up to 3ng/ml (an increase of 1 ng/ml) during their ten day deployment in the smoking-allowed submarines.? Is a 1 ng/ml increase truly something to be worried about?? Is it *anything* at *all* like the exposure a smoker gets?? Well, the blood cotinine levels of the smokers whether onshore or on the sub measured in at about 3,000 ng/ml.? Yes, you’ve read that correctly: the smokers’ basic blood levels were roughly THREE THOUSAND times the increase found in the nonsmoking sailors.?
If we estimate that the average submariner is deployed underwater for 250 days per year, their annual smoke exposure would be less than they’d be likely to get if they smoked a single cigar after Thanksgiving dinner each year.? Compare that risk to all the other ordinary risks faced by active military personnel and consider whether it was truly something for the US Navy to be concerned about.? Compare it to the risk of jumping off a stool one foot high to jumping off a cliff 3,000 feet high.? Or having sex with one person a year compared to having sex with 8 people a day.? Or being concerned about West Nile after one mosquito bite as opposed to 3,000 of them.
In terms of that concern, I found it interesting that the study brags that its findings were used to change the entire US naval world submarine policy in the year 2010 despite the fact that the study was not even acceptable for peer-reviewed publication in an advocacy journal like Tobacco Control until two years later in late 2012!? Given that there was real concern expressed within the naval community about the effect of a total ban on the performance of the crews manning nuclear submarines each of which has the capability of totally destroying the capital cities of every major industrialized country in the world there’s a real question here:? Have we gone totally insane in allowing the crazy folks to drag us into their mental wards?? Do we really want our military policies to be seriously affected by people who would want to treat having a single cigar a year as being even remotely equivalent in importance to the smooth and peak functioning of Trident crews with their fingers on The Button?
Michael J. McFadden
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Submarines & Smoking: Who do you believe?
?
Picture a very small, hermetically sealed, totally closed environment.? An environment in which hundreds of hard working men needing to be at the peak levels of physical and mental performance all must work closely together for months on end without a single breath of fresh air.
?
Now picture a quarter of those men being regular smokers.
?
Sounds like a recipe for disaster, right?? In today’s antismoking world, a single smoker lighting up in a well ventilated restaurant seems to be adequate cause for chills and tremors and faintings and screams among nonsmokers… to say nothing about their imminent and painful deaths.
?
But the sealed environment above is EXACTLY what U.S. and U.K. submariners experience throughout their working lives with nary a chill, tremor, faint, or scream among them, and, amazingly enough, no piles of dead bodies clogging the passageways.
?
How is this done?? Is it a miracle?? Is God truly on our side and busy at work cleaning the air for democracy deep under the water?
?
Nope.? It’s all done through simple air-cleaning and filtration, and even without a single hint of a breeze of fresh air, and according to a study presented by the Aerospace Medical Association, it’s all perfectly fine:?
“The? findings? of? this? study? suggest? that? the? U.? S. Navy’s? submarine? atmosphere-control? system is performing its designated task adequately during the time frame? of? the? study. Nonsmokers? demonstrated? urine cotinine levels well below the values indicative of significant passive smoke exposure.”
?
Remember: we’re talking about an environment that is totally sealed, with a high rate of smoking, in which people are living and working for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months on end.? And yet the antismoking lobby pushing for smoking bans would have us believe that people are in mortal danger from wisps of smoke in restaurants that have their air completely exchanged with fresh outside air roughly 50,000 times a year.
?
Methinks someone is lying.?? And I don’t think it’s the Aerospace Medical Association.? Read the full article below.
?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
?
Picture a very small, hermetically sealed, totally closed environment.? An environment in which hundreds of hard working men needing to be at the peak levels of physical and mental performance all must work closely together for months on end without a single breath of fresh air.
?
Now picture a quarter of those men being regular smokers.
?
Sounds like a recipe for disaster, right?? In today’s antismoking world, a single smoker lighting up in a well ventilated restaurant seems to be adequate cause for chills and tremors and faintings and screams among nonsmokers… to say nothing about their imminent and painful deaths.
?
But the sealed environment above is EXACTLY what U.S. and U.K. submariners experience throughout their working lives with nary a chill, tremor, faint, or scream among them, and, amazingly enough, no piles of dead bodies clogging the passageways.
?
How is this done?? Is it a miracle?? Is God truly on our side and busy at work cleaning the air for democracy deep under the water?
?
Nope.? It’s all done through simple air-cleaning and filtration, and even without a single hint of a breeze of fresh air, and according to a study presented by the Aerospace Medical Association, it’s all perfectly fine:?
“The? findings? of? this? study? suggest? that? the? U.? S. Navy’s? submarine? atmosphere-control? system is performing its designated task adequately during the time frame? of? the? study. Nonsmokers? demonstrated? urine cotinine levels well below the values indicative of significant passive smoke exposure.”
?
Remember: we’re talking about an environment that is totally sealed, with a high rate of smoking, in which people are living and working for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months on end.? And yet the antismoking lobby pushing for smoking bans would have us believe that people are in mortal danger from wisps of smoke in restaurants that have their air completely exchanged with fresh outside air roughly 50,000 times a year.
?
Methinks someone is lying.?? And I don’t think it’s the Aerospace Medical Association.? Read the full article below.
?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Ventilation Even Protects Nonsmokers in Submarines
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004 Jan;75(1):60-4
Jackman RP, Willette PN, White D, Krizek SM.
Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT, USA. rjackman8@aol.com
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine which designated smoking area on a submarine, forward or aft, minimizes nonsmokers’ exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. METHODS: A survey was administered and urine tested by an enzyme-linked immunoassay for urinary cotinine before and during a 10 d underway. There were four groups tested; submariners on boats with forward or aft designated smoking areas, with each of these groups further divided into submariners whose watch is primarily forward or aft. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in urine cotinine levels between submariners whose watches are primarily in the forward section as compared with those who work primarily aft. This was true for predeployment as compared with deployment levels and whether the designated smoking area was located forward or aft. CONCLUSION: Using cotinine as a marker, passive smoke exposure appears to be minimum. The location of the designated smoking area aboard U. S. Navy submarines does not appear to have any effect on urinary cotinine levels.
During submerged operations, the submarine’s ventilation system is primarily kept in the recirculation mode,? completely? isolated? from? the? outside? environment. Atmospheric particulates are removed by electro-static precipitators as well as mesh filters and activated charcoal filters …
The? findings? of? this? study? suggest? that? the? U.? S. Navy’s? submarine? atmosphere-control? system is performing its designated task adequately during the time frame? of? the? study. Nonsmokers? demonstrated? urine cotinine levels well below the values indicative of significant passive smoke exposure. Neither the location of the smoking area nor the nonsmoker’s work proximity to the smoking area affected passive smoke exposure.
