BEWARE OF THIRD-HAND SMOKE Tobacco toxins linger in the environment long after a cigarette is extinguished.
Image: iStockphoto.com/Stepan Popov
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Ever take a whiff of a smoker's hair and feel faint from the pungent scent of cigarette smoke? Or perhaps you have stepped into an elevator and wondered why it smells like someone has lit up when there is not a smoker in sight. Welcome to the world of third-hand smoke.
"Third-hand smoke is tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette has been extinguished," says Jonathan Winickoff, a pediatrician at the Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center in Boston and author of a study on the new phenomenon published in the journal Pediatrics. According to the study, a large number of people, particularly smokers, have no idea that third-hand smoke—the cocktail of toxins that linger in carpets, sofas, clothes and other materials hours or even days after a cigarette is put out—is a health hazard for infants and children. Of the 1,500 smokers and nonsmokers Winickoff surveyed, the vast majority agreed that second-hand smoke is dangerous. But when asked whether they agreed with the statement, "Breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of infants and children," only 65 percent of nonsmokers and 43 percent of smokers answered "yes."
"Third-hand smoke," a term coined by Winickoff's research team, is a relatively new concept but one that has worried researchers and nonsmokers for several years. "The third-hand smoke idea—concern over that—has been around for a long time. It's only recently been given a name and studied," says Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. "The level of toxicity in cigarette smoke is just astronomical when compared to other environmental toxins [such as particles found in automobile exhaust]," he adds, but notes that he is not aware of any studies directly linking third-hand smoke to disease [as opposed to second-hand smoke, which has been associated with disease].
ScientificAmerican.com asked Winickoff to explain exactly what third-hand smoke is and why it poses a public health risk.
How exactly do you distinguish between second- and third- hand smoke?
Third-hand smoke refers to the tobacco toxins that build up over time—one cigarette will coat the surface of a certain room [a second cigarette will add another coat, and so on]. The third-hand smoke is the stuff that remains [after visible or "second-hand smoke" has dissipated from the air]…. You can't really quantify it, because it depends on the space…. In a tiny space like a car the deposition is really heavy…. Smokers [may] smoke in another room or turn on a fan. They don't see the smoke going into a child's nose; they think that if they cannot see it, it's not affecting [their children].
Smokers themselves are also contaminated…smokers actually emit toxins [from clothing and hair].
Why is third-hand smoke dangerous?
The 2006 surgeon general's report says there is no risk-free level of tobacco exposure…. There are 250 poisonous toxins found in cigarette smoke. One such substance is lead. Very good studies show that tiny levels of exposure are associated with diminished IQ.
What do you consider the most dangerous compound in cigarette smoke?
I would say cyanide, which is used in chemical weapons. It actually interferes with the release of oxygen to tissues. It competitively binds to hemoglobin [meaning it competes with oxygen for binding sites on the blood's oxygen-carrying molecule, hemoglobin]. Basically people with cyanide poison turn blue…. [And] arsenic, that is a poison used to kill mammals. We [used to] use it to kill rats. And there it is in cigarette smoke.
Why are the risks associated with exposure to third-hand smoke different for children and adults?
The developing brain is uniquely susceptible to extremely low levels of toxins. Remember how we talked about the layers of toxin deposits on surfaces? Who gets exposure to those surfaces? Babies and children are closer to [surfaces such as floors]. They tend to touch or even mouth [put their mouths to] the contaminated surfaces. Imagine a teething infant.
Children ingest twice the amount of dust that grown-ups do. Let's say a grown-up weighs 150 pounds [68 kilograms]. Let's say a baby weighs 15 pounds [seven kilograms]. The infant ingests twice the dust [due to faster respiration and proximity to dusty surfaces]. Effectively, they'll get 20 times the exposure.
Studies in rats suggest that tobacco toxin exposure is the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). We think it is [caused by] respiratory suppression.
What types of places or materials harbor the greatest amount of third-hand smoke?
Anywhere you see an enclosed space you should watch out for [it].
By introducing the phrase "third-hand smoke" in your research, what do you hope to accomplish?
This study points to the need for every smoker to try to quit. That's the only way to completely protect their children…. Really, I think that what this says is that we need to have sympathy for smokers and help them quit smoking…. [And also] that the introduction of this concept will lead to more smoke-free spaces in…public.
See what we're tweeting about
143 Comments
Add CommentOk, while i'm not disaggreeing with his findings I think it's a little out there to think that a cigarette smoked days ago presents imminent danger to others. This is yet another way the scientific community is laying the groundwork for more lawsuits against big tobacco. I have no doubt that a few years down the road another study will disprove this...by the way i'm a non-smoker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not effect people days later? Haven't you heard of lead paint disclaimers? Those are for structures built decades ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, what is Winikoff's point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe acknowledges there is no evidence that anybody, ever, has become ill or suffered any bad consequence from exposure to "third hand" smoke. But of course, we know there is no "risk-free level of tobacco exposure." For that matter, there is no "risk free" exposure to anything, including water and oxygen.
Let's face it, life is not "risk free," and would sure be boring if it were.
Surely there are risks out there more deserving of ranting and raving than "third hand smoke!"
Howard Walker
Rockville, RI
It seems strange to do a study about whether people are aware of the dangers posed by third-hand smoke before any studies of third-hand smoke. I'd like some research in the homes of smokers who smoke outside to see if there carpets are filled with the "toxic cocktail." Or if the smokers themselves are really covered with chemicals at levels that would be toxic to those around them. I can't stand getting into an elevator with a smoker, just like I can't stand getting into an elevator with someone wearing too much perfume, but I don't think it puts me in danger. But, if a scientist shows me that the smoker is emitting dangerous levels of toxins, that is a different matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that smoking is not good for one's health, but this "study" is taking things a bit far. Smokers are now a scapegoat for all evil, it seems. I'm sure that the Frebreze and Glade products that people inundate their homes with so that they don't have to smell anything "bad" leave plenty of cancerous particulates around the house. Anything in excess is bad for you. I am a smoker, and this study says that if I stand by a baby I will give it cancer? No one bats an eyelash at all of the exhaust that we breath in just by driving down a freeway; as long as we can blame smokers for all of our ills, who give a whit about air pollution??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the smell of the person makes you revulsed, then the chemical on them is likely no good for you. Your nose was made to detect things that are good and bad. While an addicted smoker may well find the smell of some other smoker appealing due to the pre-high surge of hormones they get in anticipation of a nicotine hit, those who haven't been exposed to the addicting effects of the habit will be repulsed by the smell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a non-smoker with children who live half the time in the home of a smoker, I know that even with the smoker in that home attempting to limit the levels of smoke in the home, they still return to my home completely reeking of smoke. It infiltrates their hair, clothes, shoes, bookbags, skin, and is no less a threat to them than if it is floating in the air. Yes, the concentration is arguably less, but it's not gone, and therefore still a risk. No need to do a study. If exposure to second hand smoke is bad, exposure to the same toxins in other forms is still bad.
Unfortunately, until the smoking of tobacco is completely elimanted as an allowable form of self medication, there will be no recourse except litigation or this articles type of propagandism. Yes, coining a term such as "third hand smoke" is a bit clever, but is just putting another jacket on the same book. Second hand smoke is still second hand until it has been washed off everything it contaminates... and then it still leaves residues that can't be completely removed.
Ductileironman, that reasoning is faulty. Some people find natural body odor smells bad. It doesn't mean it is "likely no good for them." I love the way cinnamon rolls smell and I think know they are terrible for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not saying there is no risk to your children I am saying don't try to prove a risk with junk science. Junk science damages all good causes and ALL science.
Your children need to tell their Mom that they hate smelling like her disgusting smoke. You need to tell her too. Her doctor should be telling her she needs to stop smoking. And someone should study the toxin levels of clothing, carpets, hair, etc. exposed to "third-hand" smoke
So, what is Winikoff's point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe acknowledges there is no evidence that anybody, ever, has become ill or suffered any bad consequence from exposure to "third hand" smoke. But of course, we know there is no "risk-free level of tobacco exposure." For that matter, there is no "risk free" exposure to anything, including water and oxygen.
Let's face it, life is not "risk free," and would sure be boring if it were.
Surely there are risks out there more deserving of ranting and raving than "third hand smoke!"
Howard Walker
Rockville, RI
The greatest risk we face is legislating behavior. As someone noted, the amount of toxins we inhale every single day from buses, cars, trucks, etc, coupled with what is mixed into our reservoirs with every rainfall, and then add the food additives we consume; and then throw in our attempts to live naturally so we grab handfuls of natural herbs. Our knee jerk reactions to every study (how many times have eggs been proved bad then good then bad) are probably doing far more damage. In fact, studies have shown that plants and trees, exposed to polluted environments, begin reproducing considerably earlier then usual and the offspring are not as sturdy as the forebears. Our young are becoming sexually active at ever younger ages and it seems there are more syndromes than ever before; higher autism rates. Perhaps these first-hand pollutants and all their interactions within our bodies; passed on to each generation for the past century-plus have more relevance than the secondary and tertiary effects of the burning of a particular leaf by less than 20% of the US population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me know when they get to 12th hand smoke would ya? Also as a smoker I would like to add that if we were all to quit tomorrow do the rest of you have any idea how many tax Dollar$ would be lost. I don't know the amount myself but I'm sure it would be a staggeringly high amount?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like water and we all need it, but if scientists look hard enough they will find something that can cause illnesses. My point is. there are way more important things to study and way more people and things to pick on besides smokers. I am a smoker. Not a real proud one but I am. I am very conciderate of those that dont. I would not go into a house of a non smoker and light up or blow it into the face of a non smoker. When actualy there are more toxins in the air we breath every day then there is in second hand smoke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd like sconan56 says about the tax dollars. Us smokers are taken advantage of. It's actualy discrimination when they raise taxes on only the products us smokers buy. They should raise taxes on things that every one needs like food. I bet there would be a lot of angry people out there. But when they raise taxes on cigaretts then we are the minority and there isnt anything we can do and they know it.
It just makes me sick. More sick then being a smoker does.
These days it has nothing to do with getting people to stop smoking. State and local governments are addicted to the taxes collected. That's why they'll never try to make them illegal. (And of course the black market, which is already becoming a problem.) Nowadays, tobacco companies spend more on stop smoking advertising. But what always amazed me was how everyone jumped on Joe Camel, but beer commercials are all targeting the teenage crowd (Budweiser frogs; Michelob Light for the winners; Coors; beer drinkers are young, hip always doing fun things) nothing wrong with turning teenagers into drunks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohnson and Johnson, makers of Nicorette, Nicoderm, and Chantix, are the major contributors for lobbying for smoking bans. They donate through their partner the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Their "charatible"(sic) contributions to WHO and the CDC are then distributed down to state, county, and city level grant seekers to use to push their agenda, which is NOT to stop people from smoking, but to ATTEMPT to stop repeatedly. GREAT way to move product, eh? They also fund much of the science(?), through their grants to facilities which will agree with their agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust ask anyone, on any level of government ,WHY aren't you making it illegal to SELL tobacco. They'll just laugh at you.
Cigarette companies are NOT the ones making the profit. States and the Federal government are cleaning up. As long as selling is legal, Johnson and Johnson will continue this campaign to sell nicotine replacement products. They also make huge campaign donations.
THERE!!!
funny the entire thread just disappeared. Somebody said something that someone didn't like?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisblog disappeared
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's just a very touchy subject with smokers and how we are taken advantage of with all this second and 15th hand smoke, forcefull taxation and everything. non smokers make us out to be bad people or killers or something. When will it stop? It just gives Some (not all) non smokers something to do with there lives. There lives are meaningless and useless and they want to stir the pot so they have something to do. Its kinda like the NAACP, there will always be raceism as long as there are different races of people. And they know it. It's all about the money and it gives some peoples lives meaning. Not to mention any names (Jessie Jackson).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's just a very touchy subject with smokers and how we are taken advantage of with all this second and 15th hand smoke, forcefull taxation and everything. non smokers make us out to be bad people or killers or something. When will it stop? It just gives Some (not all) non smokers something to do with there lives. There lives are meaningless and useless and they want to stir the pot so they have something to do. Its kinda like the NAACP, there will always be raceism as long as there are different races of people. And they know it. It's all about the money and it gives some peoples lives meaning. Not to mention any names (Jessie Jackson).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I don't understand is how anyone can try to justify a child being around smoke in any form. I was ecstatic when this came to the forefront because I thought, Wow common sense has finally prevailed. Tobacco education is my job so I spend many hours on research from only proven sources-I'm not just spouting off information I got on someone's blog.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondhand smoke (and I agree with ductileironmen that it is just that) causes asthma attacks, increased visits to ERs, more respiratory illnesses and ear infections and yes even death in the form of SIDS in children. None of this is "junk science." Check out the CDC and you'll get the information.
Do you not think that after smoking outside that the stench of smoke still on hair, clothes, fingers, etc doesn't contain the same harmful chemicals the visible smoke did? Smoking outside is a great step to protecting children-but it is not the best option. If you still want to leave your family or friends to have to go smoke and stand in the cold, the heat, the rain and the dark that is a personal decision. The excuses someone needs to make up to help themselves feel better about it is just rationalization and a method of self-defense-I get it. But bottom line is that the same children you are trying to protect by going outside may be robbed of having a father to walk them down the aisle, a mother to send care packages to them at college or a grandparent to share the joy of their first child with. I come from a family of smokers. It is sad to see the deaths, the disabiliites and the future of what the rest will endure. I honestly wish I didn't work with the topic because it is frightening to see and learn about what is happening to the people I love. I have had to walk out of a conference before because videos of someone dying from lung cancer or having a limb amputated because of smoking (yes it does happen, especially to young men) was just too much.
And by the way sconan56, they are developing ways to use tobacco leaves in beneficial ways ( I think HIV treatment is one of them?) so that those farmers do not lose their livelihoods and money can still be spend on tobacco. It cannot be denied, tobacco is a big business and our economy depends on that to an extent. But honestly, the cost of healthcare for these people dying and disabled from tobacco use is WAY beyond the money tobacco brings in. That is my piece, thanks for letting me share. First time I was ever moved to do this...
The CDC is a direct recipient of grant donations from Johnson and Johnson. Check the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation donations to the CDC, WHO, and Jonathan Winickoff's clinic in Boston. This information is easy to check. How lovely to actually be paid to educate people on tobacco. It would actually not be in YOUR interest to lobby to outlaw the SELLING of Tobacco, as that would mean the end of your job, too. Not just Nicoderm, Nicorette and Chantix sales.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you argue that the CDC's recommendations on secondhand smoke are false? Or their guidelines for any other health issues? I don't think the reputation of the CDC is the argument. Tobacco use is unhealthy, as is breathing in the by products of it. That has long been proven. I don't care who gave them the money to prove it-maybe there are actually companies out there who care about the millions of people dying from tobacco use? Just a thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I at no point mentioned outlawing the sale of tobacco. I'm not a zealot about anything. But personally, if it came down to that I wouldn't be unhappy. And trust me, I would gladly find another job. My job security is the least of my concerns compared to what tobacco use does to people. And I certainly don't make enough money for anyone to worry about it . I'm pretty sure Pfizer would be alright if Chantix was no longer needed also. My sister did use Chantix to quit and claims it is a miracle drug if anyone is wondering...
All in all I guess I just don't understand why people argue this. What is your fight? Do you think all the research is wrong and tobacco smoke isn't harmful? That this is one big ploy? I understand that if every once in awhile Aunt Betty comes over reeking of smoke we shouldn't stop her from hugging the children, but if you are a parent who smokes with a window open, outside the front door, or only when the kids aren't home then just realize that it is still causing some harm-not as much-but some. And seriously, is smoking that important to you?
Oops- i reread Cynthia's post. For scientific reasons, I would like to know what the condition is called, when" your arms come off due to smoking".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps we should do as the Nazis did, and take children away from their parents. We could take them all out to training camps, in, let's say, the Rockies, away from smokers, traffic, junk food, television, computers,crime, violence. NOW we're talking, a new master race, alrighty! Do you suppose we shouldn't let the slightly defective kids attend? You know, the chunky ones or the ones who need glasses or maybe the ones with a slightly lower IQ? Sieg Heil
I am not buying the 15 pound child gets 20 times the dust as a 150 adult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalculate the tidal volume of the child times the number of respirations, and compare that to the tidal volume times respirations - No way does 20 times calculated.
i believe that doing this research will aware the smokers to be more careful and show them how much just smoking one cigarette can hurt someone. My dad is a smoker and my family has tired over and over again to get him to stop but he just cut back. If you have a family and you are a smoker maybe you should open your eyes and realize how you are hurting the ones that you love and care so much about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just found out about this third hand smokinh even though we ahve all knowen in one way or another. I tihnk that smokers need to open their eyes and realize what they are doing to themselves and others. Day by day we try to protect our family the best way we can, but what we dont realize is that a smoker is putting there family in danger every time they light up a cigarette. I can tell you from first hand it is hard to know that one of your family members is choosing to put thier life and yours at risk, My father is a smoker and my family and i have tried everything we can think of to make him stop. as you can see that didnt get very fare, fo rhe has only cut back. If I could ask god to do me just one favor or answer just one prair it would be to make my father stop smoking or even the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"having a limb amputated because of smoking (yes it does happen, especially to young men)" was what I actually said and it is called Buerger's disease, you can read about it yourself http://vasculitis.med.jhu.edu/typesof/buergers.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry but when I said NOT a zealot you must've thought I said EXTREME zealot. I was raised by two smoking parents (inside not outside smokers) with 3 sets of smoking grandparents as the people I visited on the weekends so obviously NO I don't think that is grounds to take anyone's child away from them. Any by the way, that is a really terrifying picture you painted of a "master race": smoke-free, healthy eating, no video games so more physical activity, and no crime or violence. Wow, that sends chills down my spine.
As we have now gotten away from the topic we were first discussing I don't care to engage in this argument any further. I am all up for discussing matters and seeing them from both sides but accusations of suggesting we need to do anything even remotely close to what your last post stated are ridiculous and enough for me.
I looked up Beurger's Disease. In the country where the incidence is highest- Japan- it was reported that there were 5 cases out of every 100,000 population. It is a very rare condition, according to the report. My math comes to 50 in a million, in Japan. In western Europe the incidence is much lower. A segment of the Jewish population has been found to be linked to this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe report does not say smoking causes this condition. It does say, if one should find themselves with this condition, you need to quit smoking.
I would say this holds true with ANY vascular problem.
This is another condition which seems to be more of a genetic link.
Please look it up. If you think you have this condition, get checked for diabetic issues.
If you want to scare the crap out of people, show them the pictures of this condition. You might want to refrain from mentioning the odds and the locales where this rare condition exists. Might not scare people nearly enough to buy Nicoderm.
What a joke. Notice the coy attempt to inject "more smoke free places in public" into the discourse which is their ultimate goal: ban smoking everywhere. The problem is that the good doctors of the opinion piece they published are trading on a single, basic fallacy which is: If first-hand smoke is bad then second hand smoke is bad which implies third hand or any smoke whatsoever is bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is moronic to say the least. The reality is that Glantz's "astronomical" statement belies a greater point in this whole sector of science where these studies are handed to the media without explaining that a golden rule of epidemiology is that it is the dose that makes the poison. With some degree of irony, the level of toxins in second-hand smoke don't make a blip on the EPA's charts for unsafe exposure levels. How someone could go from EPA-rated safe levels of exposure and extrapolate that into a new form of 'smoke' such as third or fourth hand is beyond science - it is a whole new religion hiding behind the guise of public health.
Cynthia - just curious. You said you had a chill go up your spine. Just for clinical reasons, was that a chill of eager expectation of healthier children, or a chill of doom, for our losing our freedoms and reasoning?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI simply cannot comprehend that Scientific American would publish an article like this. So many decent studies do not get published in much less prestigious journals in spite of passing peer reviews and they give exposure to a piece-of-trash study like this. It is outrageous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"ScientificAmerican.com asked Winickoff to explain exactly what third-hand smoke is and why it poses a public health risk.".. without ever trying to figure out IF it poses ANY kind of risk.
The journal should be called Political American!
I realy understand the emotions you must feel cynthia86. Smokeing is very bad for us all. but dont proffit from my addiction becouse the government knows I will pay what ever I have too to feed my addictiondont and dont put me down or make mee feel like I am "trailor trash" and turn your nose up to me becouse I smoke and you dont and you are better than me for it. or slightly caugh when you walk by me and I am smokeing as a way of telling me not to smoke. It just makes me want to smoke more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the government realy wanted people to quit then take it off the shelf. But wait, then the government is telling me how to live my life. Communism. They are already trying to tell us how we should or shouldnt live. It takes our money without our permission and its finding every reason in the world to get me to quit smoking. why dont they tell us we all have to wear chemical masks to breath the toxins in the air. If they could tax the air, they would. but then every one would be targeted. not one single group of people. THAT IS FARE. Let me deside when to quit and stop taking my paycheck trying to make me quit. If the government realy cared about me or you then they would have a rehab center for it like they do for other addictive drugs they DON'T have controll over. But they make to much money off of it so it wont ever happend. They dont make any money on the other drugs like crack cocain and haroin so they realy try to get people to quit doing them. Mabe they will take up smoking instead lol.
Actually, the lifetime health care cost for smokers is lower than for non-smokers:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1052
So some researchers with a long and clear antismoking-oriented history, researchers who probably get paid handsomely by Big Tobacco (Whooops... sorry, I meant "Big Pharma" or "Big Antismoking Organizations") examine an opinion survey and conclude that 2/3rd of nonsmokers have become so paranoid about smoke that they're fearful thta their children may enter a room occupied or previously smoked in by a smoker?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow does this translate into any sort of findings about any "threat" or "danger" to our children?
Simple answer: it doesn't. At all. Go read the study and you'll see I'm correct. The authors did no original research other than look over an opinion survey. However the media has spun this into hysterical heights. The NY Times went so far as to emphasize twice in one article that "third-hand smoke" contains Polonium 210, and highlighted the way this "deadly radioactive" element was used to murder a Russian KGB agent.
What they did NOT mention was that even if you had an obsessive child who assiduously licked ten square feet of flooring spic 'n span clean each and every day, it would take literally THREE TRILLION YEARS for that child to absorb that killing dose. (Plus all normal laws of biological excretion and the inconvenient physics of Po210's 138-day half life would have to be ignored.)
I'm not kidding about the three trillion days. For the full computation see the comments area of Dr. Michael Siegel's site on the subject at:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
(about the third entry down as of Jan. 7th)
The researchers are guilty of deliberately seeking to inspire fear of and hate against a minority group in the furtherance of a social engineering goal. That sort of behavior is unacceptable. And for the journalistic community, particularly such supposedly responsible journalistic members as the NY Times and Scientific American to support such yellow journalism is despicable.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Lots of interesting comments, some amusing if they were not so alarming - but where is the corresponding discussion on 3rd-hand wood smoke which is 40 times worse than tobacco smoke?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLots of interesting comments - some quite alarming. When will there be an equivalent discussion of 3rd-hand wood smoke which remains biologically active in the body 40 times longer than tobacco smoke and is 12 times more carcinogenic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLots of interesting comments - some quite alarming. When will we have a similar discussion about woodsmoke which remains biologically active in the body 40 times longer than cigarette smoke and is 12 times more carcinogenic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're a bunch of lying sacks. I'm smoking a ciggie and blowing it into your lying faces.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't wait for someone to finally sue some of you fear-mongering money holes. Just can't wait. Sue you for psychological and mental abuse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZena, that's not as far-fetched as you might think. I just finished an article on all this for SmokersClub.com with the statement, "The New York Times should be ashamed. And if there's any justice in the world perhaps they will someday be sued into nonexistence by families whose homes and lives will be disrupted by this despicable example of reportage."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
I for one do believe that third hand smoke does exist and is a problem...at least for me. I married a smoker (who is trying to quit) and when he smokes in his office I can smell it and feel the burn in my eyes and throat on the other side of the house...then hours, days later everytime the air kicks on I feel those same effects as well. The smoke does cling to his clothing, hair and skin...I hate how it makes me feel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a crock...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think that (THS) is only faith.Why the families who smoke outdoor has children with more frequencies of ALTE , SIDS, Oral breathing, Cerebral disfunction, Hyperkinesia Syndrome, Lower IQ, lower scores at collegue. At present Diabetic-Obesity epidemic and so on.Thanks to ePediatrics for this articles. (I�m a Pediatrician 63y who lives at Santiago Chile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I'm a non smoker now and after months of cleaning surfaces and objects in my home, etc, items that were coated in yellow thick film, nicotine, it sure makes you wonder how long the toxins linger in your home, on the surfaces of things and in your clothes. when smokers come within 3 feet of me and they have that stinch all over there body, it's disgusting and makes me want to apologize to everyone that I have ever hugged or kissed while smoking. Wish I had quit years ago before it affected my health. At least I quit before it killed me, I do miss it and probably always will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSociologists need to start doing studies on popular phenomenons such as the demonization of smoking as fanned by scientific "studies" such as the Surgeon General's report.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are shades of everything.
As exemplified by Ductileironman above, there is a vigilante puritanism about in the world, and it clothes itself in exaggerated scientific conclusions, and ignores rights of individuals and personal, meaningful reasons individuals do things when they live in a country that protects liberty.
This actually gets in the way of smokers and those-who-are-bothered or -harmed-by smoke from coming to an amicable conclusion. The topic is not ethnicity or religion or political beliefs -- it is lifestyle -- but the response is still fascist. And the public health priesthood, and the scientific elders, stand by and allow themselves to be used for these moralistic, authoritarian purposes.
This is my favorite link to smoke now. I'm blowing more smoke in your faces....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreading this article made me a little annoyed that sciam would use a decades old public service announcement in place of real scientific news. I think we've all had enough anti-smoking propaganda force fed into our heads from the time we are able to open our eyes to be able to make grown up decisions on our own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA year ago a friend and his brother borrowed their mothers car to get us to the airport. We were making a short trip from New Zealand to Australia. She smoked in that car, none of us are smokers. We were feeling more and more ill inside the car from the smell and we all had our windows open. By the time we made the 30 minute journey we were all nauseous, slightly light headed, and sick to our stomachs. Although smokers may be be angry about this I have noted we only feel angry when we hear truth in a statement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUridev, You might have your friends, tell their mother, to check for emmission leaks in the exhaust of the vehicle. This sounds a bit more complicated than one person smoking in a car with all the windows open. Also, how many cigs can one smoke in 30 minutes? Was she smoking a stogie?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with that which is now called third hand smoke is that tobacco
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissmoke consists of particulates and gaseous, both of which is attracted to
to objects such as walls and furniture. These are outgassing for weeks or
months, with the particulates being particularly dangerous since they are
breathed by people who work or live in this environment. The normal
nature of the alveoli, which number 600 million in a pair of lungs, is to
assimilate the oxygen from the air, and whatever else is piggy backed
in the toxic mix. Just do a google search on alveoli to get a better
understanding how the lungs work and it won't seem so mysterious.
If you can smell it, you are breathing it and that can be dangerous over
the long run, or short, for that matter.
Okay, someone should just say it....we should probably round up all smokers and remove them from society because they are bad for society. There is no place for a smoker any longer. We should create an entire State where the smokers could live together, and die together, then third hand smoke wouldn't be a problem for anyone. Case Closed
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, someone should just say it...we should remove all smokers from society. Smokers are bad for society as a whole. Why not move all of them to a desginated State and let them live and die together and save the rest of us from the evils of smoking. In fact the more I think if it I like the idea and I'm sure a smoker would like to live with others of their own kind. After all they ARE different than non-smokers, they pose a risk to the health of EVERYONE around them, just like drunk drivers and gang members and many more things in society that are bad for us normal people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisajbenson wrote, "The problem with that which is now called third hand smoke is that tobacco smoke consists of particulates and gaseous, both of which is attracted to to objects such as walls and furniture. These are outgassing for weeks or months, with the particulates being particularly dangerous since they are breathed by people who work or live in this environment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAJ, the actual problem is that people have come to believe that the AMOUNTS of these things actually represent some sort of "risk" to them in the real world. People "outgas" all the time, getting rid of relatively massive amounts of bodily poisons such as formaldehyde (used to preserve corpses) , benzene (used in lighter fluid), acetone (nail polish remover) and many other such things. It's part of normal bodily function.
Do you worry about such things? Do you run out of a room when someone else walks in and starts breathing that stuff all over you? Of course not... because there hasn't been a multi-billion dollar fear campaign blasted at you over the media for the last 30 years about such nonsense.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
IF I fart...if it comes out close, thats the first hand, but if your ten foot from me and you smell it, thats a second hand.....but if youre thirty foot from me, is that what were gonna call third hand fart? If you get the third hand fart and you smell it twice a day for thirty years, it might kill you...so theres toxics in everything we smell including our air, so why pick on smokers? so start workin on farting in public
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the biggest load of rubbish ever invented by ever zealous anti smokers! There has been 3rd hand smoke (if ib=ndeed it exists) since man first created fire. Every fireplace that burns fuel of any type for warmth produces the stuff. Attributing it to smokers only is grossly misleading and merely fuelling the flames of the anti's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr jonathon Winikoff ought to concern himself with the true 3rd hand smoke-that which is emitted in copious quantities from exhaust pipes-and at pushchair/toddler level! Is it right for governments, the "WHO", ASH, CRUK and other government funded agencies to ignore such gaseous toxic horrors in the name of industry?
Winikoff himself admits this was not a scientific study, merely a phone poll which somehow has created world media attention with typical scaremongering yet again. It's just pathetic.
I agree with Howard Walkers point So, what is Winikoff's point?. He acknowledges there is no evidence that anybody, ever, has become ill or suffered any bad consequence from exposure to "third hand" smoke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThird Hand smoke is another phrase coined by the anti smoking brigade in their deluded world of enforcement. Their aim is to totally eradicate smoking everywhere.
The latest terminology for people who invent ludicrous statements like second hand and third hand smoke is "Bigot phraser" quite apt really.
"Bigot phrasers" are a relatively new phenomenon they are creeping into all government departments and are re-labelling a variety of practices, pastimes to suit their agenda.
THIS IS PURE UNADULTERATED FRAUD, A NAZI-STYLE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN OF LIES AND DECEIT!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.
http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.
http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm
And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban.
http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html
What we need in this country are violence, terrorism, and assassination against those who wage this war of defamstions against us.
This is outrageous Nazi pseudo-science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.
http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.
http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm
And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban.
http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html
What we need in this country are violence, terrorism and assassination against those vermin who wage this war of defamations against us!
All the substances found in tobacco smoke are also found in cooked foods. The studies discussed above never compare smokers' outgassing to nonsmokers outgassing, but nosmokers, because they eat cooked foods, outgass too. Small amounts of lead and cyanide are found in foods infants ingest as well. Everything has limits below which they are not toxic, and none of the present studies show evidence that third hand smoke exceeds any of these levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe non-peer-reviewed press release accompanying the 2006 Surgeon General's report does declare no safe level. But within the peer-reviewed text of the actual report, no evidence is presented that this is true. By the way, the Surgeon General graduated from the University of California, San Francisco,..the same place 95% of all these trashy secondhand smoke studies come from.
This article is a disgraceful promotion of hatred and bigotry and those responsible should rightly be jailed for hate crimes. The outrageous suggestion that anyone could be harmed by the scent of tobacco smoke is so far removed from reality or scientific credibility, it is only controversial in the fact anyone with an understanding of integrity or who is still leashed to reality, would have the insolence to present it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are on a downward spiral of which can only be compared with the witch burnings, McCarthyism, Eugenics and Hitlers Germany in a real perspective to contrast a self dependence, of increased exaggeration based entirely in theoretic evaluations of the cult followings profiting from the ignorance inspired.
This article is a disgraceful promotion of hatred and bigotry and those responsible should rightly be jailed for hate crimes. The outrageous suggestion that anyone could be harmed by the scent of tobacco smoke is so far removed from reality or scientific credibility, it is only controversial in the fact anyone with an understanding of integrity or who is still leashed to reality, would have the insolence to present it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are on a downward spiral of which can only be compared with the witch burnings, McCarthyism, Eugenics and Hitlers Germany in a real perspective to contrast a self dependence, of increased exaggeration based entirely in theoretic evaluations of the cult followings profiting from the ignorance inspired.
The British tabloids revealed; among those too young to remember him Winston Churchill was believed to be a fictional character, existing only in literature, although most believed Sherlock Holmes was a real person.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the consensus is in. According to Harvard and the Cancer agencies opinions, supported with the irrefutable evidence of the process described here;
Churchill never really existed and the hunt continues to locate the missing grave of Sherlock Holmes.
Third hand smoke UN/WHO Globaloney and every reference to it, should be used gratuitously to tar the reputation of not only TC but the entire Public Health community and the leeches who describe themselves as medical charity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the step over the line which reveals their nature and true worth.
They won't ever consider progress and self improvement, beyond the protections of their safe little kingdom, until the peasants start a revolt and burn it all down.
Well, at least smokers now know for certain that they are being stalked by 'Public Health'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI personally have yet to see any tangible evidence that there is a health risk from Second Hand Smoke, or the recently identified Risks/Non Risks of Third Hand Smoke, so why is there such massive energy to convince people that there is. It can ONLY be to ensure that major Pharmaceutical Companies reap the fiscal benifits of smoking cessation products, as they appear to be the major support of the numerous worthless studies on the subject. I find it truly amazing the lengths that these so called emminent professionals will go in their quest to take away a basic right, because that's what it amounts to. Who will be next one might ask OBESE PEOPLE?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would suggest that this energy be directed against the noxious and deadly substances which are pumped into our lives 24/7 by industry and vehicles, and currently pose a far greater threat to public health than SHS/THS.
I don't hear any of these scientific experts advocating the removal of all forms of combustion from our towns and cities. That would be a breath of Fresh Air.
This article does not belong in Scientific American. This article belongs in the yellow tabloids one finds at grocery store checkout counters, blazoning "I was abducted by a flying saucer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American, why have you stooped to hate mongering to see your magazine?
This unfortunately reminds me of the kind of "science" that was used to "prove" Jews were the vectors of disease (check Mr. Goebbel's propaganda films); or that blacks were, too, and therefore should be banned from drinking at the same fountain, swimming in the same pool or resting in the same rest room lest whitey sicken and die. This is bigotry blatantly parading itself as science; propaganda meant to inflame and cause unknown but devastating social disruption. Its hoped-for credibility relies entirely on scientific illiteracy and manufactured hysteria.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo read about the wretched history of Public Health in using crackpot science to reinforce every politically popular bigotry from the 19th c, on, I commend a scholarly book titled "Silent Travelers," by Alan Kraut of American University; Harper Collins, 1994.
Scientific American, and Pubic Health itself, should be deeply ashamed of this inflammatory tripe. No possible ends can justify such means.
Carla! If it bothers you that much, leave him..........................................
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK so "active" smoking kills, but it takes an average of very roughly 40 years so let's say it takes a quarter of a million cigarettes to kill you. If a non-smoker imbibes 10% of the harmful stuff a smoker does (which I doubt), they'd have to wait about 400 years to succumb. Cut that down by another order of magnitude for third-hand smoke and we're talking millennia. Oh but some people get around that by saying that "passive" smoke is even more deadly than the active kind - well smokers get more of that too, because they associate with smokers! (In case you're interested, I don't smoke.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk I agree that there are toxins out there that are bad. I do believe that there needs to be studies done of the lasting effect of the toxins. I know that lead and some other toxins last for decades. So why can't there be othere toxins stick aound for days. I am a non smoker and cant stand the smell of someone that comes around after they have just had a smoke. It reeks and it lingers for a while. About the lack of study I understand that you need to have background to do some studies so let the studies happen and lets wait and see what happens down the road.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGerry C.
iwonder what is so great about smoking that people will pay all that money to smell bad risk there lives and other peoples . idont smoke and have COPD from second hand smoke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is junk science and there is common sense. Seems like this is another form of child abuse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan someone tell me why people find it necessary to smoke....just one good reason??
I just tried to wash the walls of a rental house I own where smokers had saturated the walls with their smoking residue. After multiple changes of buckets of clean water I could tell I was losing the battle to remove this mess from my walls. The water I poured out looked like pancake syrup. I finally bought a shellac sealer and painted it on to cover up the odor. Then, I painted the walls.
Smokers, is it really worth it?
Gee, a quarter of a million cigarettes....how much does that calculate out to cost. Isn't there a better way to spend one's money??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a true believer in third-hand smoke, and I'm not even a child. At work I had to share a telephone with a smoker. I developed breathing problems, had a swelling in my mouth, and also had a "suspicious" breast biopsy. I started cleaning the phone off with "Wet Ones" wipes. My swelling went away, plus my breathing problems went away. Still have to be tested again to see if my biopsy is benign, but I'm pretty optimistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am living proof that the dangers of third-hand smoke exist. I have suffered tremendously due to inconsiderate relatives smoking and then coming in to my house. I have such a sensitivity to cigarette smoke that I had laryngitis almost consistently for two years before finally discovering what the trigger was. I even developed polyps on my vocal cords due to this condition. Once I finally figured out what the trigger was, I was able to put a stop to this vicious cycle. While my vocal cords have recovered due to the entirely smoke free environment ( I no longer allow smokers in my house, period!) I still have incidents of sensitivity when exposed, involuntarily I might add.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThird-hand smoke is a very real danger. I look forward to the day when we are a nation that is entirely smoke free.
The article said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The level of toxicity in cigarette smoke is just astronomical when compared to other environmental toxins [such as particles found in automobile exhaust]"
Or didn't you read it?
Also, there was a time when second hand smoke wasn't connected to diseases in studies. Now that's not the case - the proof is there.
I FIND ALL THIS VEY FUNNY, IF THIS WERE INFACT TRUE THEN WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THIS GENERATION OF WHINY, WIMPY, COMPLAINING IDIOTS. WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD FROM THE THIRD HAND SMOKE COVERING EVERRY BUILDING AND PUBLIC SURFACE FROM ALL THE SMOKING THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN AND AROUND THESE BUILDINGS SINCE 1900. JUST ABOUT EVERY CHILD BORN SINCE 1950 HAS BEEN EXPOSED WHAT ABOUT WHEN MUSES, DOCTORS AND PATIENTS SMOKED IN THE HOSPITAL ROOMS WITH THE BABIES! TO SUGGEST THAT AUTISM, BREAST CANCER, LOWER IQ, OBESITY (PLEEEEEASE) AND EVERY OTHER KNOWN DISEASE TO MAN IS R/T SMOKING. WHY NOT THROW IN BIETH DEFECTS, RETARDATION, MS, CEREBRAL PALSY IT TOO! i SAY WE START GOING AFTER THE FATTY'S YOU HEARD RIGHT. I AM TIRED OF PAYING HIGHER INSURANCE PREMIUMS THE HOSPITALS HAVE TO KEEP BUYING LARGER WHEELCHAIRS AND INCREASINLY LARGER SPECIAL BEDS TO ACCOMADATE THE FAT PEOPLE! I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A 200% TAX ON CHIPS, PRETZELS, ICE CREAMS, SODA POP, JUICE BOXES ( CAUSE FOR INCREASE IN CHILDHOOD DIABETES), ANY AND ALL PROCESSED AND NON ESSENTIAL FOODS. I AM TIRED OF GETTING SQUEEZED OUT OF A CHAIR BY SOME FAT SLOB WHO IS ADDICTED TO FOOD. YEP ADDICTED. I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE A SPECIAL FLOOR AT WORK BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE WORST BODY ODOR,IT MAKES ME GAG. OBESITY RELATED DISEASES ARE THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE USA (HEAART DISEASE, DIABETES, CHF, MUCULOSKEETAL PROBLEMS, BACK PROBLEMS. I AM TIRED OF HAVING MY TAX DOLLARS SUPPOLRT THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET UP AND WALK OR BREATH FOR THAT MATTER TO GO TO WORK. I AM TIRED OF BREAKING MY BACK LIFTING AND MOVING THEM AT MY JOB IN THE HOSPITAL. MOST INJURIES IN THE HOSPITAL ARE RELATED TO BACK INJURIES WHILE HELPING AN OBESE PATIENT. DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD BAN THEM , MAKE FFAMILY MOVE THEM, OR IGNORE THEM IF THEY CAN'T DO IT THENMSELVES. I DON'[T KNOW WHY THEY ARE ADDICTED TO FOOD. THEY SHOULD JUST STOP AS SUGGESTED TO SMOKERS EARLIER. YES I SMOKE, NO NOT AROUND PEOPLE WHO DON'T AND NOT AROUND CHILDREN BUT THANKS TO YOU PEOPLE I AM NO LONGER ALOUD TO BE AROUND MY GRANDCHILDREN DUE TO THIS ARTICLE. I FIND IT FUNNY HOWEVER THAT THESE SAME CARING PARENT S JSUT BOUGHT THEIR 5 YEAR OLD AN\ GAS POWERED DIRT BIKE. (NO MOM HE WONT BREAK HIS NECK OR DIE LIKE YOUR FRIENDS GRANDSON DID.) i THINK EVERYONE WHO HAS A CHILD SAND A POOL SHOULD GET RID OF THE POOL. DO YOU KNOW THAT DROWNING IS THE LEDING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR CHILDREN UNDER 5. DO YOU KNOW THE SECOND LEADING CAUSE OF DWATH IS CAR ACCIDENTS. I AM ASSUMING ALL YOU WEL L MEANING PARNET NEVE TAKE YOUR CHILD IN A CAR! IT SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave you ever smelled the home, car, clothing or person of a smoker? If you smell it, you breathe it. Yes, Virginia, there is a health risk associated with third hand smoke , but no Santa Clause. My 5 year old granddaughter is in the hospital right now as a result of third hand smoke. She is unable to maintain her O2 levels. Her mother only smokes outside yet still brings the cocktail into her home where a sweet little girl nearly subcummed to the affects of low oxygen levels. As science has proven time and time again, tabacco smoke impedes the blood's ability to attach oxygen molecules and transport them to the cells. Whether one inhales it from a butt or off the hair and clothing of a smoker, the fact remains that it kills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease, not study is important, I study, too. So what? What is important is UNBIASED INDEPENDENT research and TESTING which concludes in SCIENTIFIC PROOF the dangers of smoke, second-hand smoke, and third-hand smoke, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the deaths, diseases and all the dangers of tobacco smoke, research performed by REPUTABLE INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS, and not those who are hired by Surgeon General, selling themselves for others' agendas, and this proof, in turn, must be allowed to be challenged. That's how it goes scientifically. There is no such proof as of yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd a comment about "public health", this slavery that they are SADDLING us in. The state, because it is not an individual, does not have any rights to regulate, ban, or otherwise, smoking cigarettes, not to mention that the state does not have any right to call individual liberty (smoking cigarettes) into servitude of the public. Did you know that? Simple, you don't like my restaurant because there is smoking allowed? Don't come. You have the right to patronize establishements. Yet the state has done just that, "marked" smokers (and drinkers and the obese, notice), businesses, because of an "agenda". Do research and find out about these agendas and who stands behind. I, for one, am joining an international anti-prohibition organization. It is about time, and it is about my individual liberties; should these be dangerous to me or not. Thank you for letting me comment on your site.
And oh, yes, notice how they with the anti-smoking "agenda" always use our children for it to frighten the parents with "proofs" of horrible second-hand smoke atrocities that go unchallenged. And, once again, the children are being exploited.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat happened to my comment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTax dollars? What about the LIVES that will be saved, most predominantly of the SMOKERS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amount of contemporary, win-at-any-cost, social engineering going on is staggering. Now we have Harvard people, presumably with medical degrees, who recommend the smell test. Their proofs are not even anecdotal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay 2009 - Reason Magazine: Instead of the toxicological principle that the dose makes the poison, Winickoff urges a smell test, which tells us to fear a fellow elevator rider who has recently smoked a cigarette. "Your nose isn't lying," he told the New York Times. "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: "Get away.'"
The smell test? Just a few quotes from the net:
In particular, mustard gas has a rather nice aroma. Gas victims from World War I recalled a sweet and spicy scent that brought to mind lilacs&
Another blister agent developed around the time of the First World War, lewisite smells intensely of geraniums.
Like many of the look-alikes, Poison Sumac has tiny sweet smelling flowers.
I suggest that any modern day translation of Der Hexenhammer, should have a footnote referring to Dr Winickoff and his accomplices.
A further thought: Perhaps this is a ploy to regain some of the advertising money lost by doctors in the past. In the 1940s, some doctors were successfully promoting the health benefits of menthol cigarettes, when Old Gold overcame the doctors with Have a treat instead of a treatment. Perhaps Dr. Winickoffs announcement is a precursor to what he is really planning. I can see him now, on bill-boards across America: Its aroma is glorious and intoxicatingly sweet. Your nose isnt lying! Smoke a Hav-a-Tampa! Its the cigar your nose knows is safe.
As a sometimes struggling ex-smoker, I need all the support I can get to reinforce my decision to quit. Thank you for your dedication to the scientific process that continues to build our knowledge of health-related issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA quick glance at the many comments here provides an excellent illustration of the need for science literacy in our society. I deeply appreciate the more objective knowledge arising from the peer-review scientific literature. While scientists (like other members of our society) do have to deal with their own biases, the scientific process allows for self-correction and cumulative progress. I find it sobering to see comments presented here in the response section that so well illustrate a 1620 caution written by Francis Bacon: "For what a man would rather were true, he more readily believes." As an educator, I feel an urgent need to teach students how to think logically on their own... reducing the influence of the wide range of factors that typically lead people to erroneous conclusions. It behooves each of us to keep an open mind on third-hand smoke and to look forward to future research results on this issue.
I recently got a wood dresser and it smells like smoke. I'm not sure if I should just try to get rid of it because their will always be trace amounts of toxins in it or if I should try to neutralize it using various techniques. If it airs out for long enough/is scrubbed hard enough would it be ok? Or maybe if I take the finish off and then refinish it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone out there knows the REAL dangers from first hand and second hand smoke, but really, third hand smoke? I want to see the research. This article is more opinion based rather than factual based. Give me the meat of this research. We clean our homes with chemicals, wash our clothes with chemicals, drink and eat chemicals all approved by the FDA. How many medications did they approve and then say oops sorry not really good for you, after people have been taking them for years? Remember Vioxx? By the way I am a non-smoker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all know the REAL dangers from first and second hand smoke, but really third hand smoke? I want to see the research on this subject, not just some contradicting opinion. We clean our homes with chemicals, wash our clothes in chemicals, eat and drink chemical laced products, all approved by the FDA. How many medications were considered safe and then oops, not so good for you now? Remember Vioxx? Give me real research based information not just someones opinion on the subject.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscynthia86 you would think that second hand smoke would cause all of the Asama problems but environmental hazards do cause a lot of the Asama problems. we have a brand new ethanol plant when it went on line our ER got hit with a lot of the problems you say are caused by second hand smoke. there were a few hundred new plants that went on line. i got the ho crud from my doctor because i smoke. he never even thought of the environmental changes here in town causing all his problems. the stench from that plant goes for 60 miles. yes we can tell if the wind is coming from the west because the hole town smells like some one barfed up a ton of corn in a bar.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisits not even a yeast they use to get the alcohole out of. the plant will not tell any one what it is. they also have there own fire department because of the chems they use to get the ethanol our are more flammable than the ethanol. makes one wonder what the heck there doing and using. i do know the stables near the plant was moved because the horses were growing mold on there backs. the cows near by were getting sores.
so how , ware and when did the CDC test there stuff. because the air we breath is bad. if you still don't think so. check out the carbon collection on the diesel trucks there coming up with.
Chantix to stop smoking cost $150 for 4 weeks. cheaper if you have a mental problem. its only 60 bucks.
Have studies on smoker's breath been done to measure carcinogenic substances that they exhale after having smoked? I find that my sinuses clog up when around my fiance, who never smokes around me but comes inside as soon as the cigarette is out. I am a cancer survivor (breast) and both parents died of lung cancer. I am sure that the lungs must still emit some of the carcinogens even after smoking has stopped. Who has research on this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI work at a bar where they smoke cigars and ciggs. i dont personally smoke but I do come home to my 18 month old reeking of the smoke. Is there anything I can do to protect her from the toxins.? Would showering the moment I come home (washing hair etc.) and putting clothes into bag in closet till I do laundry? would that get rid of the toxins or???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIF ANYONE DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THIRD HAND SMOKE EFFECTS YOU TRY GETTING INTO A TAXI THAT HAS BEEN SMOKED IN FOR TWELVE HOURS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI used to be a smoker and quit cold turkey the day i found out i was pregnant. so from both sides of the fence i think i can say gross. my daughter two and a half goes to visit her grandmother who doesn't smoke a few hrs before she comes over, yay rahhh, and smells nasty when she returns home. this doesn' t happen that often thank god, but you can smell the womens house before she opens the door. i cleaned off the high chair ones, that appeared to be clean, and the paper towel was tinted yellow. gross. stop making excuses for why it isn't bad. it's horible...i could walk into the house and only be there for five minutes and my throat starts to hurt and i stink to high hell...ewwwwwww
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby making excuses you are agreeing that it isn' t a big deal. i was a smoker and quit cold turkey the day i found out i was pregnant. my daughter is two and a half and goes to see her grandmother sometimes and comes home smelling horrible. i can go up that women's door and smell it before she even opens the door. yuck... i can walk in talk for five minutes and have a soar throat for two days and have to go home and change my clothes because i stink... yeah it's not bad at all... and this is after she has not smoked inside for a few hrs before we come, yay.....i one time cleaned the high chair that appeared to be clean and the paper towel was tinted yellow....that's healthy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi applied twice i now see that...someone will make fun off it i'm sure instead of staying on the real topic.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is rediculous, I read the "study" and it's nothing more than a telephone survey of 1,500 people. This is not scientific research and I'm embarrassed by the number of reputable sources implying that it is. Please, let's stop scaring people with junk science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStinky does not equal "toxic" or "dangerous". By your logic, should we ban limburger cheese?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI work in a small ofice with two smokers. Every time they come in from smoking I start to cough(I have astma/allergies), my HR person(a smoker) says she does not believe the smell of smoke can cause this reaction. Please help me with data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, third hand smoke does exist!!! i have my parents staying with me from out of town for the holidays who have been chain smokers their whole lives. i forbid smoking in my home due to mine and my sons allergies/asthma. they are not smoking inside my house and the doors are closed when they are outside smoking. after only having them here two days, i can already smell and "feel" the toxins in the air just from them bringing it in on their "person"! they are staying in my bedroom (big mistake) and it wreaks of smoke just from their clothes, luggage, etc. my face feels like it is burning, my eye will not stop twitching, i have a ear-ache and i have been coughing non-stop! it even smells in the upstairs of the house where they don't even go! it's disgusting and now i am afraid that i won't be able to get the smell out of my bedroom and it will linger in the air of the whole house. this is a house that has never been smoked in (is only 5 years old, i am first owner) and it has only been 2 days since their arrival. so, imagine what it will be like after a week! there is definately a danger to third-hand smoke!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same happened with second hand smoking a few decades ago. My wife could and can detect smokers-who are not smoking at that time-very adequately. Why ? Because nicotine was infiltrating their clothing and skin and hair. She is allergic to nicotine and gets headache ASAP. We need more studies on the matter. I suspect the ill effects is there but a lesser degree comparing with first and second hand smoking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting...I tend to agree with the concept of third hand smoke. From my observations I would like to see a study regarding medical personnel that smoke and then have direct contact with the patient. I see people at work all the time that violate the "sterile" concept by going outside to smoke and then they return to the operating room area in the very same scrubs that they were wearing outside the hospital while they were smoking, yuk. The same person that is standing over you while you are cut wide open has these same carcinogens all over their body, clothes and this stuff is dropping into your body. I bet this is going on everywhere...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe next danger on the horizon will be 4th hand smoke. This is smoke you look at from a distance that may cause cancer of the eyes. Enough already! I think fast food and obesity is a larger problem in America, smokers are already outlaws in society as it is. Open your eyes people (unless you've been afflicted by 4th hand smoke), basic rights are being whittled away. (I am a non-smoker by the way). Where will it end?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read on another "credible" News Site the list of toxins included in "third-hand smoke". It includes of all things "Polonium-210". My real question is who put the Polonium in my cigarette, or exposed my cigarette to Uranium to create the Polonium? If all the things they say is actually in this smoking residue, we are going to need a much bigger Super Fund for Toxic Waste cleanup.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is junk science, clear and simple. The ONLY way those tiny residues from tobacco smoke could be dangerous, is if they were mixed with Nitrous acid. This is not likely to happen in anyone's home or car. The amounts found in the study were miniscule--measured in the billionth of a gram.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe POINT of the study (other than to pay Dr. Hugo Destaillats the $704,901.00 he was awarded by California's tobacco tax research fund) is to villify SMOKERS. The person who smokes is himself/herself toxic. Their very presence around non-smokers endangers the public. This study intends to turn smokers into pariahs, who must be shunned until they try to quit by buying all of the products the pharmaceutical companies are pushing to "help" them.
Has anyone besides me noticed that even as smoking rates have dropped considerably (and 2nd and 3rd hand smoke exposure as well) that cancer rates are still rising?
Garlic is very strong-smelling but is not dangerous when inhaled and even has a beneficial effect when eaten. Carbon Monoxide is both colorless and odorless, but highly deadly. Common sense tells us that nothing is toxic if found in a less than toxic dose. Even oxygen and water are toxic in too high a dose. The amounts of potentially carcinogenic material formed by traces of tobacco interacting with the fumes from your gas stove or furnace, or dilute car exhaust are so minute to be barely detectable with the best scientific instruments we have. If you look at how this study was conducted, nicotine concentrations 15 times higher than were found in the most polluted real-life surface they could find (the inside of the unwashed glovebox of the cab of a truck belonging to a longtime heavy smoker) were sprayed on the sample material, and then nitrous acid was applied. This was the only way the researchers could come up with a newsworthy finding of over 20 ngcm-2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut who sprays pure nicotine solutions on their clothes or rugs? And then who follows up with spraying nitrous acid on top of that? Was this study subject to any peer-review? I'm a substitute teacher, and I can't find any science in this "scientific" study.
Okay, obviously I like anyone else can only say by personal experience. I would in no way claim to "Know" the answer to this question for everyone. The only thing I personally can say as an asthmatic who is allergic to cigarette smoke is that I do not get AS sick from "third hand" smoke as I do from second smoke I have stopped breathing when someone blew smoke in my face but never by standing by someone who smokes. However, It does still cause severe headaches and makes it difficult to breathe to the point of needing to move away and using my inhaler or risk vomiting from coughing so violently (someone has to get extremely close to me having recently lit up for it to be this bad or I would have to walk in the home of a heavy smoker for example my mother-in-law's home). My daughter has not been diagnosed with asthma (although I believe it is likely she is affected by it) When she visits her grandma's house with her dad (he says his mom doesn't smoke while they are there) she comes home stinking so bad of it it makes me gag and I can't touch her until she gets a bath, at the same time her eyes will be bloodshot she coughs and has no energy while it is on her and usually won't do much but lay down for the rest of the day after being over there. Her cheeks get very red like mine do when I have trouble breathing not to mention the wheezing. Again, this is not to say everyone will be affected by it all I can say is that as someone with asthma and an allergy to it I myself and my daughter though in different levels are affected by it. It is possible that these obvious health issues could be unique to our circumstances and those with similar ones. I wouldn't assume everyone is affected until I was given proof but I know at least two people do suffer health problems from it. I personally would be happy if cigarettes didn't exist, but I have no right to tell anyone they can't have one if they want it. I will not allow smoking in my home or vehicles but anywhere else you should have the freedom to smoke and I should be free to walk away if I don't like it, as simple as that in my opinion, I've learned how to situate myself far enough away and upwind during outdoor conversations with a smoker and if I can do it and survive so can anyone else (obviously I would get my daughter away but that is where my right ends I think). Anyway enough rambling hopefully I explained myself well enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThird Hand smoking is not the biggest problem we have right now. So stop worrying about this small problem...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou just got to love the ignorance people have. Keeping their heads stuck in the sand. Nothing and I mean nothing about cigarettes is good period! No one can argue that! Any and every aspect of cigarettes and smoking cigarettes is harmful on every level. And for those "non-smokers" who disagree with research findings either have a significant other as a smoker or family/family members that smoke cigarettes. Wake up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI visited a neighbor who smokes, but was not smoking at the time of my visit. When I left the house my clothes and hair smelled really bad. A friend of mine laughed and said I smelled bad. I took a shower, changed clothes and felt/smelled better. Frankly I was surprised how the odor from just being in the house stuck to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy husband's allergy/asthma doctor said to stay away from "third hand smoke" even if he doesn't "smell" it. He has almost no sense of smell since sinus surgery. It will trigger an asthma attack. I have seen it. Sort of like he can't "see" pollen in the air or "smell" it, but he sure reacts to it.
Side note--his caregiver smokes and my husband has asthma and sinus issues within minutes the caregiver comes into the house. He couldn't figure it out. The doctor says it's from the third hand smoke on the caregiver's clothes and we need to address the issue.
I'm not on a "soap box" but telling our experiences.
Cigarette smoke is cigarette smoke. What does it matter if it's 1st-hand, 2nd-hand, 3rd-hand, 7th-hand? It's there and I can smell it. When one of my coworkers come back from smoking break, I start to experience respiratory irritation, coughing, sinus headache. The headache can last for hours after I leave the office. I'm mildly chemically sensitive (some of you will say, tough luck!) and also experience same symptoms from inhaling strong perfumes and liquid marker pens. This is a truly difficult problem. Those smelly smokers are nice people and I acknowledge people's right to smoke, but I also have the right not to suffer. I don't understand the logic that because harmful chemicals are everywhere then we shouldn't worry about cigarettes. I'm well aware that we're exposed to many toxic chemicals from everyday life (www.ewg.org/sites/humantoxome), therefore I make every effort to minimize my chemical body burden, like only consume products/food that are natural/organic. But in a workplace I have no choice. Many people also don't seem to understand the concept of the precautionary principle, and science itself. They falsely believe that science is capable of proving everything. To 100% prove (not sure what this means but is what chemical industries want) that a chemical will cause a certain disease like cancer (which has complex causes and can take decades to develop), in human, is virtually impossible. When the stake is our life and our health, we should ask ourselves this: "Is it worth taking the risk?". It's difficult for me to understand why people choose to smoke. I guess it's because they don't believe in the decades of research and studies linking smoking to many life-threatening diseases. Or maybe any evidence is irrelevant, people will always find a way to justify what they want and are legally entitled to do. We live in a society of the "Self", and people will always put their own right and freedom above others' well-being, even if it means putting other people's lives at risk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a know fact that cigarette smoke contains toxic chemicals. If I can smell it, I'm exposed to those chemicals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 450-year old believe "The dose makes the poison" has recently been proven wrong, especially with endocrine-disrupting chemicals (www.ourstolenfuture.org). Also, when a chemical is bio-accumulative (eg. heavy metals, organo-pesticides), how much is in a single dose becomes meaningless, and overtime our body can store up significant mounts of toxins, as proven in many body burden studies (www.ewg.org/sites/humantoxome). We're exposed to a great number of toxic chemicals over our life time, which is one of the reasons why cancer is so common. Chemicals from tobacco smoke are only a small part, but they are most easily avoidable because it is totally non-essential and everyone can choose not to smoke and not to be enslaved by tobacco corporations.
Why don't you tell that to the tiny infant who snuggles up next to his mother tar and chemical saturated clothes day after day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe tax dollars "we" receive are minute in comparison to the health care costs that we all ultimately share in caring for the chronic health problems of smokers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have chemical sensitivities. I find that the breath of people who smoke organic tobacco has a noxious effect on me. I want to run. I recoil from it. I wonder if anyone has done studies analyzing what the effects are on people who are smoking organic tobacco.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason they haven't been able to prove that anyone has become ill or suffered any bad consequence from third hand smoke is that researchers haven't been able to study third hand smoke away from second hand smoke. It's reasonable to assume that where there's first and second hand smoke, there's third hand, right? The chemicals emitted from this smoke are not just in the smoke; they transfer to surfaces. If it was just "smoke," then we wouldn't have to worry about smoking cigarettes - the magic smoke would move right in and then out of our lungs, leaving no traces of tar! As for the assertion that we are inheriting bad genes from our forebears, since they ingested and inhaled countless toxins, I'd like to remind you that the damage caused by tobacco smoke and its constituents are mutations in our cells. Most of us are born with healthy, normal cells, and we can't and don't inherit this. Let's be honest, people. Smoking is a nasty, stupid and expensive habit. I should know; I quit about six months ago. It's not easy, but with the information available to us now, it's a no-brainer. I do agree with the one guy about the taxes, but really, is it worth your life? Driving on a freshly paved road paid for by tobacco tax money won't mean diddly if you're dead!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi think, this is a good article. Some doctors also i think approved to 3rd hand smoke because it is being aired to televisions that it greatly post a threat to infants for them to have pneumonia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably people think this is something forged to attack cigarette companies and gain profit but to think of it, this just gives you the idea that your not just killing yourself but also others especially your own kids(if you have one). Some people here are very "broad minded as they think they are" but in reality, they only count how much profit they make.
We have our choices, either to be the solution or to be the problem.
As a smoker, I can't stand the petty whining I hear daily about getting too near a smoker on the sidewalk and how it will hurt them to catch a whiff of smoke, etc. etc. I think to myself, 'oh brother, how do you make it through a day in this world.!?' However, this is the only article I've read that actually makes me think about quitting, for my newborn grandchild's sake. I figure that if I smoke outside only, and wash my hands before I hold her, all is well. But maybe not.... good article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sick from thirdhand smoke. I didn't have any breathing problems until I moved into this apartment. The previous renter was a chain smoker. The ceiling is yellow from nicotine. The landlord refuses to paint and said it was closed up for three months and just needed airing out. The first morning I woke up with a heavy weight on my chest. I'd been coughing up horrid yellow/brown phlem for the first 4 months. All my money and resources went to moving in and now can't afford to move out. The doctor said I was having an "allergic reaction" to cigarette smoke. No one recognized my voice, it became rough with a constant scratchy through with white spots in the back and sides of my mouth. Another doctor said I must just be sensitive. Six months later, I had taped windows and doors with blue painters tape so not smoke from outside would further irritate my throat. For three months the adjoining apartment was vacant. I removed the tapeand was breathing ok for awhile. I'm writing this because I have a permantent throat condition brought on by thirdhand smoke and because the landlady has just rented the vacant apartment next to me to a chain-smoker who is allergic to the plants near her apartment (in the same comples as mine).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThird hand smoke....this gets more bizarre every year. I guess when the grant money runs out on this "study", they can coin fourth hand smoke or maybe sexually tranmitted smoke. With all the grant money the U.S. dishes out for BS science, we could pay off the national debt!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy young niece was rushed to Hospital last night suffering a serious Asthma attack.The Doctor Said it was bought on by third hand smoke - smoke particles from the clothing/furnishings of a relative whose house she had been visiting...my house.I never smoke near her- I believe that what the Dr says is true.I'm ashamed that I had to see her so ill before I was motivated to give up smoking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd have more sympathy for asthmatics if they at least gave up wheat (completely - not just "cut down"). The symptoms described by asthmatics as being attributed to smoke (first, second or third-hand) are exactly what wheat will do to you. Wheat is not essential - let's "ban it" before the asthma epidemic gets even worse. Seems to me, from you a lot of you here are saying, that to give your kid wheat is akin to child abuse (will give same symptoms as described for 'smoke intolerance'). Remove mild from the diet too and no more mucus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Allergic reactions to wheat happen shortly (a few minutes to a number of hours) after exposure or intake of wheat and wheat-related goods. Wheat allergy is most commonly manifested via the skin (such as in angioderma, urticaria and eczema), the respiratory system (via allergic rhinitis or asthma attacks), or the gastrointestinal system (such as in vomiting and nausea, oral allergic reactions and cramps in the abdomen). Other wheat components also help aggravate adverse allergic reactions to other particles.
Wheat allergy causes the same sudden onset symptoms caused by other allergens - coughing, asthma, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hives, rashes etc.
However the symptoms for Wheat Intolerance are much more varied and usually have a delayed onset - up to 2 or 3 days later. This is why they are traditionally difficult for doctors to diagnose. They can be:
# Gastro-intestinal (stomach bloating and cramping, diarrhea, flatulence, constipation etc.)
# Neurological: headache, memory loss, behavioural difficulties, depression
# Immune: poor resistance to infection, mouth ulcers, arthritis
# Skin rashes, eczema, psoriasis, itching flaky skin
# General: food cravings, tiredness, chronic fatigue, unwell feeling
So STOP blaming it ALL on nicotine and give up the WHEAT and you will notice an extreme improvement to your health.
I think nanna was giving little Johnny a glass of milk before handing him back (child abuse!). Nothing to do with imaginary boogie-men.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In all respiratory conditions, mucous-forming dairy foods, such as milk and cheese, can exacerbate clogging of the lungs and should be avoided," writes Professor Gary Null in his Complete Encyclopedia of Natural Healing.
A prime consideration for those with asthma should be the identification and elimination of allergens in foods and in the environment. Although any food is suspect, the ones most likely to trigger asthma are dairy products, eggs, chocolate, wheat, corn, citrus fruits, and fish. … In all respiratory conditions, mucous-forming dairy foods, such as milk and cheese, can exacerbate clogging of the lungs and should be avoided."
A number of allergic and environmental agents can precipitate asthma attacks, including pollen, dust, mold, animal dander, feathers, textiles such as cotton and flax, detergents, petrochemicals, air pollution, and smoke. According to James Braly, M.D., of Hollywood, Florida, wheat, milk, and eggs are among the most likely foods that will trigger an asthma attack.
There's evidence that embracing vegetables totally and giving up all animal products helps relieve asthma. In a study of twenty-five patients, 71 percent improved after four months without meat and daily foods; after a year, 92 percent had improved! That meant no meat, fish, eggs or dairy products. Why did it work? Doctors say maybe because the diet deprived patients of possible allergens—agents in food that could trigger asthma.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/010443.html#ixzz1CJ3jPs66
Ok, so with this information, I expect all you asthma sufferers out there to head this advice and go vegetarian (in fact, should we outright ban wheat, milk and eggs since it is causing all this asthma - you know, like you would have done with smoking?) - otherwise, if you're not prepared to take your OWN health in your OWN hands, why should I restrict MY lifestyle since you are not prepared to help yourself?
And then there's this little gem, for those of you who believe "there is NOTHING good about nicotine".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.jimmunol.org/content/180/11/7655.abstract
Allergic asthma, an inflammatory disease characterized by the infiltration and activation of various leukocytes, the production of Th2 cytokines and leukotrienes, and atopy, also affects the function of other cell types, causing goblet cell hyperplasia/hypertrophy, increased mucus production/secretion, and airway hyperreactivity. Eosinophilic inflammation is a characteristic feature of human asthma, and recent evidence suggests that eosinophils also play a critical role in T cell trafficking in animal models of asthma. Nicotine is an anti-inflammatory, but the association between smoking and asthma is highly contentious and some report that smoking cessation increases the risk of asthma in ex-smokers. To ascertain the effects of nicotine on allergy/asthma, Brown Norway rats were treated with nicotine and sensitized and challenged with allergens. The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung. Although nicotine did not significantly affect hexosaminidase release, IgG, or methacholine-induced airway resistance, it significantly decreased mucus content in bronchoalveolar lavage. These results suggest that nicotine modulates allergy/asthma primarily by suppressing eosinophil trafficking and suppressing Th2 cytokine/chemokine responses without reducing goblet cell metaplasia or mucous production and may explain the lower risk of allergic diseases in smokers. To our knowledge this is the first direct evidence that nicotine modulates allergic responses.
--------------------------------------------------
The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.
“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
THAT'S the REAL science folks.
Hogwash - that is just your belief, from years of brainwashing. There are many positives to tobacco: stress relief (stress can kill you, you know), controls bronchial spasms, is an anti-inflamatory, is enjoyable, and actually reduces the chance of getting asthma (I know your brain will NOT be able to process that information), so read the research here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.jimmunol.org/content/180/11/7655.abstract
“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nicotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.
Actually, the concept of third hand smoke explains some facts that always seemed puzzling. Children of smokers have more respiratory illness, even if the parents never smoke in the same room as the children, and even smoke outside rather than in the house. Some of the concepts describe the concept as "junk science," but if it is true that such children have the same respiratory effects as children of parents who smoke in their presence, it isn't "junk" at all, but a logical explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have a smoking mother in our home (she and our granddaughter live with us.) She always smokes outside, and thinks she is doing the right thing because she washes her hands and gargles, but if she could smell the sickening smell of her hair, as I can, she might understand that she is still harming the baby.
Didn't you read the above post? Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have LOWER odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think they have more respiratory illness, maybe it's because they are continually catching colds from their parents having to stand outside in the cold.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/1/e1/reply
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTobacco smoke also contains ultra-fine particles. Other sources of ultra-fine particles (UFPs) include "laser printers, fax machines, photocopiers, the peeling of citrus fruits, cooking, penetration of contaminated outdoor air, chimney cracks and vacuum cleaners."[8] Wallace and Ott's data on concentrations of UFPs in restaurants and cars found "cooking on gas or electric stoves and electric toaster ovens was a major source of UFP, with peak personal exposures often exceeding 100,000 particles/cm3 .... Other common sources of high UFP exposures [in restaurants] were cigarettes, a vented gas clothes dryer, an air popcorn popper, candles, an electric mixer, a toaster, a hair dryer, a curling iron, and a steam iron."[9]
So what's really the "Smoking Gun" here?
Just wanted to add my 2 cents, there have been studies showing that the residue left behind from smoke in the air that settles into fabrics can create more(different) cancer causing molecules.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight on Maam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey Howard I want to tell you that while I only heard the tital 3rd hand smoke today for the first time I have suffered from it for most of my 55 years of life. I am glad that someone has found what I have been complaining about most of my life. when in a smoke free environment wherein no smoke has ever entered my limited breathing issue is not a real issue unless I am asleep. when a smoker has been in a room within a week of my entering I get sick. I have had attacks in elevators or in lines to the grocery teller etc all from third hand smoke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnot tobacco but cigarettes tobacco is no worst then smoking grass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight on! It is nice to finally hear someone sticking up for children who don't have a voice as to whether they want to breathe in cigarette smoke or not. Being a parent myself, I cannot imagine purposely putting my child in a situation where she could be in danger. If there is evidence that smoking is harmful(and we know that it is), whether it be first, second, or third-hand why would anyone put their child into that situation anyway? As parents we make decisions for our children because they cannot make them on their own. Sometimes I wonder if the child would choose to be inhaling the cigarette smoking that was being blown on them while sitting in the back seat of their parents vehicle. Isn't it our job as a parent to do our best to protect our children no matter what? If that is the case why even take a chance on them being affected by the second and third-hand smoke? Second and third-hand smoke isn't fair. Our children shouldn't be put in harm's way just because of our nasty little habbit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, I smoke, I have a granddaughter and lastly my home is clean. Floors are washed and cleaned at least once a week, most times more often. Walls are washed down monthly. So tell me oh wonder Doc, how much 3-hand smoke my GD is getting visiting? Want to bet NONE?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just another 'righteous zealot' out to make a name and get an article printed. Remember Al Gore everyone - another lier whose pronouncement are turning out to be self-serving.
Any studies run by this guy will be in the realm of worst case scenario's and a control group that done in a sterile room.
When are people going to learn to read between the lines and stop following like sheep just because someone says he's a 'Doc store":(deliberate misspelling for those who follow the lemmings). Look to your fire place! Do you know that while there may be 250 poisonous toxins in a cig, there are over 500+ in your fireplace, maybe more if you burn soft woods like pine. Those started logs contain tar or flamable fluids, newspapers with all the ink (god knows what's in ink). Pine contains tar. Tar that is far heavier than the tar in cigs and I'll bet that he's never even thought of that! So, all your 3rd hand-smoke freaked-out people - don't let your kids/grandchild/neighbors in the house when the fireplace is buring. You're putting yourself up for a law suit!
Ok, I smoke, I have a granddaughter and lastly my home is clean. Floors are washed and cleaned at least once a week, most times more often. Walls are washed down monthly. So tell me oh wonder Doc, how much 3-hand smoke my GD is getting visiting? Want to bet NONE?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just another 'righteous zealot' out to make a name and get an article printed. Remember Al Gore everyone - another lier whose pronouncement are turning out to be self-serving.
Any studies run by this guy will be in the realm of worst case scenario's and a control group that done in a sterile room.
When are people going to learn to read between the lines and stop following like sheep just because someone says he's a 'Doc store":(deliberate misspelling for those who follow the lemmings). Look to your fire place! Do you know that while there may be 250 poisonous toxins in a cig, there are over 500+ in your fireplace, maybe more if you burn soft woods like pine. Those started logs contain tar or flamable fluids, newspapers with all the ink (god knows what's in ink). Pine contains tar. Tar that is far heavier than the tar in cigs and I'll bet that he's never even thought of that! So, all your 3rd hand-smoke freaked-out people - don't let your kids/grandchild/neighbors in the house when the fireplace is buring. You're putting yourself up for a law suit!
I once held your publication in high regard. Now I must ask, since when does having an opinion qualify one as an expert? Since when does an OpEd qualify as science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you could change your title to 'American Politically Correct Junk Science'.
i'm tired of the excuses and justification from smokers and nonsmokers. let's forget about taxation, research and propaganda for a minute. smokers smell bad, that's a fact no one can deny.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a great article! The reality of the danger of cigarettes seems to increase everyday. As an auto-detailer I am exposed to third hand smoke all the time. Luckily, my job is to remove it. If you hate it as much as I do there is a product that you can buy to take third hand smoke odor out of your car. It's call Auto Shocker. It really works and the smell never comes back, we use it at the shop all the time. It's like a fumigation bomb, but for smells. Check it out at http://www.biocidesystems.com/auto3hslanding.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew York Law School's blog "Legal as She is Spoke" recently published a story that analyzes how Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital's ban on third-hand smoke could clash with Louisiana's law that protects smokers' rights. Take a look:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.lasisblog.com/2011/11/29/and-now-there’s-third-hand-smoke/
If you enjoy the piece, leave a comment or "like" us on Facebook!
Cigarette smoke is blamed for a lot of things...because it's BAD FOR YOU AND EVERYONE AROUND YOU. Yes we do breathe more fumes from vehicle exhaust than from cigarettes...the difference being you can't drive a cigarette to work, you can't load your cigarette down with groceries at the store, you can't pick up your children from soccer practice in your cigarette. I smoked for 12 years and quit when my son was born, out of concern for his health. By the way...I don't think they put formaldehyde, arsenic, or cyanide, lead and God knows what else in gasoline. The point is, if you want to smoke...fine, but should people and more importantly children who don't want/need to be around it shouldn't be. Failing to realize these facts on your own prove the part of the article about "diminished IQ". Nobody is trying to make you quit smoking...just don't smoke around non-smokers. Thanks
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what you use in you cars?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEffects on Humans: Chlorine dioxide is a severe respiratory and eye irritant in humans. Inhalation can produce coughing, wheezing, respiratory distress, and congestion in the lungs [Patnaik 1992]. Irritating effects in humans was intense at concentration levels of 5 ppm. Accidental exposure at 19 ppm of the gas inside a bleach tank resulted in the death of one worker (time of exposure is not specified) [ACGIH 1991]. Workers exposed for 5 years to average chlorine dioxide concentrations below 0.1 ppm but with excursions to higher concentrations had symptoms of eye and throat irritation, nasal discharge, cough, and wheezing; on bronchoscopy, bronchitis was observed in seven of the 12 workers [Clayton and Clayton 1982]. Concentrations of 0.25 ppm and less have been reported to worsen mild respiratory ailments [ACGIH 1991].
Acute exposure: Acute exposure to chlorine dioxide results in irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat; cough; wheezing; shortness of breath; bronchitis; pulmonary edema; headache; and vomiting [Genium Chronic exposure: Chronic exposure to chlorine dioxide may cause chronic bronchitis and emphysema [Sittig 1991].
If chlorine dioxide contacts the skin, workers should immediately wash the affected areas with soap and water.
Clothing contaminated with chlorine dioxide should be removed immediately, and provisions should be made for the safe removal of the chemical from the clothing. Persons laundering the clothes should be informed of the hazardous properties of chlorine dioxide, particularly its potential for causing severe irritation.
A worker who handles chlorine dioxide should thoroughly wash hands, forearms, and face with soap and water before eating, using tobacco products, using toilet facilities, applying cosmetics, or taking medication.
Workers should not eat, drink, use tobacco products, apply cosmetics, or take medication in areas where chlorine dioxide or a solution containing chlorine dioxide is handled, processed, or stored.
Id rather smell the ciggy smoke than this, sounds a bit daft replacing one toxin with another possibly worse one. Misses the point entirely
i mean u soak your car interior for 24 hrs with chlorine dioxide. it must penetrate every little fibre in the vehicle,, ok thanks im going outside for a ciggy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd first like to state how awful it is to read these comments of people complaining without realizing what this study is doing (providing framework for future studies). I wish people wouldn't be so outrageously defensive, but again, I'm asking too much of simple minded people. Anyway, as a non-smoker, I understand that people have a right to smoke outside and in their own homes/apartments/etc. However, when you smoke around a pack a day, non-smokers can smell you (literally) immediately or know that a smoker has been there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me, I can tell you that second hand/third hand smoke affects me greatly. I have asthma and it is significantly triggered by certain smells, including smoke. I'm sure others with certain medical conditions can say the same. It's disheartening that people are so immensely full of themselves and forget that other people are allowed to live around them, too.
The poor me mentality doesn't help in this situation. Denial is always someone's first coping mechanism when hearing information that goes against one's beliefs. When you're done feeling bad for yourself, maybe then you can re-read the article and say that this information is plausible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOkay, there is one major flaw with this entire article & that is assuming that the studies done to conclude that SECOND hand smoke was dangerous or toxic in the first place. Which was never conclusively determined in any study & the study that did go out that the surgeon general ran with was an intentionally short-sighted study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me ask you people this: Isn't it more reasonable to think that it is more likely that this is just a continuation of the war on smoking? Like, really.. it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the majority of the toxins in a cigarette are BURNT up after being smoked & that even if there is residue left over the chances that it would be harmful to anyone's health would have to be nil. I mean, come on!? Are you telling me that this poses more of a threat than air pollution? These organizations seriously have their priorities screwed up if you ask me & they just expect us to swallow anything they spoon feed us so all I ask is this: Critically think about such things before you jump to conclusions & perpetuate this foolishness.
Are you serious? Did you really just propose that the reason children of smokers may be chronically catching colds is probably because their parents were continually staying outside in the cold? Wow.. You do realize that colds are viruses right? That temperature has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are susceptible to said viruses, right? Okay , well if not I don't think you are qualified to comment on the efficacy of this study one way or the other though I'm a non-smoker & after critically considering the question posed, I think this study is utter bullshit propaganda because it's based off of already faulty ''science'' More like pseudo government science. The next time a government entity makes a claim & uses science to back it up, I would think about the veracity of said claim very hard as they are the same people that want Evolution taken out of science text books & for Christianity to be taught as fact, not to mention that they use their blind faith based beliefs to warrant these foolish and destructive ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not science. It's pseudo science nonsense. Take the time to develop a filter for yourself & it will aid you well not just in this endeavor but in your entire pursuit for objective truth.