A New Cigarette Hazard

QuestionEverything said:
Because, you know, the chemicals that are already in the carpet, furniture, cosmetics, and personal grooming products people use and expose - gasp - their precious children to daily are all 100% safe and not linked to cancer at all . . .8(
Click to expand...

There's definitely a risk with carpet and furniture outgassing, but fortunately it's a short term problem. Also, today many carpets are treated with stain guards that stop outgassing to a large extent.

Cosmetics aren't an area I know a whole lot about, unfortunately, but yeah, considering the length of time they stay on the skin, they certainly seem risky.

There's also a seriously increased risk of breast cancer in women (stupidly) using prescription strength deoderants. When less than 2% of the population actually have need for such a product, it seems silly to have so many people using them without knowing about the cancer risk. How many women would really still be using them if they knew the truth about them?

1. Given the controversey over second hand smoke, as well as the belief that many have that the dangers of second hand smoke were overblown, I can understand why some people would have a strong and immediate negatvie reaction to "third-hand smoke."

2. That doesn't mean those people are scientologists or Mormons. By branding people as such you are being as close-minded as you claim the rest of us are.
Click to expand...

1. A belief based upon their refusal to actually read the studies? Lazy people coming to stupid conclusions based upon refusing to accept evidence they never even looked at. Yes, it is understand able.

2. Seriously, can you read? Did I say that they were these things? Not once. However, the style of thinking they- you- engage in is exactly the same as that engaged by the scientologists and mormons and other religious idiots.
 
Hammilton, apparently you think that saying the same thing over and over again is a good way of making your point.

I am accepting the fact that there is some risk associated with cigarette residue on things. I just do not agree that the risk is serious enough to warrant much action. Why do I need to read the study?

Are you telling me that I could say ANYTHING about ANYTHING and you would NEVER form an opinion until you read the studies that I want you to read?

People are allowed to form opinions based on existing knowledge about a topic. I hardly consider one study to be a comprehensive body of work on the topic at hand anyway. What if a study is released tomorrow that says third-hand smoke poses minimal hazards, at worst?

The studies will become relevant if and when the overwhelming majority of them state that SIGNIFICANT risks exist from third-hand smoke. Let me know when that happens please.
 
it's so sad it's almost funny. looks like tobacco is completely illegal in a few years. with fatty food and alcohol (ever smelled someone drunken's breath? second hand acohol! please think of the children!) soon to follow.
Click to expand...

is this meant to be serious? alcohol and tobacco are not going to be illegal any time soon. not only is alcohol legal, its use is promoted.
 
burn out said:
is this meant to be serious? alcohol and tobacco are not going to be illegal any time soon. not only is alcohol legal, its use is promoted.
Click to expand...

wait a few years. it will come.
first they take on tobacco, next will come a tax on fatty food (and higher health insurance rates for obese) then it's alcohol's turn. they'll start with higher taxes on alcohol, then go to banning drinking in the public, they'll start swinging the "puhlease! think of teh children!"-club again and ban drinking around minors (i.e. in your own home if you have children), ...
they did it with most other drugs, they're doing it with tobacco and alcohol will come later, but i predict still in our lifetimes.

it's the same principle used for thousands of years: divide et impera. single out a group that's smaller then the majority and give them disadvantages, make the majority feel superior and watch them quarrel. the 2 groups use their energy on each other and the people will not focus on the ones in power / the really important issues...

@hammilton
why not post links to these studies you're citing, so that we can look at them ourselves?
 
Fjones said:
Hammilton, apparently you think that saying the same thing over and over again is a good way of making your point.

I am accepting the fact that there is some risk associated with cigarette residue on things. I just do not agree that the risk is serious enough to warrant much action. Why do I need to read the study?

Are you telling me that I could say ANYTHING about ANYTHING and you would NEVER form an opinion until you read the studies that I want you to read?

People are allowed to form opinions based on existing knowledge about a topic. I hardly consider one study to be a comprehensive body of work on the topic at hand anyway. What if a study is released tomorrow that says third-hand smoke poses minimal hazards, at worst?

The studies will become relevant if and when the overwhelming majority of them state that SIGNIFICANT risks exist from third-hand smoke. Let me know when that happens please.
Click to expand...

Again, this is getting a little repetitive. You would need to read the studies on the subject (this one study has little to say on the subject, however, there are numerous studies it cites that directly address the risk).

You don't know this because you've never actually look into it. You don't know if the risk is minimal or not (it's not minimal, but it's certainly not as bad as smoking yourself) because you've never seen the data. Your ability to make decisions on the subject is quite obviously lacking- because you have no idea what the data actually says. You'd know that all of the available studies indicate that there are significant risks to children (probably not adults, though technically all levels are considered unacceptable). Not just some of them, all of them.

There, I let you know.

On an issue of scientific fact? Absolutely not. I realize you don't know anything about me, but no, I would not come to any conclusions about anything of this sort without consulting the actual papers themselves; though I understand 99% of you never get past the abstract, if you look at all.
 
I made an assumption here that might have been a bad noe.

I assumed that third hand is not as harmful as second hand smoke.

If that is a bad assumption then perhaps third hand smoke is more of a danger than I am considering it to be. I don't know. Is it really worse than various other environmental hazards, or the hazards present in our food supply?

Hammilton, here is the thing: I think people who have kids SHOULDN'T smoke, either in the house, in the car, or around the kids.

But I also think parents shouldn't give their kids junk food or McDOnalds food or let them drink sugary sodas and drinks. I don;t think parents should let the kids play video games all day or watch TV all day. I think parents should teach their kids about exercise and nutrition, because we know the schools aren't.

So, what do we do? Do we pass laws aimed at bad parenting? I don't really think that is feasible.
 
So, what do we do? Do we pass laws aimed at bad parenting? I don't really think that is feasible.
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with laws? It has to do with informing people of the risks they're exposing their children to. If people make bad choices, people make bad choices. I think there's already a punishment for bad parenting- it's the curse of having to deal with bad kids all your life.

I assumed that third hand is not as harmful as second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it is. You seem to have reached the conclusion that second hand smoke isn't that bad for you. The vast majority of the research has reached a different conclusion. This is the problem with not reading the actual research, and basing your understanding of scientific issues on science journalism- you only get the sensational or otherwise unexpected stories (ie: a study showing that second hand smoke poses negligible risks, but fails to in depth about what the study actually looked at, sample size, methods, etc). You don't see what the majority of research is finding.

But I also think parents shouldn't give their kids junk food or McDOnalds food or let them drink sugary sodas and drinks.
Click to expand...

Here's the difference: there's no acceptable level of exposure to many of these carcinogens; many are extremely potent, others cumulative. We know cellular damage is cumulative, mutations build up over time- and thus, long term exposure will heighten your risk of any sort of cancer.

This isn't the case with junk food and drinks, though. Yes, some people will develop food addictions; however, the majority can learn to eat these things in moderation.
 
How do you multi quote like that?

ok, regarding what you said: I don't know why I brought up laws, I guess I figured new smoking research was going to lead to more laws. I don't like the fact that people cannot smoke in a bar or in some cases, outdoor areas.

I did not reach the conclusion that second hand smoke is harmelss, just that the negative effects were overblown to some extent.

"This isn't the case with junk food and drinks, though. Yes, some people will develop food addictions; however, the majority can learn to eat these things in moderation. "

Being that the majority of people here in the U.S. are overweight and out of shape, I disagree with your statement that "the majority" of people eat these things in moderation.

I guess what I woudl like is come context. Saying "Third hand smoke poses risks" doesn't help me a whole lot. HOW much risk? Comapre this risk to other known rissk that society deems acceptable for whatever reason.

I am glad we are having more productive dialogue. Keep in mind, just because someone doesn't considering an issue important doesn;t mean he is close-minded.
 
"Some 95 percent of nonsmokers and 84 percent of smokers agreed with the statement that “inhaling smoke from a parent’s cigarette can harm the health of infants and children.”"

LOL

As if there is anyone alive in the civilised world who doesn't know that's true, of course it has the potential to harm health, what a completely meaningless statistic. But, as with everything in the media, this is being blown out of proportion completely. More demonising smokers while parents are allowed to have stupidly fat kids taking many years off their lives, of course that's not a problem, but going within 10 feet of a cigarette will kill them INSTANTLY. Poor diet and lack of exercise are worse for the health than smoking.

'Third hand smoke' - yeee sure. As if smelling cig smoke on someone's clothes is going to have any impact on your health, unless you sit there for years constantly sniffing it. Absolutely rediculous.
 
Ok I'm gonna call BS on this because the other day when I was talking with my 98 year old grandfather he mentioned that he grew up in tobacco smoke filled rooms and he never got cancer and today his health is just fine.
 
thatsbetter, you and I agree that third-hand smoke is not an important concern. But your reasoning is flawed. You are using an extreme form of the fallacy of small sample size; in this case, a "sample size" of one person.

In a world with 5 billion people, somethign that happened to ONE person cannot be used to disprove that something is harmful.
 
Wow, how did you come across this old thread? Through a search or something? Ancient.
 
If i click on "settings" in the control bar at the top of the page... It shows me every thread ive posted in that has new comments since ive last visited it... And also any that ive simply subscribed to that have new comments.
 
the toad said:
If i click on "settings" in the control bar at the top of the page... It shows me every thread ive posted in that has new comments since ive last visited it... And also any that ive simply subscribed to that have new comments.
Click to expand...

I want it to do that for me. All it shows me is the threads I'm subscribed to.
 
23536 said:
I want it to do that for me. All it shows me is the threads I'm subscribed to.
Click to expand...

Yeah all it shows me is that i'm subscribed to 0 threads and have 1 infraction notice from when i tried to contribute at that lounge place and got violated, err i mean a violation, which doesn't expire for a yr.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top