A New Cigarette Hazard

Public//Enemy

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
1,107
Parents who smoke often open a window or turn on a fan to clear the air for their children, but experts now have identified a related threat to children’s health that isn’t as easy to get rid of: third-hand smoke.

That’s the term being used to describe the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after second-hand smoke has cleared from a room. The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor.

Doctors from MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston coined the term “third-hand smoke” to describe these chemicals in a new study that focused on the risks they pose to infants and children. The study was published in this month’s issue of the journal Pediatrics.

“Everyone knows that second-hand smoke is bad, but they don’t know about this,” said Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

“When their kids are out of the house, they might smoke. Or they smoke in the car. Or they strap the kid in the car seat in the back and crack the window and smoke, and they think it’s okay because the second-hand smoke isn’t getting to their kids,” Dr. Winickoff continued. “We needed a term to describe these tobacco toxins that aren’t visible.”

Third-hand smoke is what one smells when a smoker gets in an elevator after going outside for a cigarette, he said, or in a hotel room where people were smoking. “Your nose isn’t lying,” he said. “The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: ’Get away.’”

The study reported on attitudes toward smoking in 1,500 households across the United States. It found that the vast majority of both smokers and nonsmokers were aware that second-hand smoke is harmful to children. 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.”

But far fewer of those surveyed were aware of the risks of third-hand smoke. Since the term is so new, the researchers asked people if they agreed with the statement that “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 agreed with that statement, which researchers interpreted as acknowledgement of the risks of third-hand smoke.

The belief that second-hand smoke harms children’s health was not independently associated with strict smoking bans in homes and cars, the researchers found. On the other hand, the belief that third-hand smoke was harmful greatly increased the likelihood the respondent also would enforce a strict smoking ban at home, Dr. Winickoff said.

“That tells us we’re onto an important new health message here,” he said. “What we heard in focus group after focus group was, ‘I turn on the fan and the smoke disappears.’ It made us realize how many people think about second-hand smoke — they’re telling us they know it’s bad but they’ve figured out a way to do it.”

The data was collected in a national random-digit-dial telephone survey done between September and November 2005. The sample was weighted by race and gender, based on census information.

Dr. Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who heads the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, said the phrase third-hand smoke is a brand-new term that has implications for behavior.

“The central message here is that simply closing the kitchen door to take a smoke is not protecting the kids from the effects of that smoke,” he said. “There are carcinogens in this third-hand smoke, and they are a cancer risk for anybody of any age who comes into contact with them.”

Among the substances in third-hand smoke are hydrogen cyanide, used in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid; toluene, found in paint thinners; arsenic; lead; carbon monoxide; and even polonium-210, the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. Eleven of the compounds are highly carcinogenic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?em

Seriously... Who actually gives a fuck.. are you really going to be sniffing some chicks hair in a lift long enough for anyone to give a shit?


and its heavy metals.. wouldnt they like.. get pulled down by gravity or something?

Correct me if im worng but the term heavy and metal would generally mean there affected by gravity ¬_¬

I mean cmon.. im sure the 500 million cars or whatever driving around the world will be affecting people in the antartic 1000 years from now but there not outlawing that ¬_¬

I dont smoke btw it just pisses me off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was trying to tell a bluelighter this very same thing about how the radioactive elements in cigarette smoke stay in walls and carpets long after the smoker puts out the cigarette, and can even mix with radon gas to increase lung cancer risk for nonsmokers, but they wanted to see a "source". It sounds silly and is undoubtedly annoying if you're a smoker, but this isn't some new made up story to scare people and make smokers look bad.
 
yeh im sure its is bad but i mean.. do people actually wake up in the morning thinking of news ways to elimate third hand smoke?

...People drive cars as a hoby.. one car im sure causes MUCH more damage to health than third hand smoke on your neighbours jumper when he walks threw a supermarket ¬_¬
 
Correct me if im worng but the term heavy and metal would generally mean there affected by gravity ¬_¬

Sort of an attribute or matter... However, you're talking about atomized heavy metals,which are certainly light enough to get blown around.

than third hand smoke on your neighbours jumper when he walks threw a supermarket ¬_¬

The point of this research wasn't that you might walk buy someone. It was that there were risks to raising kids in a home where the parents smoke, whether outdoors or indoors just when they're not home.

It's not a trivial matter. Look at the recent paper finding a 40% decrease in heart attacks over a three year period after smoking bans were initiated.

No one would have predicted such a major effect. Now, we do not have all the info about the matter, but its looking that we have very seriously UNDERESTIMATED the effects of second hand smoke.
 
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.


It's not a trivial matter. Look at the recent paper finding a 40% decrease in heart attacks over a three year period after smoking bans were initiated.

i bet it was faked like some other anti-smoker studies. it's not even logical in any way. smoking causes heart attacks because of artheriosclerosis which takes years to build. most people who suffer a heart attack are smokers anyway, so how would a smoking ban which does away with second hand smoke for non-smokers have a 40%(!!) reduction in heart attacks in three meager years? completely ridiculous!
 
Gimme a break!!

I would believe that it would take a VERY large amount of these atomized metals floating and other particles around to cause serious health risks, when other issues like child obesity and such would be a greater risk by far. And the child would be old enough(say 18yrs. estimated)to move out or escape the situation before a heath hazard is resulted from the length of exposure.
Also unless made illegal, and that still wouldn't resolve the problem, there is no possible way to avoid 100% of 3rd had smoke.
It is a bitch to be a smoker today, just another cop-out for health problems and government taxing...:\
 
8(

fucking FACEPALM x9000. This shits fucking ridiculous. so many of these studies are slanted from the start. There is much more worse shit for people to be worrying about.
 
i bet it was faked like some other anti-smoker studies. it's not even logical in any way. smoking causes heart attacks because of artheriosclerosis which takes years to build. most people who suffer a heart attack are smokers anyway, so how would a smoking ban which does away with second hand smoke for non-smokers have a 40%(!!) reduction in heart attacks in three meager years? completely ridiculous!

Well, since it's all based on publically available data, faking it would be very, very easy to catch. It's not as if it won't be double checked- this is the seventh study to indicate such reductions.

Why it would have major benefits is actually very easy to figure out. Smoking causes heart attacks because of all sorts of reasons, artheriosclerosis being the most serious, but by all means, not the only reason.

It scares me when people start disregarding science because it doesn't fit with their preconceived notions. It's just 1/2 a step from magical thinking.
 
The 40% drop in heart attack rates could have a lot of factors that have been introduced lately aswell though...
Like all the healthy eating and more exercise campaigns that have been flooding advertising and the like for the past couple of years.
I'm on the fence (as per usual lol) about this.
 
The 40% drop in heart attack rates could have a lot of factors that have been introduced lately aswell though...
Like all the healthy eating and more exercise campaigns that have been flooding advertising and the like for the past couple of years.
I'm on the fence (as per usual lol) about this.

Sure, but then they must only be working where the ban is implemented, as they're having no impact elsewhere.
 
This is preposterous. THIRD HAND SMOKE!????

One can barely find a place to smoke in the casino any more. It is difficult to go out and drink a beer and smoke a cigarette at the same time because they don't let you smoke in the bar and they don't let you drink the beer outside.

And, the university I recently attended is talking about banning smoking ANYWHERE on campus, even outdoor area not near the entrance to a building.

Third hand smoke... It just sounds ridiculous.
 
I hate the format of this thread. My OCD is getting the best of me. I don't like how the article isn't in the first thread by the OP!
 
This is preposterous. THIRD HAND SMOKE!????

One can barely find a place to smoke in the casino any more. It is difficult to go out and drink a beer and smoke a cigarette at the same time because they don't let you smoke in the bar and they don't let you drink the beer outside.

And, the university I recently attended is talking about banning smoking ANYWHERE on campus, even outdoor area not near the entrance to a building.

Third hand smoke... It just sounds ridiculous.

This is essentially the thinking of religious types. They start with a preconceived notion, if something comes along that doesn't agree with that notion, then it's preposterous.

It's the reason why they don't believe in evolution. They believe the bible is the one true word, all verifiable scientific evidence indicates that evolution in some form resulted us coming up out of lower primates. They don't like that idea, so it's just preposterous to them.

Most people, sadly, are not capable of being fully rational, or even mostly rational, especially in the face of ideas they don't like or agree with.
 
Well, since it's all based on publically available data, faking it would be very, very easy to catch. It's not as if it won't be double checked- this is the seventh study to indicate such reductions.
i don't believe that anymore when it comes to second hand smoke. the anti-smoking craze is getting out of hand. 3rd hand smoke is an example, the WHO suppressing their first study which shows no statistically significant correlation and the WHO's second infamous metastudy which leaves out a third of the data of the studies they use without specifying any criteria or reasons why they were left out. there's another one where they played around with the significance level (put it from 0.95 to 0.8 or something like that), so that they get "statistically significant" results showing the harmfulness of second hand smoke; i don't remember which study it was right now, but it exists. i am therefore extremely sceptical about any study that studies the harmful effects of second hand smoke.
Why it would have major benefits is actually very easy to figure out. Smoking causes heart attacks because of all sorts of reasons, artheriosclerosis being the most serious, but by all means, not the only reason.
maybe i am dumb but i cant think of any reason why a non-smoker exposed to second hand smoke in a bar should have a heart attack. nicotine constricts the arteries, but i find it very hard to believe that the minuscle amount of nicotine that floats around in the air of a place where people smoke has any measurable effect.
It scares me when people start disregarding science because it doesn't fit with their preconceived notions. It's just 1/2 a step from magical thinking.
i agree, but what scares me even more is "science" that is arranged to show exactly what the authors of the study had in mind and that people don't look at the info themselves and blindly believe what is written in the media (where a non-statistically-significant increase of 20% becomes a proven increase of 20%).

take a look here and here. though hardly neutral sites, they do have a point.


i have spent much time educating myself and looking through the original text of multiple studies, critically examining them, while trying to keep a neutral point of view and have come to the conclusion that the jury is still out on second hand smoke. it looks to me like there might be a correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer but the effect is so small (if it even exists) that even studies with tens of thousands of probands fail to produce statistical significant results.
if you did studies about the dangers of pork the same way studies are done about second hand smoke the finding would be about as severe...
 
Last edited:
I'll admit, the way they worded it (calling it "third-hand smoke") makes it SOUND pretty ridiculous, but the truth is that it's a well-known hazard that's fairly significant, especially for the extremely young, old or ill. People moving into apartments and such shouldn't have to worry about chemicals/radioactive materials/heavy metals in the walls, carpets, etc. I understand that smokers have rights, but so do non-smokers. If I'm paying rent, taxes, etc., I shouldn't have to be exposed to these toxins just because some smoker was too lazy to get up and go outside.

Homes where meth labs were previously run have been shown to be similarly toxic in that the hazardous materials stay in the home indefinitely. In other words, you can't clean it up, you must demolish it completely. Same with cigarette smoke chemicals: there's no way to get rid of them.

I know it sounds like paranoid, anti-smoker propaganda to many people (mostly smokers themselves), but to dispute the fact that these toxins remain and can pose a threat to people over time is just incorrect. It's been known for years and proven repeatedly...whether you consider it important is your business, but the fact still remains. I personally do consider it important, though I do think there are more immediate threats to my health in the form of PCBs, dioxin, perchlorate, fluoride in the water, mercury-contaminated vaccines/fish/air/water, and other environmental and dietary toxins.
 
Top