Watch out for Third-hand Smoke

[Sauer Grapes]

http://health.yahoo.com/news/afp/healthustobacco_20100209102313.html

This is getting ridiculous.

[silentjon]

Just watch out for fourth hand smoke.

[csbrewfisher]

Saw this. What crap.

[SmokeyJoe]

Just watch out for fourth hand smoke.

Guess they will have to put me on "Double Secret Probation." :rolleyes:

Wow...

[akumushi]

If you have a young baby at home, this actually does matter, so it's advisable to change your clothes and wash up after a smoke before being around the baby. There's also been studies linking this kind of third hand exposure to SIDS. Beyond that, I agree that people are going to far. I don't think an adult should worry about that little of a residue. I'm sure filling up your tank at the gas station exposes you to more carcinogens than this.

[Aldebaran]

Soon it will be an entire octopus of smoke and no one will be safe. It is ridiculous how much people worry about it, but saying that I do agree if you have a newborn it is probably better to err on the side of ridiculousness.

[feathersforever]

This is a little much. I do hit the showers between a cigar and holding my little girl because she is only five months old, but otherwise... this just seems over the top.

[TrickNick]

I'm suing my neighbor because he smokes on his porch 600 feet away from my deck, where wind has caused us second hand exposure. I blame my low intelligence, general ignorance, and boneheadedness on this exposure.

[T.G]

Applecare warranty service department: 1
Smokers: 0

[Tripp]

I don't care how many hands it has, its not going to kill me any faster than my cell phone, TV, radio, car exhaust, computer, fluorescent lights, animals, politicians, meteors, global warming, terrorists, the large hadron collider, drug cartels..............

[Don Fernando]

If you have a young baby at home, this actually does matter, so it's advisable to change your clothes and wash up after a smoke before being around the baby.

or you could make the baby smoke, so it doesn't matter anymore

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff347/cs_donfernando/227.jpg

:D

[bazookajoe]

I think everyone would agree that we want to protect our kids from any chemical exposure, but we do that anyway - it's just common sense. If the media is so interested in reporting danger, maybe they should take a look at the chemicals in bug sprays, paint, cleaning products, carpets and rugs, food containers, soaps and detergents etc. that are routinely used around kids. But then, that wouldn't be as popular as demonizing smokers... :2

[MedicCook]

When is the study going to be made that watching someone smoke on tv is going to give you cancer?

[replicant_argent]

If you have a young baby at home, this actually does matter, so it's advisable to change your clothes and wash up after a smoke before being around the baby. There's also been studies linking this kind of third hand exposure to SIDS. Beyond that, I agree that people are going to far. I don't think an adult should worry about that little of a residue. I'm sure filling up your tank at the gas station exposes you to more carcinogens than this.

I would love to see the source on those studies. My guess is that they might be a tad biased. There have been studies linking a lot of things to a lot of other things that have been nothing but Horse Hockey too. At what concentration levels are they talking, and for how long, and what kind of exposure? I suppose that the highly popular "Toddlers licking ashtrays" sport will now be banned too.





I wash my hands before I have interaction with people other than BOTL after a smoke not for health reasons, but because it's a little stinky, and I have respect for those around me when I am not excercising my right to smoke.

[akumushi]

Here's one article: (http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/parenting/baby/study-confirms-cot-death-link-to-smoking-20090422-aeil.html)I would love to see the source on those studies. My guess is that they might be a tad biased. There have been studies linking a lot of things to a lot of other things that have been nothing but Horse Hockey too. At what concentration levels are they talking, and for how long, and what kind of exposure? I suppose that the highly popular "Toddlers licking ashtrays" sport will now be banned too.





I wash my hands before I have interaction with people other than BOTL after a smoke not for health reasons, but because it's a little stinky, and I have respect for those around me when I am not excercising my right to smoke.

I've heard it from several friends, and had it pounded into me by my wife, who is a research scientist for a pharmaceutical company and who doesn't take a study seriously unless it was published in a respected medical journal. Not that people don't demonize smokers, but there is really no escaping that it is harmful to infants.

[hotreds]

And to think I happily played with hair pins and electrical outlets as a child!

[akumushi]

Sorry, that link was second hand smoke, here is a reference to the study about third hand smoke. (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14359829?source=most_viewed&nclick_check=1)
These studies are generally sponsered by anti-smoking groups, but they are done by impartial scientists with impartial science, so I wouldn't question the results just because the funding came from some a-holes that want to ban tobacco. It's not a question of whether or not smoking is a filthy habit, it's a question of whether or not we want the governent regulating our filthy habits;)

[TheRiddick]

These studies are generally sponsered by anti-smoking groups, but they are done by impartial scientists with impartial science, ...

I won't correct the spelling, but...

Sure, we all know how impartial they seem to be. Ever hear of global warming debate? Ever seen an anti-smoking group that will hire an impartial scientist? Every group with a goal will always fund someone else with same goals, otherwise its a waste of money on their part. I am not saying nicotine is not bad, I am simply pointing out that one can always "find" proof if need be, especially when there is money involved.

Going back to the first article posted, just how common is nitrous acid in everyday environment? This should be key and I would like to see some numbers, not only how common, but if it is, then at what levels and at that point, at what levels does it bind with nicotine. Without these numbers this whole debate is BS.

[ChicagoWhiteSox]

wow....

[BigCat]

These studies are generally sponsered by anti-smoking groups, but they are done by impartial scientists with impartial science, so I wouldn't question the results just because the funding came from some a-holes that want to ban tobacco. It's not a question of whether or not smoking is a filthy habit, it's a question of whether or not we want the governent regulating our filthy habits;)

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.

[aich75013]

I think everyone would agree that we want to protect our kids from any chemical exposure, but we do that anyway - it's just common sense.

Although I do agree, apparently not everyone has common sense.

I was driving and pulled up to a car at a stop light. I looked over and a young mother was smoking in her car with the windows rolled up. She had her infant in the car seat in the back. I couldn't believe my eyes.

[icantbejon]

Although I do agree, apparently not everyone has common sense.

I was driving and pulled up to a car at a stop light. I looked over and a young mother was smoking in her car with the windows rolled up. She had her infant in the car seat in the back. I couldn't believe my eyes.

I remember a few years back, my brother and I walked by a car in the parking lot of a restaurant. This was in NY just following the smoking ban. A woman had just put her two children, one toddler and one infant, into the car. Her windows were all up. She lit a cigarette and climbed on in. On her bumper was a sticker reading, "At least I can still smoke in my car!"

I was blown away. Some parents really don't give a damn. I don't smoke around my kid, except a few rare times when I'm outside and my wife brings her out to play. Then I try hard to stay away from her. I also don't smoke in my car, cause I don't enjoy the smell honestly. I'd have to say I agree with the majority on this. We all get that smoking isn't the healthiest living choice...however it's our choice.

[akumushi]

All I'm saying is that if the data can be fudged one way, it can be fudged the other, and I don't see any studies from tobacco lobbied scientists, or anyone else for that matter, that are refuting these findings, and as such I have no good reason to doubt them. Show me contrary findings in another study and I'll start to have doubts. The nitric acid thing is a good point Riddick, so there may be less to worry about than the scare-mongers would have you think. Nevertheless, a post smoke shower and clothes change is a small sacrifice to make for the safety of my children.

[TrickNick]

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.

On top of this, unless the study was truly double-blind, then bias will be present. Has this even been peer-reviewed yet?

[TheRiddick]

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.

Seems no one here is listening. And like I said above, without some numbers the link is full of hot air and nothing more.

[TheRiddick]

All I'm saying is that if the data can be fudged one way, it can be fudged the other, and I don't see any studies from tobacco lobbied scientists, or anyone else for that matter, that are refuting these findings, and as such I have no good reason to doubt them. Show me contrary findings in another study and I'll start to have doubts. The nitric acid thing is a good point Riddick, so there may be less to worry about than the scare-mongers would have you think. Nevertheless, a post smoke shower and clothes change is a small sacrifice to make for the safety of my children.

OK, a quick contrary study for you.

Taken directly from the article:
The researchers used cellulose as a model of indoor material, and exposed it to cigarette smoke. They then exposed it to a "high but reasonable" concentration of nitrous acid for three hours. The levels of newly formed TSNAs were 10 times higher after the nitrous acid exposure. The TSNAs also formed quickly, the researchers found.



Then, an explanation of how nitrous acid happens (since it only happens naturally way up in the sky):
Since most vehicle engines emit some nitrous acid that can infiltrate the passenger compartments, tests were also conducted on surfaces inside the truck of a heavy smoker, including the surface of a stainless steel glove compartment.

To sum up, these "unbiased", "neutral" scientists parked a truck in someone's living room for over 3 hours, then smoked a bunch of cigarettes on top of that. Yep, something all of us do on a daily basis. Also, pay attention to that "heavy smoker" description, that may be key as well.

I am not saying that second hand smoke is not a bad thing, simply that the study would have had way more merit had it not gone into typical "hysteria mode" a number of highly visible "studies" have gone to lately (global warming anyone?). Like I said, show me some numbers. Heavy smoker is what? Pack a day, 2, 3? And what are the chances that same heavy smoker parks his vehicle inside the house (or apt) with the engine running and then decides to smoke a few packs while watching superbowl, 100%, 200%, 1%?

[BigFrank]

Just another crap study funded by anti smoking interest groups. Probably just use this data to pass another round of taxes all for the "children"... Give me a break...

[TheRiddick]

OK, just came across this link:
http://kansas.watchdog.org/2010/02/20/smoking-ban-advocate-says-some-claims-just-smoke/

Key paragraph as it relates to this thread:

The third claim Siegel objects to is called third-hand smoking. Some smoking ban advocates say nicotine left on a person’s clothing and skin is deposited on the surfaces away from the smoking area then create vapor that exposes non-smokers to harm. “I think that’s just a gross exaggeration, and the levels of exposure are so small that it’s not creating any meaningful hazard,”

[jaymz]

or you could make the baby smoke, so it doesn't matter anymore

http://i538.photobucket.com/albums/ff347/cs_donfernando/227.jpg

:D

Be careful the pictures you post
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1244351/Police-probe-baby-cigarette-photo-posted-Facebook.html


:lv

[ScottishSmoker]

Didn't the World Health Organization after years of study find that Secondhand smoke has no cancer causing ability?

[adampc22]

u hear about tenth hand smokeing ? its when u could maybe perhaps but probley not get a tan from the cigar store light