Third-hand vapor .. causes cancer?

[TropicalBob]

This article highlights a new study with potentially devastating implications. If the findings hold up, residue from smoking could trigger cancer through exposure even through the skin, as would happen to infants shuffling along a nicotine-stained carpet.

But electronic cigarettes get two damning paragraphs all their own here.

Co-author James Pankow points out that the results of this study should raise concerns about the purported safety of electronic cigarettes.

"Nicotine, the addictive substance in tobacco smoke, has until now been considered to be non-toxic in the strictest sense of the term," says Kamlesh Asotra of the University of California's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which funded this study. "What we see in this study is that the reactions of residual nicotine with nitrous acid at surface interfaces are a potential cancer hazard, and these results may be just the tip of the iceberg."

Read this and see the noose tightening not only on all public smoking, but on electronic cigarette use in public, as well.

Study reveals new details on the dangers of third-hand smoke

[Tom09]

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

a new study with potentially devastating implications.

Right, this finding is devastating. If not necessarily personally, it will be in a political sense. Up to now, there has been not one potential threat to be cited which could possibly be imposed by e-cig users/vapers on bystanders. Remember that legislatures in NJ deemed theater fog (PG) the roots of all evil, to justify their indoors ban. This situation certainly changed with the establishment of a „new potential health hazard“.

Here is the link to the original study, too: PNAS Article published online in advance.

[TropicalBob]

I agree. This is the first concern about public e-smoking being a health hazard -- based on a study, not speculation. You can expect shots to be fired at e-smoking in weeks and months to come based on this.

[Katmar]

Can anyone explain the nitrous acid part? Sorry to sound dumb, but where is the nitrous acid and how does it react to something?

[Territoo]

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

I agree. This is the first concern about public e-smoking being a health hazard -- based on a study, not speculation. You can expect shots to be fired at e-smoking in weeks and months to come based on this.

Except that their theory has all kinds of holes in it when it comes to the electronic cigarette. They determine that the nicotine in cigarette smoke reacts w/ nitrous acid, so therefore the nicotine in vapor must do the same thing. Such an extrapolation of data is weak, mostly due to the myriad of chemicals in cigarette smoke not found in vapor. One or more of these chemicals could serve as an potentiator or a catalyst to the nicotine-nitrous acid reaction. Without that unknown chemical the described reaction can't take place.

Also the statement concerning ecigs has a lot of waffle words, such as "potentially" and "may cause". That weakens the statement even further.

[DC2]

Originally Posted by Katmar

Can anyone explain the nitrous acid part? Sorry to sound dumb, but where is the nitrous acid and how does it react to something?

From the linked study...

Unvented gas appliances are the main source of nitrous acid indoors. 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. These measurements also showed substantial levels of TSNAs.

[Mister]

I've skimmed the original study. I'm not a chemist. I do think that this study's results are of limited concern unless the media gets silly with it. And in that case I hope that some appropriate professionals will jump in to debunk whoever starts making unsupported statements.

It seems that they've found "substantial" levels of two TSNAs being formed from nicotine deposited on various substances from second hand smoke.

First problem: The two TSNAs found are not known carcinogens. One (NNA) is in IARC Group 3 (unknown), the other (NNK) is in IARC Group 2B (suspected.) NNA was found at about five times the level of NNK.

Second problem: The largest formation of these TSNAs resulted from the use of a cellulose substrate as the surface material, and with 95ppbv HONO, though they note elsewhere that "Typical indoor levels are 5–15 ppbv."

Third problem: I don't see a clear description of the final consequences of it all. I.e. how much NNA and NNK would a child rubbing and licking a square meter or two of one of these surfaces actually absorb? (Or any other useful presentation of that critical final finding - how much finally affects a person.)

Fourth problem: The authors set out to analyze something very complicated and interesting and clearly spent a lot of time on this work. Of course they would be inclined to present the results as having significance. Until a capable and unbiased third party presents those results in English I can understand I think the significance is unknown.

[DC2]

This makes me sick...

And you KNOW that Banzhole is creaming his pretty pink panties right now.
Watch for him to come out with a bunch of press releases.

One can only hope that a good critical peer review can put this in a perspective that doesn't crush my soul. Because this could be one of the worst things I've heard in a long, long time. This is something the FDA can jump on just when we don't need anything for them to jump on.

I find the whole thing suspicious, but that's because I want and hope it to be.

[Drozd]

Originally Posted by Mister

I've skimmed the original study. I'm not a chemist. I do think that this study's results are of limited concern unless the media gets silly with it. And in that case I hope that some appropriate professionals will jump in to debunk whoever starts making unsupported statements.

It seems that they've found "substantial" levels of two TSNAs being formed from nicotine deposited on various substances from second hand smoke.

First problem: The two TSNAs found are not known carcinogens. One (NNA) is in IARC Group 3 (unknown), the other (NNK) is in IARC Group 2B (suspected.) NNA was found at about five times the level of NNK.

Second problem: The largest formation of these TSNAs resulted from the use of a cellulose substrate as the surface material, and with 95ppbv HONO, though they note elsewhere that "Typical indoor levels are 5–15 ppbv."

Third problem: I don't see a clear description of the final consequences of it all. I.e. how much NNA and NNK would a child rubbing and licking a square meter or two of one of these surfaces actually absorb? (Or any other useful presentation of that critical final finding - how much finally affects a person.)

Fourth problem: The authors set out to analyze something very complicated and interesting and clearly spent a lot of time on this work. Of course they would be inclined to present the results as having significance. Until a capable and unbiased third party presents those results in English I can understand I think the significance is unknown.

Fifth problem: The source is a lab facility based out of California (where everything causes cancer)...and based at the Super Ultra Liberal Berkley..now mind you I'm not against your standard everyday liberal (in fact I am one)..but BERKLEY?...these tree hugging, granola eatin', birkenstock wearin', hacky sack playin', pachouli stankin' SOBs are just over the top..I mean come on these are the people that gave Timothy Leary a PHD and hired him on as faculty.

[5cardstud]

Well after it's all over it looks like we will be ordering our stuff from an indian reservation like we do analogs or from vegas.