Another study

[cigarbabe]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me a little more about this particular study
which claims that nicotine damages dna and causes long term damage.

Thirdhand smoke causes DNA damage

 

[tommy2bad]

Can't help, sorry but without actual data on the extent of dna damage this is another study that tell us nothing we didn't already know. i.e. putting something into your body has an effect.
Not that that will stop people from quoting this study to justifie some sort of house cleaning tax on smokers or some other equally stupid 'denormalization' measure.

 

[Kurt]

The idea is that nicotine in smoke-tar will stick to surfaces. We all know that tar residue. If there is nitric acid gas in the air, reactions with nicotine can produce carcinogenic nitrosamines over time that are then transferred to the unsuspecting person that touches that residue. This is the concept of "third-hand smoke". As far as I know, this only applies to nicotine that is stuck to a surface in a residue. vaping leaves no sticky permanent residue, so I don't think this logic should be applied to vaping. Not saying they won't try, but then a nicotine inhaler would have the same dangers. They say nitric acid in the article, but the airborn form would be NO2.

However, normal NO2 quantities in the air are continually falling, due to stricter pollution controls, and they a generally very low indeed:

Basic Information | Nitrogen Dioxide | US EPA

The chances of vapor nicotine reacting with NO2 in the air are vanishingly small. This is why the residue argument is needed, since that is "captured" nicotine on a surface. In the air, even if a nitrosamine was produced, the concentration would be so miniscule that even if it was inhaled, it would be far lower than nictrosamine in NRTs.

This is the rub. NRTs do have these nitrosamines, but in very low amounts, and low enough that gums and patches are considered safe by the FDA. The authors of this article want to convince you that this special case of smoke residue can over time have significant nitrosamines, and it might in the right air conditions (NO2 polluted air). And this residue is then in the carpet and played on by children. That children red flag term. But concentrations that are airborn will always be vanishingly small, and this would be the case of vaping. In addition, natural room air exchange will flush the already low concentration of nitrosamines out, if they form in the air at all. If it was found that nitrosamine content in the air was equal to or higher than what is in NRTs, then there might be a reason for concern. But nitrosamines have never been detected in the air from vaping, to my knowledge, and there is no residue like from cigarette smoke, so the current science would say that vaping would never be a concern in this respect.

Doesn't mean they won't try to distort it to convince the masses otherwise, but the numbers simply would not be there, even in a fairly polluted environment. That's my opinion of how this study might relate to us, but I intend to discuss this with Dr. Farsalinos to get his take.

 

[AgentAnia]

Thank you, Kurt, for your explanation. I read the article, and nowhere do I remember reading about the effect (if any) normal "housecleaning" might have on lessening these residues. Would that be a revelant question to ask?

Especially in public places, cleaning of all surfaces is done pretty regularly and thoroughly, and (I would hope!) the same would apply to most private homes. Seems to me regular dusting, vacuumng, and wiping down of surfaces would at least somewhat reduce the presence of these substances. Not sure the researchers took this into account, if it is relevant. Any thoughts?

 

[Kurt]

A valid point, AA, but tars can be difficult to clean up without serious solvents, especially in carpets. I get the impression that the authors want the readers to think that if they smoke at all, their house is caked in death-gunk, no matter their habits. Better to not address this obvious remedy, and have the smoker think that they are an endless curse on any place they live.

 

[AgentAnia]

How long have humans been smoking tobacco? Or... Let's limit that to the U.S.A. If my take on history is anywhere near correct, Americans have been smoking since the Pilgrims landed. If this study is correct, it seems to me a miracle we've managed to survive this long! Or that we're not all genetically-damaged idiots...

Seriously, though, I agree that this study is reaching and is meant to further villify smokers. (And of course, someone's going to come along and try to do the same kind of study about vapor...) I despair :sigh:

 

[tommy2bad]

How long have humans been smoking tobacco? Or... Let's limit that to the U.S.A. If my take on history is anywhere near correct, Americans have been smoking since the Pilgrims landed. If this study is correct, it seems to me a miracle we've managed to survive this long! Or that we're not all genetically-damaged idiots...

Seriously, though, I agree that this study is reaching and is meant to further villify smokers. (And of course, someone's going to come along and try to do the same kind of study about vapor...) I despair :sigh:

Actually limiting that to the USA is a bit of a misnomer as tobacco came from what is the Americas to the rest of the world. So your answer is 'for as long as their have been people.
As to why you're not all genetically-damaged idiots... Don't go their

Yeah a lot of research on the source site seem to be of this kind, too much time on their hands kind of stuff.
Nicotine primes brain for ....... use: Molecular basis of gateway sequence of drug use
only to lead to;
Risk of .........'s 'gateway effect' overblown, new research shows

 

[Vocalek]

This study shows that vapor does not damage cells. Smoke does.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

^^^ Note: No idea why that message is substituted for the link, but clicking it does take you to the study. ^^^

Cytotoxicity evaluation of electronic cigarette vapor extract on cultured mammalian fibroblasts (ClearStream-LIFE): comparison with tobacco cigarette smoke extract

Conclusions: This study indicates that EC vapor is significantly less cytotoxic compared tobacco CS. These results should be validated by clinical studies.

 

[Vocalek]

Note: "Residual nicotine" is not the same thing as "nicotine" as found in nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, and e-cigarette vapor.

For nicotine to be residual, it must be sticking to a surface. There must be something else present in the substance carrying the nicotine (in this case, the tar in cigarette smoke) to make the nicotine stick to a surface, where it "resides" -- hence the term "residual nicotine".

I haven't seen any studies yet looking for residual nicotine from e-cigarette vapor. It's possible, but given the fact that my car windows don't develop a sticky film any more, I would bet that if there is any residual nicotine from vapor, it is a very, very tiny amount.


BTW, My step-father smoked like a chimney, and my mother was a life-long nonsmoker. They were married in 1972. He died 20 years later, and she continued living in the house for another 10 years. She died at age 88, never having had any type of cancer.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Laboratory studies on cell tissues provide very little if any useful information about the actual impact something may or may not have on human health.

That's why many/most of these studies are done by activist researchers and organizations whose goal is to ban and/or demonize something, and to confuse and scare the public.

While thirdhand smoke may not smell/look pleasant and feels sticky (which is why I've long urged employers/managers to repaint walls/ceilings, replace carpets/drapes, clean other exposed surfaces and ventilation systems whenever they implement smokefree policies), there's NO credible evidence that exposure to thirdhand smoke increases risks of any disease or disorder in humans.

The only reason these cell studies on thirdhand smoke are being funded and conducted in laboratories is because the funders and researchers want to scare the public so they can ban smoking everywhere, demonize smokers (and ultimately ban the sale of cigarettes).

 

[sebt]

Laboratory studies on cell tissues provide very little if any useful information about the actual impact something may or may not have on human health.

That's the thing I noticed about this study. They extracted the substances into a medium, and then cultured the human cells and observed the effects. There is no mention of any real-world mechanism whereby human cells would actually become exposed to the levels that were part of the experiment; the most obvious mechanism would be by inhalation, but given that the substances are stuck to surfaces, that doesn't look like a very effective vector.

To actually produce any definite risk, the study would also have to evaluate how much exposure, within the body, might result from, e.g. a child licking the walls. It's quite possible that, even given a hypothetical child who licked walls for 1 hour a day, there would be detectable levels of these substances in the body - but less than harmful levels. No-one knows, as this study doesn't address that question.

But who cares.... I mentioned CHEEEELDREN, and that's all that counts for a good scare story....

 

[Kurt]

Actually it is my understanding that 3rd-hand smoke is a skin-contact mechanism, not inhalation. Kids playing on carpet, etc. As I said, I think this is a needed argument for them, since the amount of TSNAs that are in the air are vanishingly small. But if you have a child playing on a carpet for years, then there MIGHT be a significant exposure. Absorption is another issue entirely, but exposure is their foot in this door. At least that is what I glean from this. The fact that a controlled study which shows actual absorption would be difficult at best, unethical at worst, is only too convenient, since they probably would not expect to see anything significant. Better to just make the masses afraid of their own houses, or other people's houses, and just leave it at that.