Listen to this now.. "Third-hand smoke"

[toriL]

This study is targeting what it calls "Third-Hand Smoke". Throughout the article they talk about the nicotine residue left in a smokers homes and how toxic it is. My first thought is that somewhere down the road someone is going to try to use this study as reason to ban vaping inside all public spaces. My main question is -- without the smoke/tar from a cigarette, will nicotine leave residue as is discussed in this article? Pollutants linger long after smoker moves out - Health - Addictions - msnbc.com

Is this legit or just fear mongering?

 

[GrandPoobah]

I don't think the pollutants left behind are nic. It's all the other junk. Ecigs just wouldn't do that.

 

[toriL]

Thats what I thought too - its the tar, but the study says

Matt and his colleagues studied nicotine levels as a marker for other chemical residues from tobacco smoke in the dwellings of 100 smokers and 50 nonsmokers who were planning to move out of their homes. The researchers measured the chemical in the air and on surfaces, such as walls, ceilings and floors. At the same time, they checked for nicotine on the fingertips of the residents of the 150 homes and a nicotine breakdown product called cotinine in urine samples from children.

Next, the researchers looked at nonsmokers who moved into 25 of the homes that had formerly been occupied by smokers. Once again, Matt and his colleagues measured nicotine on the adults’ finger tips and cotinine in the children’s urine.

The results were striking. Even after the smoker homes had been vacant for two months, nicotine levels in the air were 35 to 98 times as high as they were in nonsmoker homes. Nicotine measured on surfaces was 30 to 150 times as high in the former homes of smokers compared to what was found in dwellings of nonsmokers.

More troubling were the findings of nicotine on or in the bodies of nonsmokers who had moved into dwellings formerly occupied by smokers. Nicotine levels were seven to eight times higher on the fingertips of nonsmokers who’d moved into a smoker’s home compared to nonsmokers who had always lived in a nonsmoking home. Children who’d moved into a home formerly occupied by a smoker had three to five times as much cotinine as those who lived in a nonsmoking home.

So, that makes me think that its because of the tar in cigarettes and it traps the nicotine maybe? Regardless, I'm sure this study will be pointed to by anti-ecig groups at some point. They don't always require real science or even intelligence to start fear mongering.

 

[Raynen]

Thats what I thought too - its the tar, but the study says



So, that makes me think that its because of the tar in cigarettes and it traps the nicotine maybe? Regardless, I'm sure this study will be pointed to by anti-ecig groups at some point. They don't always require real science or even intelligence to start fear mongering.

I agree, I think it has to do with the fact that cigarettes are lit, and the tar traps it. I don't see how it could happen with e-cigs.

 

[Knapweed]

I'm amazed a non-smoking home has any nicotine at all, let alone nearly one percent of a smoker's home. It's probably accurate but it's a a bogus stat, designed to mislead. e.g. a person that only had one cigarette in his life has had an infinite amount more than somebody who had none. It doesn't mean he is a heavy smoker.

 

[Dob_Bobolina]

Cursed cigarettes!

 

[Raynen]

I'm amazed a non-smoking home has any nicotine at all, let alone nearly one percent of a smoker's home. It's probably accurate but it's a a bogus stat, designed to mislead. e.g. a person that only had one cigarette in his life has had an infinite amount more than somebody who had none. It doesn't mean he is a heavy smoker.

Wow, yeah- I re-read it and must've SOMEHOW missed the nicotine in a non-smoker house actually being there. *eyebrow raise* That's really weird.

 

[cigarbabe]

Thats what I thought too - its the tar, but the study says



So, that makes me think that its because of the tar in cigarettes and it traps the nicotine maybe? Regardless, I'm sure this study will be pointed to by anti-ecig groups at some point. They don't always require real science or even intelligence to start fear mongering.

I think your absolutely right it will be used to ban ecigs in some places by catering to fear in those ignorant about how an ecig actually works.
Prime example;
I was told tonight at the place where I take exercise classes that the owner doesn't want any ecigs "smoked" in her place, mind you I was only there once before and used my Ego for two pulls but when I asked why I was told just because.....
I reminded the instructor that I wasn't using a formulation with nicotine but to no avail.
I also noticed that "Target Stores" in southeastern Mass. have prohibited ecigs
in their stores. {Raynham also}.
I don't know if this will be true of all Target stores but it's already beginning
and really, how much do they truly know about any ecig device?
Do you think the fallout from the FDA is perhaps creating a backlash?
I just don't know but I don't like it.
C.B.

 

[o4_srt]

wtf does it matter? nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine, I'd be willing to bet that caffeine levels in those children were many times more than the levels of nicotine they found.

maybe one of those tested really likes vegetables in the nightshade category, all of which contain nicotine (tomato's, eggplants, etc).

these "studies" (propaganda, really) make me sick

 

[WomanOfHeart]

wtf does it matter? nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine, I'd be willing to bet that caffeine levels in those children were many times more than the levels of nicotine they found.

maybe one of those tested really likes vegetables in the nightshade category, all of which contain nicotine (tomato's, eggplants, etc).

these "studies" (propaganda, really) make me sick

This is just what I was thinking, too! Nicotine isn't the most horrible part of the cigarette. It's all the other carcinogenic, toxic crap that's rolled into the tobacco.

 

[hairball]

I read somewhere that nic is absorbed directly into you when you vape it. However, when smoking, it isn't. Upon exhaling smoke, you exhale unabsorbed nic as well. It would make sense to me that since I smoked inside, that I have nic left behind from it. I can see where the tar would make it stick to everything.

 

[JustFolly]

I'm amazed a non-smoking home has any nicotine at all, let alone nearly one percent of a smoker's home. It's probably accurate but it's a a bogus stat, designed to mislead. e.g. a person that only had one cigarette in his life has had an infinite amount more than somebody who had none. It doesn't mean he is a heavy smoker.

I think this about sums it up. Several times of an extremely minuscule amount, is still a minuscule amount. Notice how discussions about "third-hand smoke" never delve in to the actual amounts of nicotine, or whether it's enough to have any measurable effects on those affected? There's a reason for that. It's a factually accurate observation with few actual implications. They're just counting on the gut reaction of "I don't want nicotine in my house!" to override a logical assessment of the situation.

 

[cigarbabe]

Just Folly you're right it is a minuscule amount but you of course noticed how they deliberately never mention that fact. I'm ...... off about not being able to vape in places where it hasn't bothered anyone except those who told me "you can't smoke in here" as if I was.
It matters to me that I may not be able to vape indoors anymore
or that we may have more laws passed like those in N.J. banning vaping indoors.
Propaganda?
Most certainly which is why it's so important to speak out to our legislature and those who are writing this kind of crap. Every story I see on ecigs makes mention of the "alleged fact" that the FDA say's we're vaping anti-freeze which you and I know is b.s.!
As for me it damn well matters.
C.B.

 

[toriL]

that was my fear too when I first read the article, that this is propaganda released to create this new buzzword called "Third-hand smoke", which I'm sure the FDA and others would love to associate with vaping too. After all the public for the most part is not yet educated about ecigs and so they'll buy all the crazy they are selling!

 

[Jmitchelliv]

I think your absolutely right it will be used to ban ecigs in some places by catering to fear in those ignorant about how an ecig actually works.
Prime example;
I was told tonight at the place where I take exercise classes that the owner doesn't want any ecigs "smoked" in her place, mind you I was only there once before and used my Ego for two pulls but when I asked why I was told just because.....
I reminded the instructor that I wasn't using a formulation with nicotine but to no avail.
I also noticed that "Target Stores" in southeastern Mass. have prohibited ecigs
in their stores. {Raynham also}.
I don't know if this will be true of all Target stores but it's already beginning
and really, how much do they truly know about any ecig device?
Do you think the fallout from the FDA is perhaps creating a backlash?
I just don't know but I don't like it.
C.B.

There are a few things at play when vaping in public.

We know about these devices: What they do, how they work, that the exhaled "smoke" isn't actually smoke... but the general public doesn't. We think PVs are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but the fact is that we're a niche market. For the time being anyway. So if you're questioned about your PV, politely explain your device and what it does in the simplest terms possible without being condescending. Think like a noob, because you're explaining that battery in your mouth to someone that really IS a noob.

Business owners -- sorry to say -- have the final say. If Target doesn't want you vaping in their stores, so be it. Could you EVER roll into a Taget store and smoke an analog though? Nope. Vaping at the gym... owner doesn't allow it even after you've explained yourself? So be it. Could you ever smoke an analog in a gym? Well, you might have been able to once upon a time, but nowadays that's about as wise as running through a Whole Foods eating a Big Mac in the old-fashioned non-biodegradable styrofoam container.

I guess the point is this: It's critical that you educate the public in a civil manner... not try to vape in places you never could have smoked, lest we be seen as a group just trying to push the rules.

 

[zara1269]

It amazes me that we are all still alive today. How many homes were smoked in when we were growing up and we all made it to adulthood. This is just fear mongering which IMO is just one more step in turning us into a nanny state. /rant

 

[xg4bx]

next it'll be 4th hand smoke: you get sick because someone thought about having a cigarette.

 

[AdamM]

I sympathize with the fear that PVs would be banned outright. I can see something crazy like that happening, too. Cigarettes bring in billions in tax revenue, so there is room for a theory (maybe a conspiracy one hehe) that the government will demonize PVs in order to prevent a loss in tax revenue. Of course, if the government were the only opposition, then their problem could be resolved by simply taxing PVs and supplies at a premium.

The real threat, like everyone here likely knows, are groups that set out to demonize PVs to prevent a shift in market share from tobacco. I think the governments needs to believe one crucial thing, and that is that PVs are at the very least only equally as damaging as cigarettes (we all believe, correctly so I think, that they are not nearly so). If they have no grounds to ban PVs and supplies, then they can always tax them to make up for the shift.

In fact, here in Canada the argument could be made that PVs will reduce things like emphysema and cancers and so reduce the cost of health care in the next few decades. This could justify not taxing the crap out of PVs and supplies, but even if they did, someone pro-government like I am just considers that more tax revenue to get funneled back into society. Win-win-win.

 

[MichelleDen]

why on earth would anyone vape in a store anyway?? Don't be fanatic.. If I saw someone vaping in a store, I would think them inconsiderate. most stores don't want people to drink or eat in them either... so why should you vape there?

 

[AdamM]

why on earth would anyone vape in a store anyway?? Don't be fanatic..

I think the rational is that IF VPs are harmless, then smokers from the good old days of killing everyone around you while you relieve your cravings could be relived...minus the killing part. They want the freedom that was attached to smoking to be reborn! It's not really fanatical. I agree that people should exercise moderation, and for the time being, it is likely in everyone's best interest to vape like you smoke, only in designated smoking areas or where express prior permission has been given. I imagine it is a lot easier to explain that vaping is not smoking before you offend people by just whipping out the PV and saving the "This isn't smoking" card up your sleeve for when you have already offended someone.