Third Hand Smoke Fear Mongering

[yohann976]

All I know is that I'm very scared and I'm waiting for the government to tell me what to do. Now, there are rumors of fourth hand smoke!?!?! This is now a fact in my mind! We live in dangerous times my friends...

On a serious note, even though it might be kind of funny. I was making fun of the third hand smoke concept with a friend. His response was, "Well, if they're willing to research it and actually write a paper about it, isn't there some validity to that? There must be a genuine concern out there if they're going to look into it." I can't really tell you what my response was (inappropriate), but it involved asking him if he would be concerned if I wrote a paper about monkeys, aliens and breeding a new race of humanoids.

The point is that the general public eats this stuff up.

 

[jtpjc]

I believe fourth hand smoke has already been invented. You come in contact with it when you meet someone who has met someone who has shaken hands with a smoker. An underestimated danger that kills thousands a year.

 

[Ande]

OMG! But, But, I only quit smoking a few weeks before I got my wife pregnant!!! Will I somehow have passed third, or even FOURTH hand SMOKE on to my baby?????????????????????????? OMG. Somebody kill me now.

For heaven's sake. People do eat this stuff up, don't they? A fairly down to earth view: The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Warns of Dangers of "Thirdhand" Tobacco Smoke

I have to say, though, we don't help our cause (tolerance, support for reality based policy) by pretending second hand smoke is harmless. There are real studies that show its effect. When it is prolonged, as in the case of living with a heavy smoker who smokes indoors throughought childhood, or working 40-50 hours a week for years in a smoky room, it DOES negatively impact some aspects of health. (Though perhaps less so that the anti-smoke zealots seem to think.)

But we need to make it clear- that is PROLONGED (chronic) exposure. Brief (acute) exposure has never been shown to have any health impact at all, which is unsurprising. Many many things will kill you over time, but are harmless if experienced only briefly and occasionally. (I can drink 3 beers in an hour with no ill effects at all. BUt if I drink 3 beers EVERY hour, every day, it'll have a different effect.)

Best,
Ande

 

[Demarko]

OMG! But, But, I only quit smoking a few weeks before I got my wife pregnant!!! Will I somehow have passed third, or even FOURTH hand SMOKE on to my baby?????????????????????????? OMG. Somebody kill me now.

For heaven's sake. People do eat this stuff up, don't they? A fairly down to earth view: The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Warns of Dangers of "Thirdhand" Tobacco Smoke

I have to say, though, we don't help our cause (tolerance, support for reality based policy) by pretending second hand smoke is harmless. There are real studies that show its effect. When it is prolonged, as in the case of living with a heavy smoker who smokes indoors throughought childhood, or working 40-50 hours a week for years in a smoky room, it DOES negatively impact some aspects of health. (Though perhaps less so that the anti-smoke zealots seem to think.)

But we need to make it clear- that is PROLONGED (chronic) exposure. Brief (acute) exposure has never been shown to have any health impact at all, which is unsurprising. Many many things will kill you over time, but are harmless if experienced only briefly and occasionally. (I can drink 3 beers in an hour with no ill effects at all. BUt if I drink 3 beers EVERY hour, every day, it'll have a different effect.)

Best,
Ande

But just when we think we know something, the same sources spout out nonsense. It seems these people are doing us all a disservice. When they say things like, "Just as bad" we are forced to wonder...

 

[GMoney]

OMG! But, But, I only quit smoking a few weeks before I got my wife pregnant!!! Will I somehow have passed third, or even FOURTH hand SMOKE on to my baby?????????????????????????? OMG. Somebody kill me now.

For heaven's sake. People do eat this stuff up, don't they? A fairly down to earth view: The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Warns of Dangers of "Thirdhand" Tobacco Smoke

I have to say, though, we don't help our cause (tolerance, support for reality based policy) by pretending second hand smoke is harmless. There are real studies that show its effect. When it is prolonged, as in the case of living with a heavy smoker who smokes indoors throughought childhood, or working 40-50 hours a week for years in a smoky room, it DOES negatively impact some aspects of health. (Though perhaps less so that the anti-smoke zealots seem to think.)

But we need to make it clear- that is PROLONGED (chronic) exposure. Brief (acute) exposure has never been shown to have any health impact at all, which is unsurprising. Many many things will kill you over time, but are harmless if experienced only briefly and occasionally. (I can drink 3 beers in an hour with no ill effects at all. BUt if I drink 3 beers EVERY hour, every day, it'll have a different effect.)

Best,
Ande

This may be of interest to you. - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning-discussions/171708-shs-cancer-risk.html

There are real studies that show its effect.

Please post one, I would love to read it. I have read the main SHS study the FDA touts and which was considered junk science by U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen

I have to say, though, we don't help our cause (tolerance, support for reality based policy) by pretending second hand smoke is harmless.

This may very well be true. It may be in our interest to agree with much of the accepted misinformation and use it to promote e-cigs.

 

[Stevew443]

I always used the term "previously enjoyed smoke" instead of 2nd hand smoke. I can't wait until the scientists determine that even thinking about smoking is a danger to those around us.
I guess that people today are a less hearty breed than those of my age are. My father smoked around me from the day I was born and I have not suffered any ill harm from being exposed to his 2nd hand, 3rd hand or even 5th hand smoke. I think we are trying to grow a race of "hot house" children who are never exposed to any risks.

 

[sqirl1]

my mom is a paramedic and I remember her saying that smelling third hand smoke on a guys jacket for 5 minutes is equivalent to sitting in a closed off room filled with second hand smoke for 2 hours. I'm like "do you HONESTLY believe this?"

 

[Thulium]

This may very well be true. It may be in our interest to agree with much of the accepted misinformation and use it to promote e-cigs.

It is in no one's interest to let lies go unchallenged. The challenge is to make sure that you don't attack half-truths with other half-truths. There ARE health risks associated with chronic exposure to secondhand Smoke in enclosed spaces and even so-called "thirdhand smoke" can be a nuisance, so laws against smoking in public indoor spaces can be justified--even though my Inner Libertarian would rather the gubmint just stay out of it. HOWEVER, the link between secondhand smoke exposure and acute mortality is DRASTICALLY exaggerated.

Funny thing is, what little evidence there is of the risks of secondhand smoke there is all points to the fact that people who LIVE WITH smokers are the only ones who have enough exposure to the byproducts of combustion to significantly effect their health...but antismokers are using that to support PUBLIC and even OUTDOOR smoking bans, not private homes where the actual potential for harm could be!

That is the problem with telling lies and exaggerations to further your agenda. Even if your intentions are pure, the public health "benefit" of conducting studies to find the risks of secondhand smoke has been lost. Instead of using it to educate smokers, victims of propaganda tend to reject any data that Health Nazis use to convince them they must either quit or die....especially when some people never quit but somehow live a long and happy life!

 

[Lambch3p]

Really!!?! and beacuse I need 10 letters I'll say it again Really?!!

 

[williebb123]

ive heard that if you look at an ecig your eyes will get cancer lol

 

[Who_Wants_To_Know]

Fact American anti-unpopular studies can say anything they want and get funding. All you have to do is say you are doing a study to prove the effect of (insert unpopular thing here) and you get a grant. I am about to conduct a study on how watching smoking on TV gives you cancer.

Excuse me there is some guy with a big bag of money and the local press on my door step. Expect nation wide coverage soon.

 

[Traver]

How about putting comments in the article instead of just talking about it.

 

[Ande]

ive heard that if you look at an ecig your eyes will get cancer

DAMN! Now I've looked at it! OMG!

(How am I supposed to vape this thing without looking?)


???

 

[Vocalek]

How about putting comments in the article instead of just talking about it.

Your wish is my command. Left this:

Thirdhand Smoke: A New Dimension to the Effects of... [Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2011] - PubMed result
Rehan’s study was conducted by painting the lung tissue of fetal rats with tobacco carcinogens. Unless a pregnant woman plans to have her uterus and the chest of her unborn baby surgically opened so that it can be painted with carcinogens, it is unclear how his research proves that so-called thirdhand smoke endangers the health of infants. If these toxicants linger forever on surfaces in rooms where people have smoked, how does Rehan explain the fact when smokers quit, they experience dramatic improvements in health, even if they don’t pack up and move to a new home?

 

[Traver]

Good comment.

 

[Thulium]

Can someone explain "in utero smoke exposure-induced effects" to me? How exactly are the developing lungs of unborn children exposed to thirdhand smoke?

 

[BCB]

Try to keep up, Thulium. Vocalek just explained it. The uterus is opened, as is the chest wall of the fetus. Then carcinogens are painted onto its developing lungs. I'm just guessing, but I think the assistant surgeon is the "third hand" (and the fourth). Although rarely discussed, the fifth and sixth hands usually belong to the nurses in the room.

 

[Ande]

Happen to have a fetus in the house; pregnant wife. Have NOT noticed any opening of the uterus to allow entry of third (or even first, or second, or fourth) hand smoke particals. That thing stay shut all the way through pregnancy. ;-)

While we're at it, applying the common sense test- Why would anything at all enter the lungs of somebody (a developing fetus) that does not breathe?

Ande

PS- for some reason, I can't comment on the article...

 

[GMoney]

Happen to have a fetus in the house; pregnant wife. Have NOT noticed any opening of the uterus to allow entry of third (or even first, or second, or fourth) hand smoke particals. That thing stay shut all the way through pregnancy. ;-)

While we're at it, applying the common sense test- Why would anything at all enter the lungs of somebody (a developing fetus) that does not breathe?

Ande

PS- for some reason, I can't comment on the article...

Presumably, by exposure of the Mother and then through the amniotic fluid into the lungs of the fetus.

 

[Vocalek]

Presumably, by exposure of the Mother and then through the amniotic fluid into the lungs of the fetus.

If Rehan's theory is that mother's pick up the particles on their skin, that somehow the particles make it into the mother's bloodstream and then across the placenta into the fetus, damaging the lungs, then why didn't he have the pregnant rats crawl across a carpet with smoke residue, wait until the little mice were born, and then look in their lungs?

All he has proven is that if you surgically open up the fetus and paint smoke residue onto the lungs, it has a bad effect. Duh!

I have a feeling that if you surgically open up the fetus and paint any substance whatsoever onto its lungs, it has a bad effect.