• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A New Cigarette Hazard: ‘Third-Hand Smoke’

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Parents who smoke often open a window or turn on a fan to clear the air of second-hand smoke, but experts now have identified another smoking-related threat to children’s health that isn’t as easy to get rid of: third-hand smoke.

That’s the term being used to describe the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room. The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor.

Doctors from MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston coined the term “third-hand smoke” to describe these chemicals in a new study that focused on the risks they pose to infants and children. The study was published in this month’s issue of the journal Pediatrics.

...

Third-hand smoke is what one smells when a smoker gets in an elevator after going outside for a cigarette, he said, or in a hotel room where people were smoking. “Your nose isn’t lying,” he said. “The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: ’Get away.’”

...

“The central message here is that simply closing the kitchen door to take a smoke is not protecting the kids from the effects of that smoke,” he said. “There are carcinogens in this third-hand smoke, and they are a cancer risk for anybody of any age who comes into contact with them.”

Among the substances in third-hand smoke are hydrogen cyanide, used in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid; toluene, found in paint thinners; arsenic; lead; carbon monoxide; and even polonium-210, the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. Eleven of the compounds are highly carcinogenic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?em

Very interesting. Thoughts?

(Before people post something about how smoking is evil and should be a crime or how this is fascism seeking to take away your constitutional right to smoke a boge in your own house, take a second to realize that this isn't a political issue, it's a scientific one).
 
Seems probable. Intuitive, even. You smoke a cig, the smoke goes around and particles land on different places. Not a stretch, exactly.

I am, however, quite doubtful about the negative effects of such a thing being greater than negligible. It's sort of extreme germaphobia. It's probably true, but there's so many awful remnants of awful things everywhere; your home, your car, your bed, yourself. Anyone you touch in anyway. It's just not worth worrying about.
 
I'm more worried about the **** people put in their bodies through their food every day than I am about third hand smoke.
 
I'm more worried about the **** people put in their bodies through their food every day than I am about third hand smoke.

But the food you put into your body doesn't have a direct physical effect on those around you, beans and broccoli aside.
 
Gee, it is still hard getting some hard core skeptics to accept the reality of second-hand smoke. Third hand smoke? While it is certainly logical, some people will never accept it no matter how much evidence supports it over the next couple of decades.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?em

Very interesting. Thoughts?

(Before people post something about how smoking is evil and should be a crime or how this is fascism seeking to take away your constitutional right to smoke a boge in your own house, take a second to realize that this isn't a political issue, it's a scientific one).
Perhaps people genetically fragile enough to produce children this susceptible should do everyone a favor and not breed?

further, I'll only believe that it's a "scientific issue" if its authors don't produce a for-profit book, or allow themselves to receive significant payments of the talk show and lecture circuits.
 
This study is the first of its kind, so I'd want to see it reproduced and followed up upon via additional research. It's not something that should be accepted right off the bat. I'm also curious as to who funded this study.

To be honest, I am sceptical... but open minded. Smoke does tend to seep into everything and give off gross odours. I don't see why it's unreasonable to suggest that the toxins in second hand smoke can't be deposited onto a surface... but claiming that and claiming that residues cause cancer is something else altogether.
 
This study is the first of its kind, so I'd want to see it reproduced and followed up upon via additional research. It's not something that should be accepted right off the bat. I'm also curious as to who funded this study.

To be honest, I am sceptical... but open minded. Smoke does tend to seep into everything and give off gross odours. I don't see why it's unreasonable to suggest that the toxins in second hand smoke can't be deposited onto a surface... but claiming that and claiming that residues cause cancer is something else altogether.
If you're just going to be reasonable, thoughtful and logical, I'm going to call it a night and sign off.













:2wave:
 
If you're just going to be reasonable, thoughtful and logical, I'm going to call it a night and sign off.

If you want to be reasonable, thoughtful, and logical, then feel free to let me know why you disagree with me, otherwise your unsubstantiated remark holds no water.

*kicks up dirt to make this thread more interesting*

:D
 
Last edited:
The idea of third hand smoke is plausable but the conclusion seems pretty one sided or dramatic if you will.

Fact: pollutants are in the air and cause a hazard.
Fact: Pollutants are in the water and cause a hazard.
Fact: Crispy Bacon can cause cancer.

No matter who you are you are going to come in contact with something that is harmful to you. Sitting around being paranoid about 2nd hand or 3rd hand smoke is silly.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?em

Very interesting. Thoughts?

(Before people post something about how smoking is evil and should be a crime or how this is fascism seeking to take away your constitutional right to smoke a boge in your own house, take a second to realize that this isn't a political issue, it's a scientific one).

Well I`ll be DAMNED...not one other thing in the modern/fully synthetic home needs attention...hmmm.
 
In the grand scheme of things and what's really hazardous to human health this is small potatoes. I'm certainly not going to worry about it or stop kissing my boyfriend when he comes in from smoking his cig outside.
 
I'd be shocked if these particles caused anything more than bad breath or smell. At this point it seems like hysteria to me.
 
I'd be shocked if these particles caused anything more than bad breath or smell. At this point it seems like hysteria to me.




If your cigarette is giving ME bad breath, we gotta talk. :lol:
 
I'd be shocked if these particles caused anything more than bad breath or smell. At this point it seems like hysteria to me.
So the newspaper piece citing scientific examination is wrong and you know this intuitively without one iota of science to support you? Logical.
 
what scientific examination was that exactly?
If you had bothered to read the story associated with the opening post you would already know, wouldn't you? It's not a long piece perhaps you'll take a moment and read it before injecting your point of view?
Doctors from Mass General Hospital for Children in Boston coined the term “third-hand smoke” to describe these chemicals in a new study that focused on the risks they pose to infants and children. The study was published in this month’s issue of the journal Pediatrics.
And this too. Let me guess you don't consider Mass General and Harvard Medical School as legitimate scientific institutions?
“Everyone knows that second-hand smoke is bad, but they don’t know about this,” said Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?_r=1&em
 
If you had bothered to read the story associated with the opening post you would already know, wouldn't you? It's not a long piece perhaps you'll take a moment and read it before injecting your point of view?

And this too. Let me guess you don't consider Mass General and Harvard Medical School as legitimate scientific institutions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?_r=1&em




I read the story. you fail again.


I find a blurb, and some dubious nonsense about some study suspect to say the least.



Tell me what are the known "safe levels" of ETS?



And also if you do a little more research on this junk science, they also state that breast feeding is still better than bottle feeding.... given thier "logic" one would assume that breast milk from a smoker poses some risks, or is it only microparticles on the couch?


Junk science for the lunatic fringe to glom onto...... :2wave:
 
I read the story. you fail again.


I find a blurb, and some dubious nonsense about some study suspect to say the least.



Tell me what are the known "safe levels" of ETS?



And also if you do a little more research on this junk science, they also state that breast feeding is still better than bottle feeding.... given thier "logic" one would assume that breast milk from a smoker poses some risks, or is it only microparticles on the couch?


Junk science for the lunatic fringe to glom onto...... :2wave:
What a tough choice! A study from Mass General led by a Harvard Medical School scientist or your nonsense?

So typical of your posts is the diversion away from the facts and you substitute right wing talk radio babble as your talking point. :rofl

Out of curiosity do you believe in evolution or is that too some nonsense unproven theory?

BTW - the concept that a mother would smoke cigarettes and then breast feed is repulsive. Is that what your mother did to you?
 
What a tough choice! A study from Mass General led by a Harvard Medical School scientist or your nonsense?

Fallacy: Appeal to authority

So typical of your posts is the diversion away from the facts and you substitute right wing talk radio babble as your talking point. :rofl

Fallacy: Ad hominen


Out of curiosity do you believe in evolution or is that too some nonsense unproven theory?

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule


BTW - the concept that a mother would smoke cigarettes and then breast feed is repulsive. Is that what your mother did to you?

Fallacy: Ad hominen abusive




You fail on so many levels...... :2wave:
 
Fallacy: Appeal to authority



Fallacy: Ad hominen




Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule




Fallacy: Ad hominen abusive




You fail on so many levels...... :2wave:
I support and defend an authentic scientific study. You counter with diversions that never include any science other than the science of the absurd.

You can attack me all you want who cares? What you're unable to do is dispute the study cited in the Times piece which is your modus operandi.

You judge me, I judge the science. You make up **** I defend science. You attack the study with babble and I defend science.

I guess I should be used to some Republicans who have no knowledge or belief in science.
 
:lol: don't know why I bother.... you post something, i disagree, you attack me.....


that is all you do. whatever man.... i choose to think for myself, not take any piece of junk science that comes along and treat it like the word of god...

Remember asbestos was a miracle substance, and thalidomide was safe for pregnant mothers.


and I made up nothing stop lying. :2wave:
 
:lol: don't know why I bother.... you post something, i disagree, you attack me.....


that is all you do. whatever man.... i choose to think for myself, not take any piece of junk science that comes along and treat it like the word of god...

Remember asbestos was a miracle substance, and thalidomide was safe for pregnant mothers.


and I made up nothing stop lying. :2wave:
Calling this study "junk science" is a lie and you made it up. You've shown no evidence to dispute the study other than you calling it junk science. This is how you operate. You make it up, you never prove what you make up, you attack anyone who challenges the made up **** that you post and you whine, whine, whine...but you never disprove the truth that you dispute, you just divert away from the truth and continue to post bs like calling the Mass General study "junk science."
 
Back
Top Bottom