Thirdhand Smoke Forms Cancer-Causing Residue Indoors That Lasts

[taught_me_patience]

Per Bloomberg

By Nicole Ostrow

Feb. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Tobacco smoke contamination lingering on furniture, clothes and other surfaces, dubbed thirdhand smoke, may react with indoor air chemicals to form potential cancer-causing substances, a study found.

After exposing a piece of paper to smoke, researchers found the sheet had levels of newly formed carcinogens that were 10 times higher after three hours in the presence of an indoor air chemical called nitrous acid commonly emitted by household appliances or cigarette smoke. That means people may face a risk from indoor tobacco smoke in a way that’s never been recognized before, said one of the study’s authors, Lara Gundel.

Previous research has shown that secondhand smoke, which is inhaled by nonsmokers exposed to fumes from cigarettes, raises the risk of cancer and heart disease. More research is needed to identify the potential health hazards of thirdhand smoke, Gundel said. Overall, tobacco use causes 20 percent of all cancer deaths, according to the study published in today’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“We have considered that nicotine on surfaces has been pretty benign up to this point. It turns out we shouldn’t say that now,” said Gundel, a staff scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, in a Feb. 5 telephone interview. “People can be exposed to toxins in tobacco smoke in a way that’s never been recognized before.”


more... http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aTVcuy71TmGE

[devilgrrl]

1. Not to dispute, I live on a busy street, any studies on third hand vehicle exhaust?

eom

[taught_me_patience]

4. It's not even remotely similar levels of concentration.

And it's a really bad analogy.

[devilgrrl]

6. How so? Explain the incessant black dust on my window stills that I clean almost once a week?

:popcorn:

[Doremus]

7. Got a link to back up that (foolish) assumption?

Have you ever looked at the snow piled up near a street? Take a look at it sometime and tell us there's not a high level of concentration of particulate matter in car exhaust.

In the summer, we put a clearance table outside on the sidewalk and the tablecloth actually gets DIRTY from the car exhaust.

[taught_me_patience]

11. It's called my sense of smell.

I can walk into a smoker's house and it smells like smoke. Couches smell like smoke. I've never smelt a couch that smelled like auto exhaust. I've never seen a haze of auto exhaust in a home. It's called common sense.

[devilgrrl]

17. "Common Sense"? You can't smell asbestos either bozo. Or rayon for that matter.

:crazy:

[Donnachaidh]

27. no -- it's called selective obsession

You dislike tobacco, so anything that remotely might smell like it falls into the *reeks* category in your mind.

However, driving is necessary for YOUR lifestyle, therefore it's FINE and doesn't cause any sort of problems for anyone. In fact, the only complaints you've had is all the flowery glitter that flows from YOUR exhaust can cause vision problems for the poor sod driving behind YOU. :sarcasm:

Hypocrisy effects everyone.

[taught_me_patience]

30. Its called common sense

and if you think the concentration of my exhaust fumes is higher in the car trailing me than the haze of smoke filling the cabin from a cigarette, then you are crazy not worth wasting my time on.

[laughingliberal]

32. "haze of smoke filling the cabin from a cigarette"

Wait, I thought this was about residue left behind, not smoke.

[Wizard777]

43. More like Omitted Variable Bias. "Also emitted by household appliances."

Both Cigarettes and your household appliances emmit the nitrous acid. The nitrous acid then forms the carcinogens. So you should get rid of your cigarettes. But they don't even suggest getting rid of your household appliances. So that is an Omitted Variable Bias that could be caused by a Cognitive Bias called Confirmation Bias.

[wuushew]

14. That flawed analogy will be dead in the not to distant future

Chevy claims their future is electric.



Also look at the difference between cars say in 1970 and now. Catalytic converts, low sulfur diesel etc. Do the complainers not acknowledge improvement in emissions technology?

Where are the great innovations of the tobacco industry?

[devilgrrl]

19. So in the meantime ignore that black snow on the side of the road it's nothing...

it's not like you can smell it.

BTW, when are these cars going to replace all the gas powered vehicles on the roads now? Are they affordable for most people? Most people can only afford up $10,000 - probably much less than that actually. So lets hear it.

[KittyWampus]

38. fire retardant chemicals in the rolling paper.

Oh, and Joe Camel

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

41. yes, Chevrolet will save us!

:eyes:

[Toots]

40. There are over twenty five identified carcinogens in tobacco smoke

How many are in auto exhaust? Unless you can tell us the answer your comparison is baseless.

[One_Life_To_Give]

44. Benzene, Formaldehyde...

Sulpher dioxide, particulates, etc. Depending upon how finely you break down the different compounds the results will vary. But on a pound basis. There are far more tons of gasoline and diesel burned than tobacco. And likewise far more carcinogens put into the air as a result.

[Robb]

2. That's the most outlanding thing I've heard today, and that's saying a lot.

...So the paper gets cancer?

[Doremus]

3. I'm an ex-smoker and even I think this is ludicrous. How about fireplace residue?

BBQ residue? Bonfire residue?

Everything that was ever touched by a whiff of smoke is now carcinogenic. Sounds like somebody doesn't have enough to worry about. :eyes:

[wtbymark]

5. what about all the carcinigens from the carpet or couch offgasing

for 10+ years. Hey, don't lick that couch! This is like the mercury in vaccines BS. And if you didn't know, you ingested more mercury today just by being alive than you have in a lifetime of vaccines.

[Bonhomme Richard]

8. News Flash. We are all going to die. Yikes! n/t

[endless october]

9. seriously.

that shit doesn't get people to quit smoking.

this shit does, though :



that's what helped me quit. and about.com has the best quit smoking forum i have ever seen.

[rucky]

10. Don't smoke your furniture.

[katandmoon]

12. And it fucking stinks

[SheilaT]

13. Smokers seem blissfully unaware

that the reek of cigarette smoke gets into EVERYTHING that they are smoking near.

Once, when I was pregnant, my sister sent me some baby clothes she no longer needed. Her husband was a smoker, and as soon as I opened the box, that nasty old-cigarette smell came out, and the very first thing I had to do was wash the clothes.

Whenever I've been house hunting, I've found that a house that reeks of cigarette smoke immediately is out of consideration.

[taught_me_patience]

21. Same with cars.

I eliminate any used car of an ex-smoker. You cannot get the smell out ever.

[Donnachaidh]

28. selective obsession. n/t

[SheilaT]

37. There really is something different

about the way the smell of cigarette smoke gets into things. If you want to call it selective obsession, go ahead. But the truth is, smoking directly kills at least 400,000 people in this country every single year. If all of the deaths from smoking were publicized at a fraction of the attention given to deaths from H1N1 this year -- which was, in the end, an unusually mild flu -- then people would be in a total panic about smoking the way they ought to be, rather than constantly trying to defend it as quite a benign personal choice that doesn't harm anyone else.

[KT2000]

15. Homes are chemical soups

dust collects the contaminants inside the home. For example, a home that measures "safe" levels of formaldehyde could show about 5,000 times that amount on dust samples.
Formaldehyde when mixed with chloride ions can form the chemical BCME that causes small cell lung cancer- it has the shortest latency period. Women who do housework and laundry could be especially vulnerable.

Air fresheners have all kinds of chemicals that people should not be exposed to.
Perfumes are loaded with " " " "
Unless they have taken it our, dryer sheets contain chloroform.

In other words - there are no rules, laws or regs about indoor air quality. Companies are free to sell toxic products to consumers that have not been tested in a home environment.

[Kaleva]

18. It gets worse as homes become more airtight and better insulated.

[lonestarnot]

16. Nobody gets the fuck outta here alive.

[whistler162]

20. But still not as bad as Dihydrogen Monoxide

Now that is a killer!

[Berry Cool]

22. Once again, someone tries to end the conversation with that clever bon mot.

Because Lord forgive us if we offend someone by implying that cigarette smoke is toxic.

[WilliamPitt]

23. "indoor air chemicals"?

[dysfunctional press]

24. does that mean that third-hand pot smoke could be therapeutic?

there's a brown grungy haze on the inside of my windshield...and if you tap the roof upholstery enough, you could probably get a contact high.

and i could probably charge people to sleep on my couch as a 'healing experience'.

[leftstreet]

34. +1

:rofl:

[varelse]

25. Interesting article

Children Exposed

People, particularly infants and toddlers, are most likely exposed to these carcinogens by either inhaling dust or by skin contact, the authors said. Using fans and opening a window doesn’t help eliminate the hazards because most of the nicotine and other substances from burning cigarettes aren’t found in the air, but are absorbed by surfaces, Gundel said.

“Buildings, rooms, public places should be 100 percent smoke free,” she said. “Replace nicotine-laden furniture, carpets and curtains. Nicotine absorbs into these materials. The stuff that’s imbedded can continue to come to the surface.”

"Third hand" tobacco smoke has always made me sick, but I never imagined it could cause serious illness.

[Donnachaidh]

26. oh fer christ's sake -- another control freak's wet dream report

Yeah yeah yeah -- smoking BAD. Driving GOOD. And WHO. pray tell, paid for this study?

:shrug:

[taught_me_patience]

29. It appears to be University of California Berkeley

Tobacco Related Disease Research Program.

[laughingliberal]

36. Which is why it's odd they keep highlighting nicotine residue when nicotine is not a carcinogen

and they talk about the TSNA's which are an additive in American cigarettes and cause a form of lung cancer only seen in America. If they believe the TSNA residue is a problem it would seem they would mention this is an additive only used here. And I have no idea why they kept talking about nicotine residue in an article about possible causes of cancer. Poorly written? Or misleading?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. What I did with the house I bought 25 years ago.

The widow who lived there died from a heart attack and was a smoker. I don't know if her husband smoked too. The house was built in 1956 and they were the original owners. I became the second owner.

As soon as I moved in I washed down all the den paneling and kitchen cabinets which were japanese ash.

I ended up with buckets of yellow-brown water, obviously from tobacco reek.

My then-husband thought I was nuts, but then he thought everything I did was wrong. :wtf:

In the very old house I live in now, I can wipe down the doors and come up with ancient dust and some yellow gunk. My grandfather smoked cigars back in the 1950s and before.

[laughingliberal]

33. Strange, they keep talking about nicotine residue in this article

AFAIK, nicotine has never been considered a carcinogen.

And, btw, the TSNA's are only found in American cigarettes. A study reported a couple of months ago tagged this additive as being responsible for one form of lung cancer that is seen only in smokers of American cigarettes and not in smokers in other countries.

[RagAss]

35. Another pile of shit from those who need to live forever....sorry...we all gonna die !

[KittyWampus]

39. this thread illustrates perfectly that even liberals dismiss information that doesn't fit

their preconceived notions.

We all do it, it's human.

[taught_me_patience]

49. This is so true

People will believe (or not believe) anything to justify their lifestyles.

[galileoreloaded]

42. In other news, life and living found to be deadly 100% of the time...n/t

[Wizard777]

45. Correct! Breathing even clean air is hazardous to your health.

Because every breath you take leaves you one less until your last. So the act of breathing is hazardous to your health. So under the guises of protecting the public health. We must pass laws to preserve life by prohibiting breathing. We must provide severe penalties for those who refuse to quit breathing to preserve the public health. If we can establish in the public conscious that only bad people breathe. Thereby establishing breathing to not only be a crime but a sin as well. We could set the penalty for breathing at execution. After all it's for the children. We want them to be able to grow up in a world without the dangers of breathing.

:crazy: :silly: :rofl:

So do you think I'm ready to run for the Senate? I think I've really got a firm grasp on the uses of Science in the Senate.

[suffragette]

46. Some interesting branding going on here

From the article in the OP:
A previous study, published in the journal Pediatrics in January 2009, found residual tobacco smoke is deposited on furniture, carpeting and clothing and coined the phrase “thirdhand smoke.”

A different report on this story is somewhat more accurate:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011019461_smoke09.html

The term "thirdhand smoke" was coined in 2009 in a study in the journal Pediatrics, which found that 65 percent of nonsmokers thought that the residue of tobacco smoke found on furniture and drapes, in rugs and dust, and on skin and clothing, can harm children and infants. Only 43 percent of smokers believed that it posed a health risk.

Note the "study" that produced the term was actually an opinion poll. The way it's described in the 1st article gives no indication that that's what it was.

Here's a link to that original poll:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/1/e74

Beliefs About the Health Effects of "Thirdhand" Smoke and Home Smoking Bans
OBJECTIVE. There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Thirdhand smoke is residual tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is extinguished. Children are uniquely susceptible to thirdhand smoke exposure. The objective of this study was to assess health beliefs of adults regarding thirdhand smoke exposure of children and whether smokers and nonsmokers differ in those beliefs. We hypothesized that beliefs about thirdhand smoke would be associated with household smoking bans.

METHODS. Data were collected by a national random-digit-dial telephone survey from September to November 2005. The sample was weighted by race and gender within Census region on the basis of US Census data. The study questions assessed the level of agreement with statements that breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of children.

RESULTS. Of 2000 eligible respondents contacted, 1510 (87%) completed surveys, 1478 (97.9%) answered all questions pertinent to this analysis, and 273 (18.9%) were smokers. Overall, 95.4% of nonsmokers versus 84.1% of smokers agreed that secondhand smoke harms the health of children, and 65.2% of nonsmokers versus 43.3% of smokers agreed that thirdhand smoke harms children. Strict rules prohibiting smoking in the home were more prevalent among nonsmokers: 88.4% vs 26.7%. In multivariate logistic regression, after controlling for certain variables, belief that thirdhand smoke harms the health of children remained independently associated with rules prohibiting smoking in the home. Belief that secondhand smoke harms the health of children was not independently associated with rules prohibiting smoking in the home and car.

CONCLUSIONS. This study demonstrates that beliefs about the health effects of thirdhand smoke are independently associated with home smoking bans. Emphasizing that thirdhand smoke harms the health of children may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans.



So, one organization went looking for opinions corresponding to a view they held, came up with a branding term (technically wouldn't it be residue? But smoke evokes more emotion) and now there's a confirming study using the same new branding term to back up the opinion "study."

[MilesColtrane]

52. But, if the pollers were wearing lab coats when they called, it's science-y!

[suffragette]

56. "wearing lab coats when they called"

Science-y and truthy all in one!

[slackmaster]

47. Tell me about it - My house was previously owned by a smoker

I've lived here over 15 years, and there are a couple of places where I can still smell the stuff sometimes.

[noamnety]

48. I didn't need a study to tell me this.

My husband doesn't smoke, but after golfing he goes to a bar with friends sometimes. The stink gets in his clothes, and has to drop the clothes in the laundry room (not our bedroom hamper) because the third hand smoke makes me ill. He also knows he has to shower before even thinking about lying down in our bed - and sometimes I can't ride in his car right afterwards because the smoke has gotten into his clothing and then on his upholstery and it makes me sick for a day or two after, sometimes longer depending how bad it is.

We had one girl my daughter was friends with back in first grade who wasn't allowed to ride in my car or be at our house because the car/house would reek for days afterwards because her parents smoked around her, and she stank of it. Poor thing was only maybe 6 or 7 years old, it's a shitty position for her to be in, but it was triggering migraines for me long after she was done visiting us and turning my stomach. I couldn't live like that.

I figure it's a pretty safe guess that if something makes you as ill as it was making me, the substances in it aren't neutral for my health. The chemicals were still getting into my lungs.

In both those cases, with the husband and the girl, it was their second hand smoke exposure that I couldn't be around.

[MadHound]

50. Another "study" designed to beat the smoking prohibition drum

Notice the weasel words: "may react", "form potential", "potential health hazards". In other words this study has no solid conclusion, but it's released anyway to whip the smoking Nazis into another fever pitch of prohibition.

Meanwhile smokestacks, car exhausts, hell even the very basic products that go into our houses, carpet, plastics, drywall, etc. etc. are all releasing more carcinogens than this so called "thirdhand" smoke.

[Fumesucker]

51. I don't recall ever once hearing a proposal to make tobacco illegal..

Do you have links to any such proposals?

Edited for speling..

[MadHound]

53. Oh go search through the past posts

You will find plenty of folks around here who would love to see cigarettes banned. I was especially evident during some of the larger smoking flame wars four-five years ago.

[Fumesucker]

55. So no politician has made a proposal to put tobacco on the DEA schedule then...

That's pretty much what I thought..

So there's nothing to worry about with respect to tobacco being made illegal, it's not going to happen in even the most fevered dreams.

[LanternWaste]

54. It's only a matter of time before a handful of,,,

It's only a matter of time before a handful of smoking zealots (simply a counter-weight to the oft-used "smoking nazis" and "nanny-staters" that get bandied about like so many marlbes in a pocket) begin to tell us that smoking is actually good for us... or that most absurd of claims, "everything kills... smokes are simply another tool/method/form"