Skip to comments.Study: Third-Hand Smoke Exposure As Deadly As Smoking
Posted on 02/04/2014 7:48:24 AM PST by rktman
Exposure to surfaces and objects that have been saturated in cigarette smoke, labeled as third-hand smoke, may be as deadly as smoking the cigarette itself.
A new study from the University of California, Riverside finds that the third-hand smoke that has soaked into the surfaces, objects and environment around people becomes increasingly toxic over time. Third-hand smoke is defined as the second-hand smoke that is allowed to settle on objects in any environment. Non-smoking children, co-workers, spouses and friends of smokers breathe in such carcinogens left in rooms exposed to smokers.
(Excerpt) Read more at atlanta.cbslocal.com ...
Unless its pot smoke......
Wasn’t the entire second hand smoke thing recently debunked? These people are hysterical.
Second Hand Liberalism is harmful to Children and all other living things.
Smoke Encounters of the Third Kind.
I’ve been cleaning amplifiers, computers, various electronics, all suffering from “emphysema” for 40 years now. A sound man in smoke filled bars since I was 14. No cancer yet. Bunch of pu**ies.
We better act right now and elect more democrats and give the UN more power and become communist so we can have a better chance of fighting “may” ;/
And I’m a former smoker, now strongly opposed to smoking.
This is a ridiculous PR trick. Nothing more.
. . . and you can pick up the clap from door knobs and handling somebody else’s panties or underwear . . .
I seem to recall Steve Jobs was ahead of this game. IIRC, Apple computer warranty was void in a smoker’s habitat. Something about not wanting service techs exposed to the residue.
Yes it was. That "study" was a meta-study derived from looking at several other studies. HHS actually cherry-picked the studies to be used so they could get the results they wanted. There was no science or real statistical analysis involved.
Then you scrape it up and put it in a hash pipe and turn it into 4th hand smoke. The ultimate in recycling.
no licking toilet seats either (a warning only needed in San Francisco)
Not actually supported by the detailed text in the article.
What they presumably meant to say is that prolonged exposure results in increased risk due to an increased dose. Dose = exposure x time.
Given the astonishing scientific and statistical irregularities in the original EPA studies of second-hand smoke, I find the results of this study really, really unlikely.
For the results of the EPA 2nd-hand smoke study to be accurate, second-hand smoke would have to be much more toxic than 1st-hand smoke. Which doesn't seem probable.
These studies invariably give the impression that there's something uniquely hazardous about smoke from the tobacco plant. This is of course untrue, since the carcinogenic components (tars) of tobacco smoke are similar to smoke from wood or other plants.
The only reason cigarettes are so hazardous is that we don't normally intentionally deeply inhale the smoke of other plants in such quantity. Nicotine, the drug that induces people to smoke in such quantity, is actually pretty innocuous and even beneficial in the doses a smoker is exposed to. Although it is incredibly toxic at higher doses.
Just cigarette smoke then? Why not other kinds of smoke? Will there be a huge lawsuit and settlement for firefighters who handle smokey clothes all day? Hell, I’ve got an old smoker out back I routinely use to saturate food WITH smoke, if I get cancer can I sue Webber corp?
There could be a situation in which surfaces that haven't been cleaned of the effects of smoke over the years have other kinds of cleanliness issues. The other thing is proper ventilation. Lots of disease is caused when pollutants get in heating/air conditioning units, and some of those pollutants will be smoke and tobacco related. Keep in mind that the problem isn't necessarily the tobacco; the additives could be. Another issue....fresh air and sunshine are necessary to kill germs.
I could see how a nonsense conclusion like this could be scientifically "proven" if all of those other factors are ignored.
I call BS, too.
This isn’t about safety. It’s about revenue generation.
I cannot understand how smokers survive at all. In addition to first-hand smoke they get constant second-hand smoke (deadly) and now even deadly third-hand.
What about if you just think about cigarette smoke? :-)