Watch out for Third-hand Smoke

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by akumushi

These studies are generally sponsered by anti-smoking groups, but they are done by impartial scientists with impartial science, ...

I won't correct the spelling, but...

Sure, we all know how impartial they seem to be. Ever hear of global warming debate? Ever seen an anti-smoking group that will hire an impartial scientist? Every group with a goal will always fund someone else with same goals, otherwise its a waste of money on their part. I am not saying nicotine is not bad, I am simply pointing out that one can always "find" proof if need be, especially when there is money involved.

Going back to the first article posted, just how common is nitrous acid in everyday environment? This should be key and I would like to see some numbers, not only how common, but if it is, then at what levels and at that point, at what levels does it bind with nicotine. Without these numbers this whole debate is BS.

wow....

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by akumushi

These studies are generally sponsered by anti-smoking groups, but they are done by impartial scientists with impartial science, so I wouldn't question the results just because the funding came from some a-holes that want to ban tobacco. It's not a question of whether or not smoking is a filthy habit, it's a question of whether or not we want the governent regulating our filthy habits

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.

Originally Posted by BigCat

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.

On top of this, unless the study was truly double-blind, then bias will be present. Has this even been peer-reviewed yet?

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by BigCat

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.

Seems no one here is listening. And like I said above, without some numbers the link is full of hot air and nothing more.

[akumushi]

All I'm saying is that if the data can be fudged one way, it can be fudged the other, and I don't see any studies from tobacco lobbied scientists, or anyone else for that matter, that are refuting these findings, and as such I have no good reason to doubt them. Show me contrary findings in another study and I'll start to have doubts. The nitric acid thing is a good point Riddick, so there may be less to worry about than the scare-mongers would have you think. Nevertheless, a post smoke shower and clothes change is a small sacrifice to make for the safety of my children.

[TheRiddick]

Originally Posted by akumushi

All I'm saying is that if the data can be fudged one way, it can be fudged the other, and I don't see any studies from tobacco lobbied scientists, or anyone else for that matter, that are refuting these findings, and as such I have no good reason to doubt them. Show me contrary findings in another study and I'll start to have doubts. The nitric acid thing is a good point Riddick, so there may be less to worry about than the scare-mongers would have you think. Nevertheless, a post smoke shower and clothes change is a small sacrifice to make for the safety of my children.

OK, a quick contrary study for you.

Taken directly from the article:
The researchers used cellulose as a model of indoor material, and exposed it to cigarette smoke. They then exposed it to a "high but reasonable" concentration of nitrous acid for three hours. The levels of newly formed TSNAs were 10 times higher after the nitrous acid exposure. The TSNAs also formed quickly, the researchers found.



Then, an explanation of how nitrous acid happens (since it only happens naturally way up in the sky):
Since most vehicle engines emit some nitrous acid that can infiltrate the passenger compartments, tests were also conducted on surfaces inside the truck of a heavy smoker, including the surface of a stainless steel glove compartment.

To sum up, these "unbiased", "neutral" scientists parked a truck in someone's living room for over 3 hours, then smoked a bunch of cigarettes on top of that. Yep, something all of us do on a daily basis. Also, pay attention to that "heavy smoker" description, that may be key as well.

I am not saying that second hand smoke is not a bad thing, simply that the study would have had way more merit had it not gone into typical "hysteria mode" a number of highly visible "studies" have gone to lately (global warming anyone?). Like I said, show me some numbers. Heavy smoker is what? Pack a day, 2, 3? And what are the chances that same heavy smoker parks his vehicle inside the house (or apt) with the engine running and then decides to smoke a few packs while watching superbowl, 100%, 200%, 1%?

[BigFrank]

Just another crap study funded by anti smoking interest groups. Probably just use this data to pass another round of taxes all for the "children"... Give me a break...

[TheRiddick]

OK, just came across this link:
http://kansas.watchdog.org/2010/02/2...ms-just-smoke/

Key paragraph as it relates to this thread:

The third claim Siegel objects to is called third-hand smoking. Some smoking ban advocates say nicotine left on a person’s clothing and skin is deposited on the surfaces away from the smoking area then create vapor that exposes non-smokers to harm. “I think that’s just a gross exaggeration, and the levels of exposure are so small that it’s not creating any meaningful hazard,”

Didn't the World Health Organization after years of study find that Secondhand smoke has no cancer causing ability?

u hear about tenth hand smokeing ? its when u could maybe perhaps but probley not get a tan from the cigar store light