I remember the public service announcements when I was a little girl. "Smoking may be dangerous to your health." And as I hit my teen years, those PSA's began to tout the hazards of secondhand smoke.
Now as my own children listen to the public service announcements between their shows, the numbers keep climbing. Third-hand smoke? What is that?
A term coined to describe the residual chemicals and gases that are left on services long after a cigarette has been snubbed out, concerns about third-hand smoke are likely here to stay.
Why?
It's subtle. It lasts. And it's tenacious.
After reviewing the articles to date on third-hand smoke, a few things hit me. Unlike the visible and olfactory cues that make first and secondhand smoke obvious, third-hand smoke is much more subtle. The buildup of particles on surfaces that have been exposed to smoke is largely invisible. And, unless you're a bit of a bloodhound, you might not even know it's there.
There were two other points that made me think we're just starting to hear about third-hand smoke. One is it's staying power. Secondhand smoke can be sent on it's way in a matter of minutes. Yet a study of third-hand smoke found lingering evidence 2 months after a home was vacated and free of smoke.
My other concern was how hard it is to get rid of. You think throwing your smoke-exposed clothes in the wash will do it? Hiring the carpet cleaning service? Dropping a load off at the drycleaner?
Think again.
To remove nicotine residue, you need an acidic cleaner. Since most cleaners are alkaline, the residue remains.
Are you interested in learning more? Check out this article:
Actually, those who are interested in seeing the true threat from things like Polonium 210 in thirdhand smoke should see my detailed commentary on it at Global Health Law:
http://globalhealthlaw.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/third-hand-smoke/#comment-52
Comments welcome…
- MJM
They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France …
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor … but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor’s note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It’s everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
…
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Le Parisien
…
I found this interesting as well: “Yet a study of third-hand smoke found lingering evidence 2 months after a home was vacated and free of smoke.”
The author fails to note that with the magic of 21st Century nanotechnology, a study of fried-chicken fumes could almost certainly find evidence of a single sneaked fried-chicken-cook-fest 2 YEARS after a home was vacated and free of frying. There’s an enormous leap between finding nanograms and picograms of substances and then moving on to stoke fires of fear and dissension over nonexistent “threats” — and that sort of public leap in a medically oriented forum is unconscionable.
- MJM