| |
|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by twillercat
on Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:04 am |
|
Okay, I think they've officially jumped the shark.
Third-hand Smoke: Another Reason To Quit Smoking
ScienceDaily (Dec. 29, 2008) — Need another reason to add "Quit Smoking" to your New Year's resolutions list? How about the fact that even if you choose to smoke outside of your home or only smoke in your home when your children are not there – thinking that you're keeping them away from second-hand smoke – you're still exposing them to toxins? In the January issue of Pediatrics, researchers at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (MGHfC) and colleagues across the country describe how tobacco smoke contamination lingers even after a cigarette is extinguished – a phenomenon they define as "third-hand" smoke.
Their study is the first to examine adult attitudes about the health risks to children of third-hand smoke and how those beliefs may relate to rules about smoking in their homes.
"When you smoke – anyplace – toxic particulate matter from tobacco smoke gets into your hair and clothing," says lead study author, Jonathan Winickoff, MD, MPH, assistant director of the MGHfC Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy. "When you come into contact with your baby, even if you're not smoking at the time, she comes in contact with those toxins. And if you breastfeed, the toxins will transfer to your baby in your breastmilk." Winickoff notes that nursing a baby if you're a smoker is still preferable to bottle-feeding, however.
Particulate matter from tobacco smoke has been proven toxic. According to the National Toxicology Program, these 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals include hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, butane, ammonia, toluene (found in paint thinners), arsenic, lead, chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries), and polonium-210 (highly radioactive carcinogen). Eleven of the compounds are classified as Group 1 carcinogens, the most dangerous.
Small children are especially susceptible to third-hand smoke exposure because they can inhale near, crawl and play on, or touch and mouth contaminated surfaces. Third-hand smoke can remain indoors even long after the smoking has stopped. Similar to low-level lead exposure, low levels of tobacco particulates have been associated with cognitive deficits among children, and the higher the exposure level, the lower the reading score. These findings underscore the possibility that even extremely low levels of these compounds may be neurotoxic and, according to the researchers, justify restricting all smoking in indoor areas inhabited by children.
"The dangers of third-hand smoke are very real," says Winickoff, who is a professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Richmond Center. "Our goal was to find out if people who were aware of these harmful effects were less likely to smoke inside of their home."
Winickoff's team found that this was the case. In a survey of more than 1,500 households, 95.4 percent of nonsmokers versus 84.1 percent of smokers agreed that second-hand smoke harms the health of children, and 65.2 percent of nonsmokers versus 43.3 percent of smokers believed that third-hand smoke harms children. Strict rules prohibiting smoke in the home were more prevalent among nonsmokers – 88.4 percent versus 26.7 percent – but among both smokers and non-smokers, participants who agreed that environmental smoke was harmful to children's health were more likely to have restrictions on smoking in their homes.
Winickoff's study shows that increasing awareness of how third-hand smoke harms the health of children may encourage home smoking bans. It also will be important to incorporate knowledge about third-hand smoke contamination into current tobacco control campaigns, programs, and routine clinical practice.
Co-authors of the Pediatrics article are Joan Friebely, EdD, and Cheryl Sherrod, MGHfC Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy; Susanne Tanski, MD, Dartmouth Medical School; Georg Matt, PhD, and Melbourne Hovel, PhD, MPH, San Diego State University; and Robert McMillen, PhD, Mississippi State University. Support for the study includes grants from the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute and the National Cancer Institute.
Adapted from materials provided by Massachusetts General Hospital, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Email or share this story:
Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats:
APA
MLA
Massachusetts General Hospital (2008, December 29). Third-hand Smoke: Another Reason To Quit Smoking. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 30, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/12/081229105037.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229105037.htm |
|
|
twillercat
Toker
Joined: Jul 15, 2007
Posts: 108
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by runamok
on Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:32 pm |
|
This isn't the first time they've trotted this one out. Guess they decided to lead it out there again....plant some seeds.
It is however, beyond absurd. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by BWilliams
on Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm |
|
Quote: Winickoff notes that nursing a baby if you're a smoker is still preferable to bottle-feeding, however.
If they think "third hand smoke" is so toxic and deadly, why is it still better than bottle feeding? WTF are they putting in the bottle? |
|
|
BWilliams
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Jun 05, 2003
Posts: 1104
Location: New York City
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:21 pm |
|
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonary/Smoking/12303
Another news story with pretty much the same BS except it has this:
The study's limitations include the cross-sectional design, which makes it impossible to infer causal relationships, the researchers said. Also, there may be confounding by unmeasured or unknown factors.
And goes on to say this:
The findings have a possible clinical implication, the researchers concluded: "Emphasizing that third-hand smoke harms the health of children (previous paragraph makes it clear that it's impossible to determine this) may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans," they said.
Another way of saying that any lie is a good lie if it makes smokers lives miserable. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:11 pm |
|
Nice rebuttal at FoxNews:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,474451,00.html
So here's another example of how junk science has become even junkier than something really junky:
Researchers have identified "third-hand smoke," an invisible evil that acts like a deadly Ghost of Cigarettes Past: Polluting the air, killing innocent babies and ottomans — even if they aren't present at the time.
As you can guess, this research is geared toward one end only: The banning of all smoking on private property — including your home.
But look, most researchers knew for years that second-hand smoke was a joke, but most were too scared to speak up, while others saw it as a self-righteous way to look sensitive and get butt loads of grant money.
The problem is, once you're addicted to junk science, you can't stop. What's next, after third-hand smoke? Fourth-hand smoke? Where you can actually feel the negatives effects of smoking simply by staring at an unopened pack of cigarettes?
I'm told even the blind are not immune.
But get this: After saying that a smoker's third-hand smoke is bad for babies, the researchers then note that for a smoker, breastfeeding a baby is still better than bottle-feeding. So after all this crap about poisoning the air, they're saying breast milk from a smoker is still better than milk from a bottle. Theoretically, a smoking mom that breastfeeds is a better mom, than a non-smoking bottle-feeder. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by dumpstermcnuggets
on Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:40 pm |
|
runamok wrote: This isn't the first time they've trotted this one out. Guess they decided to lead it out there again....plant some seeds.
It is however, beyond absurd.
Speaking of that, I noticed on December 31st and January 1st throughout various media sources for whatever reason, antis were parading the tired Pueblo, CO heart attack study yet again. Antis are just depressing b***ards that'll never be happy, until tobacco and cigarette products are restricted to high hell in all outdoor settings, FDA regulation of tobacco products is approved by relapsing Prez smoker Obama, and the day comes when cig packs above $10 in Chicago, NYC, and in other cities that also have high local cig taxes. (Anchorage, Alaska is another notable city that has a high tax) |
|
|
dumpstermcnuggets
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Nov 06, 2006
Posts: 312
Location: Health Fascism Capital of the Midwest, Illinois
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Phil Williams
on Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:12 am |
|
As Michael J Mcfadden pointed out to me earlier, the study into third hand smoke is not a study at all, but simply a tellephone questionair to see if people believed that third hand smoke posed a risk. Peoples oppinions about supposed risks are irrelevent, especially when they have been spoon fed lies for so long.
The whole article is geared toward giving the reader the impression that third hand smoke has been proven to pose a risk, when closer reading shows us nothing of the sort. But unfortunately, most people seldom bother to read past the headlines. |
|
|
Phil Williams
Newbie
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
Posts: 21
Location: Norfolk, England
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by jsidney
on Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:43 am |
|
Absurb? Two years ago we all thought "Cigarette Butts!" was absurb.
"Third Hand Smoke" is the new "Cigarette Butts". (Cigarette Butts is soooo....yesterday.) This is the new Anti's banner.
It is being supported by particulate matter studies coming out of California.
Imagine, the smoker spreads disease by shedding tobacco smoke particulate matter like a Typhoid Mary even when he is not smoking! How do we avoid him? Treat him like the leper he is. Put a yellow band on his coatsleeve and forbid him access to schools, offices, stores, apartment building...anyplace he can shed those antrax spore-like particles.
Secondhand smoke was not the target. Cigarette butts was not the target. The target is and always has been the Smoker. |
|
|
jsidney
Toker
Joined: Jun 07, 2007
Posts: 86
Location: California
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
