Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

A New Cigarette Hazard: ‘Third-Hand Smoke’

Public Health Smoking 2009 3rd hand smoke

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 12:51 PM

View Postsierraleone, on Jan 8 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

So, ignoring the kids for a moment, only meek people like your aunt (that you've somehow learned that smoke bothers her and it seems she doesn't bring it up) gets the honour/privileged of your non-smoking presence? Thats what always confused me about you in our 2nd hand smoke threads (and now 3rd hand ;) ). You describe people who won't say anything, who get your respect, and those that 'order you' around. It makes me wonder, are these people really all ordering you, or is there some grey middle you either don't admit to or don't see?

Honestly, not sure how I learned smoke really bothered her. It was long time ago, probably heard her response to a conversation about smoking or something. As for the people who won't say anything...if they don't say anything then how would I know, other then body language, that smoke is bothering them?

My grandfather was a order type....My cousin's wife has commanding tone and words when it comes to smoking...Which turned out bad for her cause when she would say something like "You can't smoke." or "Don't light up" in her commanding voice and attitude...that usually caused me to light up right then and there...especially considering it wasn't her house but my Aunt's. And at the time my Aunt allowed smoking. Different Aunt BTW...LOL. Don't want to confuse you more.

Quote

How'd you react if enTrance was your off-line friend, and asked you if you could crack a window before he and his son visits, and maybe even cease smoking while they was there? (I know he said he asked his smoking friends the former, not sure about the latter, but he did ask his father not to smoke around his son).
If you said you wouldn't, it was the middle of winter, or it was your house, or what difference did it make with all the third hand smoke ;) would you be offended if he decided that he couldn't come over, and that if you guys were to meet in person and hang out it would have to be either at his own house where no smoking was allowed, or in some neutral non-smoking place? Does that seem like ordering, since he has stated he wouldn't come over without those concessions on your part? Would it make a difference if he or the kid was allergic and/or had asthma?

If ET was a real good offline friend I would have no problem cracking a window...And depending on how good of a friend, I would either smoke outside or at the very least in a different room. Same way I would do if my Aunt or my nieces were over.

Quote

Where is the middle gray ground, for you, on this issue LOTS? I could see you having an issue with a passive aggressive approach too, someone complaining (and not too subtly ;) ) about how s/he doesn't like smoke fumes or they get headaches or something but not asking you outright directly either. If someone asks you to kindly but out, and you want to finish your smoke you just started (say they just don't like the smell, no allergy or lung issues and its neutral place, not either's 'territory') who should kindly leave?

Honestly, it really is a case by case thing with me. If someone trys and orders me with "You can't light up" or "Put that out right now"...Well things will go downhill fast from there. If a polite request is made, with respect...I'd have no problem either moving away or if not able to move away, put out for the time being.

I was in a casino awhile ago, playing slots...It was the smoking section...so was within my right to be smoking. A elderly lady sat at the slot next to me, and after a few minutes I noticed her waving her hand in front of her face. She hadn't said anything about the smoke, but my cigarette was in a ashtray between the two machines. So I asked if the smoke was bothering her. She nodded, so I moved the ashtray to other side away from her...And made sure to blow the smoke away from her while I finished the cigarette.

I also watched, out of the corner of my eye, to see if the smoke was still bothering her. It didn't appear to be, and she didn't say anything. Come to think of it, she didn't even say thank you for moving the cigarette either. Who knows, maybe she just didn't like speaking to strangers?

So I am flexible, as long as people are polite and respectful. It's when they get that holier than thou attitude and approach that the problem arises.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#62 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 12:53 PM

View PostCheile, on Jan 8 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

i agree...that's absolutely out of line.  parents have no right to poison their children.

Then I guess they shouldn't get the kids vaccinated either, since there is mercury in the vaccines...and sometimes the vaccines lead to autism...Nope, do away with the poisionous vaccines everyone.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#63 enTranced

enTranced

    Chasing Your Starlight!

  • Islander
  • 15,772 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 01:00 PM

Thanks LOTS, maybe we will visit sometime! ;)

Honestly, I have found it is better to ask politely for something instead of waiting for telepathy to kick in. :)

Seriously, if you are nice about it most smokers don't have a problem with not lighting up or at least cracking a window, especially when there is a child involved.

Like I said above, it's 2009 now. We know this stuff.

enTranced
Posted Image

#64 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 01:15 PM

View PostenTranced, on Jan 8 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

Honestly, I have found it is better to ask politely for something instead of waiting for telepathy to kick in. :)
I agree, but I'm also aware of how older nonsmokers, like myself and possibly LotS's aunt, were treated well into the 80s, no matter how politely we asked.  Some are probably too traumatized to ask, even in this more favorable era.  

Quote

Seriously, if you are nice about it most smokers don't have a problem with not lighting up or at least cracking a window, especially when there is a child involved.
The child probably does make the difference.  I had to give up asking and go for the covering the face and getting past as fast as my mobility impaired legs could get me.  It hits me too hard and too fast these days.   Somehow, choking and gagging is taken for disrespect.  

Quote

Like I said above, it's 2009 now. We know this stuff.
We do.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#65 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 01:20 PM

View PostDiabolic Mage, on Jan 8 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

View PostCheile, on Jan 8 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

i agree...that's absolutely out of line.  parents have no right to poison their children.

and sometimes the vaccines lead to autism...

Horsesh*t!

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#66 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 03:06 PM

View PostChristopher, on Jan 6 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

I should've thought this hazard would be intuitively obvious.  I mean, if the chemicals are toxic when floating around as smoke, they'd still be toxic once they settle onto clothes and walls and furniture.  It's not going to magically become harmless just because it isn't airborne anymore.  (Okay, admittedly some of the compounds might oxidize or photodissociate or otherwise break down into harmless forms, but that can't be assumed of most or all of the vast panoply of poisons that comprise tobacco smoke.)  And if people are constantly smoking in a particular room or apartment or house, naturally more toxins will accumulate on its surfaces over time, upping the toxicity level.  Same if the same set of clothes is worn by a smoker for a long time.

That's what I'd think.

Heck, I live near the river where US Steel's old Homestead Works used to be--and where cancer rates are high. I often wonder how many toxins are still embedded deep in the walls and floors of homes here. Probably not many, but it's a possibility. So I don't find it preposterous that the heavy metals and other toxins present in cigarette smoke should linger on carpets and walls after the smoke has gone. I'm curious to know how much and for how long, but it makes sense that some degree of pollution would remain.

I was a smoker longer than I've been a non-smoker, so I've been on both sides of the fence, and I find these discussions usually needlessly antagonistic. The fact is, most smokers really don't want to make others ill and most non-smokers don't look at smokers like they're something they scraped off the bottom of their shoes. But some do. Our experiences with the nasty few on both sides are what makes us so touchy.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#67 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,224 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 03:07 PM

View PostBklnScott, on Jan 8 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

View PostDiabolic Mage, on Jan 8 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

View PostCheile, on Jan 8 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

i agree...that's absolutely out of line.  parents have no right to poison their children.

and sometimes the vaccines lead to autism...

Horsesh*t!

I was about to say something myself about that. I can't site all the stuff I've read off hand, but IIRC mercury (since that is what LOTS mentioned as well) has been out of most vaccines for a few years and autism rates are not going down. Though you can find strange theories supported by disputable evidence (to put it kindly...) by some groups of desperate parents of autistic children.

Edit: Though if we want to continue this probably it deserves its own thread. In ETU or something. Though maybe LOTS wants to say how this is further evidence doctors don't know what they are talking about with conflicting studies/results ;)

Edited by sierraleone, 08 January 2009 - 03:09 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#68 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,224 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 03:25 PM

View PostSparkyCola, on Jan 7 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

Sorry for skipping you sierra- I'll get to your post now.

Quote

Even excluding people sensitive to such chemicals, I'd imagine it'd make a difference based on several factors.

Just to note, briefly - you're absolutely right to discount people sensitive to such chemicals. Dust makes me cough but people who don't dust properly never get any crap - nor do people who put nuts in their food because lots of people are allergic to them. Having a sensitivity doesn't count- lots of people are sensitive to lots of things, it doesn't enter the discussion in a rational way, as far as I'm concerned.

I was just excluding them for clarity, not because I don't think they don't matter. Whether one is sensitive to cigarette smoke or not, it is bad for everyone. If one is sensitive to dust they have every right not to frequent the house of someone who doesn't dust regularly or says something has to be done before they visit. One, IMO, would be right to criticize a parent who child is allergic to dust who does not make their environment healthier/safer for their child. Why would it be wrong to criticize a parent who doesn't limit exposure to cigarette smoke to their child? (not saying that you are, consider the next part of your post, just trying to connect the concepts you've presented)

Quote

Quote

Are you in an environment where smoking happens regularly? How do you interact with that environment? (As this article seemed to focus on the "think of the children" aspect, because, I imagine, they are often closer to these surfaces.)

Ah- now, don't get me wrong here. I've long been an advocate of encouraging parents to stop smoking, and even going so far as making it a law to not smoke inside homes where there are children. They can still go outside or whatever, though, and I think the amount that would stick to clothing really would be insignificant to harm a kid from hugging them or whatever.

If it travelled through the air before, whats for certain stopping it from traveling through the air again? I say study it just so we know either way.

Quote

Quote

If coming across a smoker in a non-smoking environment, how recently did they have a (or more) smoke(s) since they last cleaned? How enclosed is the environment? How close are you to the smoker? Are they wearing clean clothes, or where they in a rush that day and wearing yesterday's clothes? Or wearing outer/over clothes that don't get washed often? Or a purse/bag? (and with smokers having to smoke outside more their outer/over clothes probably get more fumes on the outside of them then they did in the past). And of course, how heavy of a smoker are they? Someone who smokes a cigarette every day or two probably isn't that much trouble. But one who smokes a pack or two a day, considering most people shower once/twice a day, is going to have considerably more smoke residue on their person/clothing.

Yes, there certainly are a lot of variables to consider, aren't there? What concerns me I think is the obvious bias and sensationalism presented in news articles  - news sources are used to being like that over smoking type topics- and I'm registering my scepticism. "Toxins" and "poisons" that "cling" to things-  I mean, I just think people can get hysterical about this kind of thing and I don't necessarily buy into it - I've probably ingested a huge amount of harmful things over the course of my life and not blinked. It's the idea of invisible poisons that people are scared of - and it plays into that fear, but it's not necessarily scientifically sound- I'm just saying I'd need a bit more convincing. I think that if someone were in a house with all that crap in it - maybe. My great-grandfather was a chain smoker and his place when they cleared it out: :barf:  . But- in terms of people who come in from outside having had a cigarette, I'm not going to be worried about anything I get from their clothes. I hope that clarifies a bit.

Sparky

You are right and fine too, but some people will prefer not to, either because they are allergic or sensitive to it, or because they don't want their children exposed to it. Or, yes, perhaps because of smoking hysteria. That's their right if they want to turn around and run in the opposite direction when they get a whiff of smoke. Not that I agree with it ;) I picked the lesser of two evils this holiday. I have two relatives living side by side that we were visiting X-mas day. I picked the smokers house. Maybe have gotten quesy and a headache but I decided it was better than hanging with the relatives hanging at the other house ;)
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#69 Annibal

Annibal
  • Islander
  • 3,036 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 04:55 PM

A while back someone mentioned ways to quit.

My uncle got acupuncture, and apparently that worked.

Although he also just had a child so the motivation of being a non-smoking parent probably helped with the willpower.

When I was working box office and helped any one who was a smoker, or at least a heavy smoker, you can tell. There is a lingering smell, particulates, etc, even if they're not currently smoking. My box office did not have a window between me and the customer. Usually this just irritated my lungs but I get coughs every year and these lingering particulates would often spawn long, painful fits. It was more annoying than anything else--I only ever needed an inhaler one year for these coughing fits, and it was scary that year because I would be coughing more than a minute without being able to breathe, but it's still kind of an imposition on other people to be that heavy of a smoker. Not one that I would disallow others to have, but I don't like it. And smoking is a real turn-off for me.

I have no problem imagining that this "third hand smoke" can be hazardous, but I'm not going to believe it's more hazardous than, well, everything else we have. Like high fructose corn syrup or fast food. Just a different, less socially acceptable hazard.
"A song for a heart so big, god wouldn't let it live. May angels lead you in. Hear you me my friends.
On sleepless roads the sleepless go.
May angels lead you in."

Blue skies, Alex.


My Deviantart page!
My Films and Animations!

#70 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:22 PM

Quote

I have no problem imagining that this "third hand smoke" can be hazardous, but I'm not going to believe it's more hazardous than, well, everything else we have. Like high fructose corn syrup or fast food. Just a different, less socially acceptable hazard.

Well, yes, but it's less socially acceptable because it's a hazard imposed on you by someone else, not by your own dietary choices.

#71 Annibal

Annibal
  • Islander
  • 3,036 posts

Posted 08 January 2009 - 05:27 PM

^ Very true.
"A song for a heart so big, god wouldn't let it live. May angels lead you in. Hear you me my friends.
On sleepless roads the sleepless go.
May angels lead you in."

Blue skies, Alex.


My Deviantart page!
My Films and Animations!

#72 enTranced

enTranced

    Chasing Your Starlight!

  • Islander
  • 15,772 posts

Posted 09 January 2009 - 10:28 AM

View PostOmega, on Jan 8 2009, 10:22 PM, said:

Quote

I have no problem imagining that this "third hand smoke" can be hazardous, but I'm not going to believe it's more hazardous than, well, everything else we have. Like high fructose corn syrup or fast food. Just a different, less socially acceptable hazard.

Well, yes, but it's less socially acceptable because it's a hazard imposed on you by someone else, not by your own dietary choices.

We have a winner. :)

enTranced
Posted Image

#73 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 09 January 2009 - 10:30 AM

I was thinking about a woman I used to know and how she rated nonsmoker "nastiness."  She was one of the few smokers in my Toastmasters group, and she considered "outside" to mean standing in the door blowing her smoke into the room, so whenever the rest of us asked her to please take it away from the door, she'd throw a hissy.  Fortunately, her work kept her away from most meetings.  

Anyway, she called me one night to rant about a guy she was hot for.  She'd made her move, and suffered a major disappointment.  He told her that while he found her very attractive, he didn't date smokers, and she came completely unglued.  How dare he set his own standards?    :sarcasm:   She ranted on and on, until I finally got a word in to remind her that I was a nonsmoker, I didn't date smokers, and that smoking was a choice she had made.  It was one of the weirdest conversations I've ever had.    :headshake:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#74 Captain Jack

Captain Jack

    Where's the rum?

  • Islander
  • 14,914 posts

Posted 10 January 2009 - 05:34 AM

View PostDiabolic Mage, on Jan 6 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

Third hand smoke? They've got to be kidding...LMAO! What's next? 4th hand smoke? Smoke a cigarette and you go to Hell. 5th hand smoke? Smoke a cigarette and everyone around you goes to Hell. 6th hand smoke: Smoke a cigarette and your first born will have to be scarificed to appease the Gods.

LMAO!

The sad part is the PC crowd probably is dead serious about this.

And radioactive material? Come on! I've yet to see a smoker start glowing in the dark.

I'm not saying smoke doesn't cover the walls or anything like that. Hell anyone whose been around smokers knows nicotine builds up on the walls. But to try and make it out as this doomsday senario third smoke is absurd.

New Marlboro Lights.  Now with refreshing plutonium flavor!

Posted Image
Posted Image
689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama in 2012:

https://www.national...at-barack-obama

#75 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 10 January 2009 - 10:00 PM

View PostDiabolic Mage, on Jan 8 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

View PostCheile, on Jan 8 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

i agree...that's absolutely out of line.  parents have no right to poison their children.

Then I guess they shouldn't get the kids vaccinated either, since there is mercury in the vaccines...and sometimes the vaccines lead to autism...Nope, do away with the poisionous vaccines everyone.

Good try, but the whole vaccines leading to autism thing has been debunked scientifically for years now. Bad example.

I used to be a smoker, so I sympathize to a very small extent. I quit smoking in the 70's and had to quit cold turkey, so the whining that goes on about non-smokers offering alternatives for quitting to smokers strikes me a just plain silly. There are so many ways to quit smoking now if you flung a cat you'd hit one. ;)

I had to quit because smoking triggered the asthma I've lived with my entire life. When I was tested for allergies, on a scale of 1 to 4, I tested 4+ to tobacco. I asked the allergist a few years ago why they don't still test for the allergy and he said it would be like testing for an allergy to heroin - there's a preponderance of evidence that it's bad for EVERYBODY.

I'm absolutely unsurprised that smoking leaves a poisonous residue behind on garments, walls, etc. You have only to take a sponge to a wall where smokers have lived over a period of time to see the crap it leaves.

There's really no meeting in the middle on this one, I think - and it's unique in that a person makes a choice to engage in behavior that is both harmful to themselves and others in a direct way.

Truthfully, I find this reasoning incomprehensible. When I smoked, the full effects of smoking on the smoker and the people around him/her weren't known. Once they were, I simply can't imagine continuing to do so.

I think "third-hand smoke" is simply a very poor choice of terms.

Edited by Rhea, 12 January 2009 - 03:01 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#76 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,032 posts

Posted 11 January 2009 - 05:28 PM

View PostRhea, on Jan 11 2009, 03:00 AM, said:

I think "third-hand smoke" is simply a very poor choice of terms.

Since it's not smoke, I agree.  "Toxic smoke residue?"

For that matter, "smoke" just sounds to innocuous.  How about we call it something a bit more in line with the effects it has.  "Poisonous gas," perhaps.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Public Health, Smoking, 2009, 3rd hand smoke

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users