Thirdhand Smoke Alarm

A recent New York Times headline warns parents to be on the lookout for "A New Cigarette Hazard: 'Third-Hand Smoke.'" The freshly coined term, introduced by a study reported in the journal Pediatrics, refers to particles and gases that linger in a room after someone has smoked there or in the clothing and possessions of people who have smoked (or been around smokers) elsewhere. The genius of the study is that it tries to stir up alarm about thirdhand smoke without bothering to show that such trace levels of toxins and carcinogens cause any measurable harm to children (or to anyone else). Instead the authors simply assume that thirdhand smoke is dangerous and then do a survey to see how many people are aware of this "fact."

You can get a sense of the researchers' method from the first sentence of their abstract: "There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke." As I noted when former Surgeon General Richard Carmona said something similar in connection with his 2006 report on secondhand smoke, this is an article of faith, not a scientific statement, since it cannot be proven or disproven. But if you start from the premise that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, it is very easy to arrive at the conclusion that thirdhand smoke (as well as fourthhand smoke, fifthhand smoke, and sixthhand smoke) is dangerous. Here is another taste of the researchers' approach:

The toxicity of low levels of tobacco smoke constituents has been proved. According to the National Toxicology Program, these 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals include hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), toluene (found in paint thinners), arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries), and polonium-210 (highly radioactive carcinogen). Eleven of these compounds are group 1 carcinogens (most carcinogenic designation).

Noting that many of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are toxic or carcinogenic in high enough doses proves nothing about the dangers posed by tiny levels of those chemicals. One searches the article in vain for any acknowledgement of the toxicological principle that the dose makes the poison. Talking to the Times, the lead author suggests we should instead apply the smell test, which tells us to fear a fellow elevator rider who has recently smoked a cigarette:

"Your nose isn't lying," he said. "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: 'Get away.'"

On his tobacco policy blog, anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel notes that the Pediatrics article "cites just a single study to support its contention that low levels of tobacco smoke exposure are associated with health harm." That study found an association between low levels of cotinine (a nicotine metabolite) in children's blood and their scores on cognitive tests. Siegel, a public health professor who supports smoking bans but believes their advocates routinely exaggerate the hazards of secondhand smoke, details the study's weaknesses, which make it impossible to conclude from it that thirdhand smoke causes brain damage.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that exposures of this magnitude produce any significant health harm," Siegel writes, "with the one possible exception being children who have asthma and are sensitive to tobacco smoke." He worries that propaganda campaigns focusing on thirdhand smoke may backfire, convincing parents who now make it a point to smoke outside the house or to smoke when their children are not around that such precautions are more trouble than they're worth.

[Thanks to GregA for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Lefiiti||

    You market fanatics focus on this shit and leave the economy to Obama, okay? Light up!

  • db||

    I find that if I soak my clothes in hot water after returning from a smoking establishment, that I can make a really nice tea. A POISON TEA THAT KILLS FROM A DISTANCE!

  • Lefiti||

    A number of years ago, Tel Aviv's Chief Rabbi, David Halevi, ruled that it was forbidden for Jews to smoke, on the grounds that smoking endangers health, and thus violates the biblical verse "Take heed to yourself and take care of your life" (Deuteronomy 4:9).

    How did the rabbis of the various American-Jewish denominations react to Rabbi Halevi's ruling?

    The Reform rabbis met and declared: "We are not bound by halachah, so Reform Jews can continue smoking if they please."

    The Conservative rabbis met and decided: "Rabbi Halevi's ruling is a valid one. From now on, it is forbidden for Conservative rabbis to smoke."

    The Orthodox rabbis met and declared: "Rabbi Halevi's ruling is a binding one. From now on, Orthodox Jews who smoke must first sell their lungs to goyim."

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Those chemical descriptions are poorly worded and misleading.

  • cunnivore||

    That laundry list of terrible toxins reminds me of this excerpt from dhmo.org:

    Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:


    * Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
    * Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
    * Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
    * DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
    * Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
    * Contributes to soil erosion.
    * Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
    * Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
    * Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
    * Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
    * Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
    * Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
    * Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

  • Bingo||

    I'm so happy that as sensible adults we've replaced "monsters hiding underneath the bed" with "omg chemicals!"

    Who the hell wants to live such a sterile and boring life?

  • Lefiti||

    I enjoy smoking poles. They're much safer for you than tobacco, although I did catch one in the eye last night!

  • ||

    "Your nose isn't lying," he said. "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: 'Get away.'"

    If that's true than the stinking, filthy passed out homeless guy on the subway this evening must have given all the other commuters metastatic cancer.

  • MJ||

    "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: 'Get away.'"

    That's what my nephew says about broccoli.

  • Bingo||

    There is no proven link between smoking and lung cancer or heart disease. It's all just a cover for raising taxes cigarettes. Fuck the evil state! Power to the tobacco companies!

  • ||

    "Just THINKING about smoking will give you cancer!"

  • cunnivore||

    It's the paper in the cigarettes not the tobacco that causes cancer. Indians smoked pipes and never got cancer.

  • MJ||

    The islamic expremists (if you believe that story) that were (supposedly) responsible for 9/11 were all non-smokers.

  • sage||

    Natural gas has no odor. So by their logic it must be harmless.

  • Bingo||

    Cgarettes don't kill people; people do.

  • ahasty||

    ya the people who buy their cigarettes kill THEMSELVES by smoking them

  • Bongo||

    What do you mean by cgarettes, Bngo?

  • Lefiti||

    Brilliant, Sage! You must have post-graduate training in something.

  • Fluffy||

    The toxicity of low levels of tobacco smoke constituents has been proved. According to the National Toxicology Program, these 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals include hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), toluene (found in paint thinners), arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries), and polonium-210 (highly radioactive carcinogen). Eleven of these compounds are group 1 carcinogens (most carcinogenic designation).



    The real reason this study is stupid is because if "third hand smoke" is dangerous, than anyone who has been around cars, barbecue grills, household cleaners, a painting site or a recently painted area, a farm or lawn, etc. is also dragging "poisonous" third hand smoke with them.

    I bet if you mapped the pathways of all the people who have come into contact with some amount of "dangerous chemicals" who have detectable trace amounts on their hair or clothes, you'd end up with overlapping "terror zones" that cover every area of human habitation in the world.

    Ubquitous danger isn't actually danger at all.

  • KyleG||

    Damn...just think about all of the people who are actually smoking those things!!! They're DOOMED!

  • Fluffy||

    We're all going to die anyway. What's a year to two more or less? In fact, cigarretes may extend life for some. The government is probably suppressing the evidence. I trust the early research done by the cigarette companies. They didn't have the vested interests that the nanny state has.

  • cunnivore||

    cunnivore | January 6, 2009, 8:13pm | #

    This wasn't me. If you are a fellow follower of the Way of the Tongue, please choose a different appellation.

  • Cuntivore||

    Sorry.

  • cunnivore||

    oh, I see. Someone is spoofing regular posters here.

  • Fluffy||

    Hey, that wasn't me either!

  • Bluffy||

    Sorry.

  • Cuntivore||

    Fuck, you're smart, cunn.

  • sage||

    "Your nose isn't lying," he said. "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: 'Get away.'"

    Hey, I farted. It's toxic, get away.

  • Lefiti||

    Yeah, farts and cigarettes--what's the difference?

  • cuernimus||

    Would 4th-hand smoke be the result of someone sending smoke particulates through time to give me cancer, and 5th-hand smoke be from another dimension? God, I'm going to need a PhD in theoretical physics just to grasp all the different carcinogens I'm inhaling.

  • ||

    "Your nose isn't lying," he said. "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: 'Get away.'"

    I encounter people occassionally whose grooming/nutrition habits put up the "Stay Away" sign.

    They didn't kill me with their stench, so I must be stronger as a result.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    On the way to work this morning I got stuck behind a stinking f*cking diesel pickup. I mean that thing reeked. I could taste the burned oil in my mouth all morning.

    If we're gonna go all apeshit and start banning stuff just because it has TEH KEMIKALS then can we add stinking diesels to that list?

    .. Hobbit

  • Bingo||

    Last time I checked my Centrum bottle it had "Chromium" listed with an RDA percentage next to it.

    Also you probably inhale more ammonia fumes during the average bathroom-scrubbing than you do during a lifetime of smoking.

  • ||

    "Your nose isn't lying," he said. "The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: 'Get away.'"

    I think someone's nose wandered south of the taint.

  • ||

    Last time I checked my Centrum bottle it had "Chromium" listed with an RDA percentage next to it.

    Dead man walkin'!

  • Bingo||

    Cigarettes cause cancer--Hoax of the 20th century.

  • The Bearded Hobbit ||

    Since we can't ban everything, we shouldn't ban anything! It's just logical!

  • Lefiti||

    Chemical content measured in parts-per-billion is terrifying, someone needs to protect us from the chemicals! They aren't natural!

  • Bingo||

  • Lefiti||

    Royal Society of Chemistry offers 1,000,000 British Pounds for 100% chemical-free material.

    Offer your brain.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    The Bearded Hobbit | January 6, 2009, 9:16pm | #

    Since we can't ban everything, we shouldn't ban anything! It's just logical!


    Hey, that's not bad! Wish I'd said it!

    .. Hobbit

  • Lefiti||

    You did say it, idiot.

  • Bingo||

    Lefiti: No, I don't think that would work. Brain tissue actually contains many various chemicals. Here is a link so you can educate yourself further, it's pretty interesting! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13389642

  • Lefiti||

    Your brain probably doesn't contain any chemicals, Bingo. Give it a try. That's a lot of money.

  • Bingo||

    It was a good try... though at the rate the GBP is devaluing the prize might not be quite what it was when they first offered it.

  • Bingo||

    In school they used to call me Shit for Brains. Does shit contain any chemicals?

  • Fluffy||

    Depends on what you've been eating.

  • Bingo||

    Hrm, we could definitely find out if shit contains any chemicals, Lefiti, however I really don't have time to feed all of your comments through a spectrometer.

  • Hobbit||

    Bingo is soooooo clever!

  • Lefiti||

    If someone gives me a dollar I will let them watch while I perform oral sex on myself.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Hey, Lefti/Edward/whoever the fuck you are today,

    I hear your mom calling. Time for bed and you've got a test in 8th grade math tomorrow. Go get your jammies on, the adults are trying to carry on a conversation, here.

    .. oh, and FOD .. Hobbit

  • db||

    These claims by anti-smoking zealots are getting to be as ridiculous as those of homeopathic medicine. Yeah. cigarettes contain carcinogens. Best not to breathe the smoke directly into your lungs. But secondhand? very, very dilute compared to smoke directly from the cigarette. The idea that "thirdhand smoke" can lead to bodily intake of anything near hazardous levels is laughable.

    I weep for the long slump into credulity we are experiencing. Face it, most people act like science is a religion. Anyone dressed up in the trappings of science can talk a good enough "scientist" game to fool people untrained in the scientific method, or even basic skepticism.

  • db||

    The toxicity of low levels of tobacco smoke constituents has been proved. According to the National Toxicology Program, these 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals include hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), toluene (found in paint thinners), arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries), and polonium-210 (highly radioactive carcinogen). Eleven of these compounds are group 1 carcinogens (most carcinogenic designation).

    The subtext of this shit is just unreal. By simply implying association with chemical weapons, radioactivity and (god help us!) steelmaking, they rouse an army of people for whom these words spell much more than what normal people who benefit from things like (shock!) household cleaners read into them. This paragraph contains so much code aimed at a complete lifestyle of paranoia.

  • Cameltoe||

    Smoking cures bacon. (Great t-shirt)

    And ham too. That smell. It's the carcinogens. Never mind that eating too much of it will turn you into a fat heart-attack-prone fuck. But at least they aren't transfats.

  • Elemenope||

    * DHMO is a major component of acid rain.

    This one's the best.

  • db||

    "There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.

    Seriously, has not even OSHA established an LD50 for cigarette smoke? It's so hazardous that they can't even write an MSDS for it? I mean holy fuck! There's MSDSs backed up by research establishing permissible exposure limits (PELs) to everything from hydrogen sulfide gas (35 ppm can lead to respiratory arrest, but levels below that are generally OK for short periods) to fucking ASBESTOS particles (OSHA PEL is 1 fiber per cc of air), for christs's sake.

    So there is NO safe exposure to cigarette smoke? Cigarette smoke is more lethal than fucking ASBESTOS?
    This just warps the mind. How can anyone believe anything these fuckers say when it is so ridiculous on its face?

  • ||

    Toxicology, scientific method, empirical testing, these are all terms of the reactionary denialist corporate conspiracy aimed at destroying science...

  • sackofshit||

    i still would like to see real evidence pointing at long term second-hand smoke as being more dangerous than living in a city for a lifetime. oh wait, you can't reliably test this at all, and can only say that first hand smoke is bad so second hand smoke must be bad too, and third hand and all hands smoke is even worse. and i still laugh when i see causation and first-hand smoking when it comes to cancer. it's a contributing factor, not causation

  • sackofshit||

    haha corporate conspiracy, you card you

  • cunnivore||

    and i still laugh when i see causation and first-hand smoking when it comes to cancer. it's a contributing factor, not causation

    Sort of like drinking water from the toilet is only a contributing factor toward dysentery.

  • sackofshit||

    it is, because every time one drinks from the toilet, dysentery is not a given. the toilet has to be 'unclean' first, the same with the water. and a myriad of other factors have to come into play as well

  • nobody u no and a big fan of j||

    Yea, make fun if the way BigTobacco is killing your children, Don't stop now! Keep making fun of it as your children die of third hand smoke.

  • nobody u no and a big fan of j||

    You laugh as your corporations kill your children for your profits. Go ahead, keep laughing.

  • Lefiti||

    Still nothing major on the Madoff fraud. Is this a smoke screen to avoid a little market embarrassment? C'mon, Jacob, just because Bernie is a coreligionist of yours doesn't mean you can't comment.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Third-hand smoke? I should hope the law of diminishing returns applies to public reaction to alarmists.

  • Mellow Yellowish-Ochre||

    Breaking News: Lefiti was asphixiated whilst masturbating in an experiment to try to test the theory of the 'suicide' death of INXS singer Michael Hutchens.

    All new Lefiti posts are by Lefiti's ghost. Libertarians do not believe in ghosts and are hereby encouraged NOT to respond to any further posts by spectre.

  • ||

    I think my great-great grandfather smoked. I'm probably carrying intergenerational-hand smoke genes.

  • ed||

    this is an article of faith, not a scientific statement

    Which is why anti-smoking zealots will be as difficult to exterminate as Christians.

  • Nigel Watt||

    I think my great-great grandfather smoked. I'm probably carrying intergenerational-hand smoke genes.

    Actually, there might be some epigenetic effects.

  • phalkor||

    The mere fact that this study exists (and I presume is not a joke) only proves that there are "researchers" who believe people are really stupid. Since we already know people are really stupid, this study has proven nothing other than confirming an established truth.

  • ||

    Anyone think really about real estate values, when you will have to fully disclose if a smoker ever lived there, and you can't remortgage because of the toxins making the home uninsurable.

    The real estate mess in the States will be nothing compared to the result of millions of homes loosing half of their value.

    Now that smokers can be described as toxic to those around them, it follows others should be warned of their presence.

    Perhaps the next logical move should involve a warning for others who might be expossed to smokers.

    Tattooed numbers and yellow stars worn on the chest have been used successfully in the past.

    http://history1900s.about.com/od/holocaust/a/yellowstar.htm

  • troll||

    pieces of flair? methinks the yellowed teeth and fingers are a dead giveaway...

  • libertarian democrat||

    I'm sorry, I couldn't hear your possibly valid criticisms over the sound of your inability to understand most basic science.

  • ||

    "pieces of flair? methinks the yellowed teeth and fingers are a dead giveaway..."

    No, if your close enough to smell a smoker your obviously too close to live and tell the tale.

    We need large and obvious indicators to warn when they approach.

    Ever since I saw someone smoking last week, I swear I am developing cancer in my left eye. It is a good thing I only caught sight of him in the periphery, a direct view could have caused blindness.

  • ||

    A few months back, the researchers using similar models were telling us; being too close to fat people caused obesity.

    I have made a point since of only sitting close to muscle bound kick boxers to gain the obvious health effects.

    I have to warn you though, if you try to speed up the process by insisting they cuddle, it usually results in having the crap kicked out of you, which can't be all that healthy.

    Although you never know what the research will demonstrate next.

  • Robert||

    The toxicity of low levels of tobacco smoke constituents has been proved. According to the National Toxicology Program, these 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals include...carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), toluene (found in paint thinners), arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries)....


    The subtext of this shit is just unreal. By simply implying association with chemical weapons, radioactivity and (god help us!) steelmaking, they rouse an army of people for whom these words spell much more than what normal people who benefit from things like (shock!) household cleaners read into them.


    I thought it would have the exact opposite effect on readers. People would think, "Tobacco smoke is made of stuff I have all around me and is so familiar? Must be OK then."

  • Ed||

    I like to smoke Jason's pole.

  • Nate||

    I would prefer to believe that thirdhand smoke does indeed cause brain damage. The alternative is that all the people around me are just naturally fucking stupid.

  • Pat||

    So, Let me get this straight: Some people are highly allergic to peanuts. If an unfortunate individual with this condition were to open a cupboard where a jar of peanut butter once sat several months ago, I'll have to assume that he or she will immediately start having a seizure.Third-hand peanut residue, you know....a deadly adversary. How about if I sit next to someone eating peanuts in a bar, and several hours later I happen to walk by someone who is allergic? Should I be charged with attempted murder? "Secondhand smoke" is in itself a ridiculous notion. Third-hand smoke? The anti-tobacco fanatics are getting quite desperate.

  • Michael J. McFadden||

    The emphasis on Polonium 210 was carried on and showcased in the spotlight last paragraph of the New York Times where they once again emphasized the threat to children from it and pointed out how just a little bit of it was used to murder a KGB agent two years ago! Obviously any sane parent would keep their children far from smokers, right?

    Er... not really. If you take the figures and do a bit of math you come up with something interesting: the child would have to be exposed to this "third-hand smoke" in a VERY intense way for literally TRILLIONS (not billions mind you, but TRILLIONS!) of years before getting that fatal dose. I'll show the figures to back that up in a separate post just below this. It's 500 words so I'm not sure Mr. Sullum wants such a long post on his board, but the figures ARE accurate: Since the universe is only 10 billion years old it would take almost another 250 "Big Bang Cycles" to kill a kill a kid with the "deadly radioactive Polonium" this way.

    This has been pointed out to the NY Times, but so far they've ignored it - after all, it would spoil that nice editorial bias they've got, right? It might even drag them into regaining their position as responsible journalists.

    Figures below: they're actually not hard to follow: just basic grade school math.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brians"

  • Michael J. McFadden||

    From http://www.acsa.net/HealthAlert/RadioBacco.html we see: "the intake of 210Po (polonium) by a typical smoker is about 0.72 pCi (picocuries) per pack of 20 cigarettes." and from MSNBC: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/29/16270.aspx we see: "Litvinenko is thought to have been exposed to something around 5 millicuries"

    A 15/day smoker gets about a half picocurie per day. A typical nonsmoker living or working with smokers might get about 1/100th of that, or about 5 femtocuries/day.

    A millicurie is a thousand microcuries, a million nanocuries, a billion picocuries, or a trillion femtocuries.

    It would take that nonsmoker a trillion days to absorb the dose that killed the Russian.

    Of course that's secondhand smoke. The article referred to "third-hand smoke" absorption by a child from surfaces left over from past smoking. A reasonable estimate for the amount remaining stuck to the 10,000 squarefeet of walls, ceilings, furniture, floors, and draperies in a reasonably ventilated 2,000+ sq. ft home would almost certainly be less than 1%, but let's assume that 1% actually does remain and spreads out over that 10,000 sq. ft. of surface. With 15 cigarettes having been smoked while the child was at school and the house then thoroughly aired out, we'd then have 1% of a half picocurie (i.e. 5 femtocuries) spread over that surface.

    Let us suppose you don't watch your child very carefully and further suppose the child deeply loves licking an entire 10 sq. ft. of floor sparkly clean every day during Jeopardy! That child will then have licked 1/1,000th of those 5 femtocuries into his system: 5 "attocuries."

    So, how long would it take such a child to get the "killing dose" of the 5 millicurie Russian that the Times article featured?

    In 1,000 days our child would have licked up 5 femtocuries.
    In one million days, 5 picocuries.
    In one billion days, 5 nanocuries.
    In one trillion days, 5 microcuries.
    It would take one quadrillion days (2.74 trillion years) for that child to absorb 5 millicuries.

    Unfortunately the universe is only 10 billion years old, so the child would have to lick floors for 274 cycles of our expanding universe to match our radioactive Russian.

    Of course since he'd normally excrete most of that polonium we'd have to refuse to change his diaper until the end of that period... not a very pleasant thought. And then there's that whole annoying fact that polonium's half-life is only 138 days, so we'd just have to ignore the laws of physics as well in order to justify the story's thesis.

    Even if someone wanted to quibble with my estimates, changing 1% to 10%, or 10 sq ft to 100, or 15 cigarettes to 150 cigarettes per day... or even ALL THREE in attacking my argument... we'd STILL be talking three billion years of exposure along with a suspension of the laws of biology and physics.

    Other elements in "third-hand smoke" might be somewhat more concentrated, but still nothing that wouldn't demand thousands of years of assiduous tongue-licking. To terrorize parents with such nonsense is nothing more than rank yellow journalism. The Times should be ashamed of itself.


    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

  • ||

    I´m a pediatrician who works at ER here in Santiago,Chile, South América and "scientifically the child with oral breathing, associated with Tobacco OUTSIDE or outdoor, has more frecuent SIDS, LOWER IQ, AND so on" Dear Proffesor.Why you dont came to South América and make a Scientific, Valid, Faithful study.Dont be afraid about the Criminal childs whose parents (more than 40%) are smokers.

  • ||

    FOURTH-HAND SMOKE
    I want to make everyone aware of the dangers posed by fourth-hand smoke. Politicians especially need to be made aware of this serious health issue, as they tend to kiss a lot of babies who may have been exposed to third-hand smoke. Wives and mistresses of politicians need to be aware of the danger that fifth-hand smoke poses. As any good homeopath can attest, the lower the exposure, the greater the affect!

  • CarolT||

    More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.

    http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

    The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.

    http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm

    And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban.

    http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

  • ran||

    I don't understand why some posters here are getting so upset - I think it is obvious that poisonous particles in your home are not a good idea. How bad it is exactly or in relation to second hand smoke should be investigated further and with better scientific studies. But if you are talking about your HOME where you and especially your kids spend most of their hours day after day (as opposed to, say, an occasional restaurant visit), isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

  • Kathy in FL||

    Check out this article that was a precursor to the article in question. When taken together, the two articles pose a well-framed, defensible argument about the dangers of thirdhand smoke: Matt, G. E., Quintana, P. J. E., Hovell, M. F., Bernert, J. T., Song, S., Novianti, N., Juarez, T., Floro, J., Gehrman, C., Garcia, M., Larson, S. (2004). Households contaminated by environmental tobacco smoke: sources of infant exposures. Tobacco Control, 13: 29-37.

  • ||

    One of the funniest threads I've ever read.

  • ||

    you guys are hillarious, will have to investigate the rest of the site.

  • ||

    Another example of the MEDIA widespread reporting without getting any real facts. Just remember that not too long ago doctors said formula was better for newborns than breast milk. In a few years I predict doctors will recommend smoking as a cure to obesity.

  • mbt||

    hi,
    everybody, take your time and a little bit. arerwerwq3

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement