New cig peril: Third-hand smoke coats puffers in poison US federal boffins in Berkeley, California say they have discovered yet another deadly hazard associated with smoking. They also raise warnings regarding the perils associated with electronic cigarettes. The dangers of actually smoking a cigarette, and those from breathing a smoker's "second hand" smoke were well-known: but …
Smokers smell (of cigarette smoke at least) even if they have smoked outside.
That cigarette smoke smells bad.
Now I'm all in favour of the smokers killing themselves off as quickly as they are able, but I am not in favour of their efforts to do so affecting me and other non-smokers.
This is just another part of the picture that tells me that smoking should be banned - is there any 'good solution' when the whole activity is danegerous to everyone.
The ONLY people that benefit are the cigarette manufacturers and the treasury.
ttfn
The above is my opinion - you can hold whatever opinion you like.
"nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing" - no fucking shit, Sherlock.
As for "burning sooty treats" - to characterize it as some innocent pastime is disingenuous.
If tobacco were introduced to the market today, it would, quite rightly, be banned from sale.
I see no reason to allow it, simply because it's been around for a while. It should be banned outright and, like it or not, we all know it.
yeh just like alcohol and cars and motorbikes. All far too dangerous and much too much fun, it should never have been allowed :)
in fact glass can go too, much too easy to cut yourself and there plastics instead, and pins, they're a bit risky aren't they, lets have blue tack instead.
I'm an ex smoker and this is bullshit, you're not going to develop cancer because someone previously smoked a cigarette in the general area that you're standing in.
Anyone genuinely concerned about this should just give it up, go and live in a plastic bubble, drink distilled water and only breathe air that has gone through a series of military grade carbon filters, because you'll be exposed to far more toxins in your general environment everyday just by working in an office, walking by an inner city road or probably eating a kebab.
This is just more things on the list of stuff for the mincing, anti-smoker, crybaby to complain about.
I'm an ex-smoker (not normally the most tolerant of non-smokers), but, whilst I can accept that there is a risk from secondary smoke, this sounds like a load of tosh.
Exactly what statistical evidence do they have to support this, or is it just supposition? Do they make any guesses as to how many people will die because of this, or what the increase in your chances of developing cancer are? I would humbly suggest that the answer for both is "not a lot".
Is this what the world is coming to? Identifying every conceivable thing that could possibly harm you is ridiculous. Last I checked, having sex these days is like playing Russian roulette, and yet we still do it. The human race would have died out without it. It's called RISK vs. REWARD. Cigarettes fall under this rule too. They can be fun, but they can also kill you. We all know this.
Do these researchers have nothing better to do than go after smokers? Crying babies piss me off and cause me stress... which raises my blood pressure... which can cause hyper-tension, cardiac arrest & stroke. So, by their logic, we should kill all babies because they cause me harm. COME ON!
How about research into something useful? How about working on making better electric cars so that normal cars can be got rid of? I bet one car causes more harm to the air that several dosen smokers in the same period.
Seriously, the world has more pressing problems that need dealing with.
@ Juliusz "Cigarettes fall under this rule too. They can be fun, but they can also kill you."
Serious question - what do you (or smokers in general) get out of smoking (the "fun" part)? I, perhaps unwisely, tried it once and didn't detect any effect (good or bad) at all.
Is it *really* only ever started through peer pressure, and only continued to avoid withdrawal symptoms?
Difficult to believe if so.
Perhaps 'fun' was not the word I should use. I my personal case, I find smoking pleasurable. It's not any rush I go after (never been aware of any narcotic rush), but rather the actual act. It's probably an oral fixation of some kind.
I enjoy it, which is why I don't do it constantly. I don't smoke all day when I'm at work and I rarely smoke at home. If I smoked all the time, it would become too routine and thus boring and not enjoyable, and I would have to stop for a while to regain the pleasure aspect.
I didn't start smoking through peer pressure. I was well out of school before I started smoking. And I continue now because, as I've mentioned, I enjoy it. It has happened before that I suddenly lost all interest in smoking and stopped for many months. It suddenly didn't feel pleasurable anymore. I don't know why it happens but I know that it does. That's not to say that other people do it for the nicotine or whatever other reason.
I hope that answers your questions.
"Anonymous Coward".
Maybe it's because I only quit smoking a few months ago, but I haven't got to the point where I feel it my God-given right to look down on an entire group of people who are merely enjoying a legal pastime.
Replace the word "smokers" in your sad little hatespeak with some other minority group, like "blacks" or "asians", and you'd, quite rightly, fall foul of discrimination laws in the UK, but you take a pop at smokers, and it's not only acceptable, but actively endorsed by our political "leaders", and wholeheartedly encouraged within the parameters of the politically correct social experiment we're currently undergoing - it's something that disgusts me about the state this country is in, and the mentality of the people who have brought us to this point.
Not AC, because unlike some, I have the courage of my convictions to stand behind what I say.
If you're going to suggest smokers are a minority in the same sense that black people are a minority, Sean, I am going to suggest that you check your head.
I don't think any sort of hate directed at any group is especially big or clever or good for the world (and you'd better believe that as a journo I cop for enough abuse in that sense), but that is a ludicrous and offensive leap to make. So don't. Please. Ta. Find another way to argue your point. This kind of thread is wearisome enough as it is.
I'm not a smoker and never have been but it seems to me that there is a certain hysteria around the subject. If you believed what the government and media seem to give out you'd think one puff and you'll die.
What I'd like to see is some clear indication of risk. So, for example, if you smoke twenty a day you have a 1 in X chance of dying from a disease you wouldn't otherwise have had. I'd like to know the same for second hand smoke where you work in the same room as a smoker and then for someone who goes to a pub once a week where people smoke. Then could we have similar figures for the risk of third hand smoke?
All I've seen so far is talk about smoking "related" disease risk, which seems a bit of a get out or "fudge". I accept that smoking is not a good thing and I don't want to encourage it but I'd like to have a better handle on the facts.
Just because limits of detection are improving, doesn't mean that what we are discovering is strictly relevant.
I'm an ex smoker, and even I find these sort of reports tiresome.
“Nicotine, the addictive substance in tobacco smoke, has until now been considered to be non-toxic in the strictest sense of the term,” says Kamlesh Asotra of the University of California’s Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which funded this study"
sorry Kamlesh, you are wrong. Its extremely toxic, in the strictest sense of the word.
From Wikipedia: The LD50 of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 40–60 mg (0.5-1.0 mg/kg) can be a lethal dosage for adult humans. Why do you think its used as an insecticide.
Interesting analytical chemistry with a cheeky hint of sanctimonious zeal
“I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?. . . . Non-smokers die every day . . . Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the 1st to POP that bubble and bring you hurling back to reality . . . You're dead too.”
...they could just make cigarette manufacturers put the filter on the correct end. I admit it would require smokers to make some fairly tricky lingual contortions to avoid the ash falling on their tongues, but a suitable instructional leaflet could surely be included in every packet.
More seriously, wouldn't it make much more sense to treat tobacco smoke as any other pollutant and regulate it accordingly? - would an industrial process be allowed to release similar amounts of tar/nicotine/whatever in a public place?
"I'm an ex smoker and this is bullshit, you're not going to develop cancer because someone previously smoked a cigarette in the general area that you're standing in."
Put your money where your mouth is. Personally risk your home and money by offering it to the next person who on balance of probability got cancer through second hand smoke. If its bullshit there is no risk to you.
OK, I'll take you up on that...
Oh, wait a minute...
The article is about "3rd hand smoke" not people who end up being forced to passive smoke (2nd hand) for long periods of time (think bar staff).
Oh, wait another minute.....
Pubs, clubs and bars are now smoke free too.
Oh, hang on...
All enclosed public areas and buildings are and have been for ages, smoke free.
So who exactly is at risk of developing cancer from even "2nd hand smoke" never mind "3rd hand smoke"?
Go on, who?
According to the study, "our results indicate that several hundred nanograms per square meter of nitrosamines may be formed on indoor surfaces in the presence of nitrous acid". This is a shocking result as it shows that 1 square meter of wall in a smoky room in a badly polluted environment may contain as much nitrosamines as a smoked sausage or crispy bacon sandwich!
We are all doomed.
So.. the anti-smoking brigade(*), unable to cope with the fact that a dwindling number of rational, intellegent people still smoke privately while fully aware of the risks, need a hook to get it banned altogether.
Ta-Daa!
(*) Were saving lives! how dare you criticize us! we can do no wrong and you are a child murder, waaa! you MUST do what we say.
- As I approach middle age I am really anxious I will end up like them; but hopefully the fags will kill me before I get that sad.
smoking is not a good thing to do for anyone we know and love to do, or anyone (so we learn from TFA) to do in our vicinity.
But everyone else: yeah, bring it on. The IRS is the real "grim reaper" with the 'baccy: they bring in £10 billion p.a, and the NHS pays out only £5 bn for smoke-related illnesses. So everyone's a winner other than those cigarette-suckers! That's the cynical reason why smoking isn't banned.
OK, I'll get my coat, mine's the one with the pack of L&B, thanks.
"the Berkeley profs recommend that the carpets, walls, furniture and ceilings be replaced."
Er doesn't that normally mean rebuilding the bloody thing? So we have to rebuild anywhere people have smoked? Is this 'research' to be used of the driver for some sort of Keynesian mass rebuilding programme?
Where the fuck do we get to smoke in peace now? Or do we have to take our chances with the bears having a dump?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
