Third-Hand Smoke Harming Kids

you have got to be kidding this has got to be total propaganda, RADIOACTIVE RESIDUE, with all the carcigenens in the air outside, from cars, deseilfuel. brake pad linings etc i guess no where is safe for kids to breath?

Reply

This just in, sitting in the same bus seat as a crack addict previously has sat can lead to a great buzz. Also, eating fish from a river that somebody smoked a ciggarete near puts the consumer at increased risk of turning green with radioactivity. THE SKY IS FALLING, RUNNNNN. Maybe they could also test how much our health is affected by this and other rich assholes SUVs, or how much extra air pollution is around because this ass wasted trees to publish smut.

Reply

What bullshit!!

Reply

It's true that we mightn't have solid evidents to prove any sick child could be caused by secondhand or thirdhand smoking. But have you considered how would babies and small children protest in words against anyone trying to compromise the safety of their health? They have yet to develop their reasoning power and they have yet to build up their immune system whilst their tiny vital organs like their heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, etc. are trying to grow healthily and bigger and stronger each day of their life. Have we given them a chance to grow healthily and happily by doing what is fair and what is right on our part as a reasonable adult person? Is it sensible to cause them to struggle hard to grow up in such an unfair situation? Must we add more poisonous smoke from our mouths right into these little cute people's healthy lungs at home when they already have enough of possible smoke problems elsewhere caused by vehicles, industries, chemicals, etc. practically everyday? We must have more knowledge and proven experience before we can make constructive criticism. Have you thought what if your little kid may have hidden inherited illnesses caused by their forefathers (do you know them well?) or DNAs becoming abnormal and deteriorate as they grow older? Do you have any proof that passive smoking may not be one of the contributing factors to speed up the deterioration of their abnormal DNAs and hence shorten their lifespan even shorter? The saying 'An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure' is not a bullshit to anyone with sanity and more importantly, common sense. If we still do not believe thirdhand smoke can harm anyone, try this to prove - each time you meet any person who suffers whooping cough just puff into a cloth for another non-smoking friend to pass it to him to hold it for awhile and observe. Do not stop at one sick person. Try ten or more such similar sick persons to observe how many will suddenly cough intensely much more. Do not try on friends. Best to try on strangers to check for better results. Let me tell you passive smoking is rather irritating to anyone who suffers whooping cough, not a car which blows black smoke against his face. You will realize how poisonous is passive smoking. Sound ridiculous until you tried my tests on strangers who have sensitive lungs like me. I have been on this earth for 53 years to have the right to comment about passive smoking against my past whooping coughs due to smokers at home and sick building syndrome. Do you all youngsters may guarantee to live up to 50, healthily, to daringly say I bullshit as well? Only God knows how many of you youngsters will live up to 53. Let us be wise. Another saying 'One stitch in time saves nine' is an absolute truth. Why take such a risk to smoke near to all your loved ones? Quit smoking from today onwards, if possible. And trying the 'gums' is a better choice. If you need to express your love for all your loved ones, do not just say "I love you" - just stay far away from them when you smoke and take a good bath (if you have a baby or little child around) is the way to show how you love them very much. Anyone who puffs whilst carrying a child and can tell the child "I love you" is a hypocrite in God's Eyes and in the sanity of Mankind. Mind you, these are your families. If they grow older with bad lungs caused by you in younger days, they will hate you and if they go out to earn a living someday in the future, their employers may dislike them for having too much sick leave due to lungs' problems. Not only that, have we considered how would we take out our own savings which are meant for our retirements to help save our children's life when they might contract lung cancers or whatever serious illnesses relating to constant passive smoking? I repeat, always do anything with sufficient knowledge and proven experience, not by experience that will teach you a good lesson for the first and the last time i.e. by terminal illnesses and death. If you cry by then, we will definitely call it your crocodile's tears. Let us be inspired that education always start at home. We are not going to bring our babies and little children along with us to breathe in dirty air outside our home everyday. So why worry and so hurry to bring them along wherever we go? Even if thirdhand smoking does not create radioactive compounds harmful to us, we must reduce passive smoking in all areas. That's all!

Reply

Sorry, but as the daughter of a HEAVY smoker, I completely agree with this article and science behind it. I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter, and while my mom still lived in her apartment I refused to take her over because everything smelled-especially the soft blankets and toys that were there for my daughter to play with. It was a hard decision for all of us, but in the long run my daughters health was more important. Ironically, my mom had to move into my home and had to quit smoking (after 50 + years of smoking) and can't stand the smell of her old possessions!

Reply

What a bunch of bull crap. more crap for the government to tell people what to do .I also come from a family full of heavy smokers and i have no health problem and i am 43.this is just something more to rule us with. grimmmey I guess you agree with science so much you also dont believe there is no god .we came from apes too according to them .
Lets start with drunks ,they kill whole families at a time.!!!!
what about the food you put in your mouth with all the poison in it
from persertives and the stuff you breath from cars and chemical plants.LOL a cigarette is the least of your worries. oh and by the way dont be using any diet sweetners.read up on some of the stuff you put in your mouth or your childrens.And last the side effects from meds you give your kids and take your self..

Reply

Hmm... Just one doctor?

It's not bad enough that smokers are being bashed for their habit being bad for them... Then the EPA jockying numbers saying it's bad for people around them when they're enjoying their habit (and people buying it with no questions) But now there's people trying to say it's bad for everyone after the fact?!? Figures the study would happen in NY, where you can't even smoke in bars... soon enough no drinking or talking either. Are they trying to ban it everywhere? Didn't people try that (and fail) with alcohol a while back?

Meh... let's go after chairs instead, you know how many kids get hurt daily from leaning too far back in their chairs? Never mind the people that are hit by them.

Reply

Since it seems I can't sign in to edit my previous comment... I'll just have to make a new one.

After actually reading the article in Pediatrics...

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/e74

I'm even more unimpressed.

Ok there was more than one Doctor involved and the study wasn't done in NY but Boston (just as anti-smoking.)

It is mainly composed of a survey that they did asking if people were aware of health risks in "third-hand smoke" They don't supply any real sources of data other than from the survey. Even their comments on the dangers of second-hand smoke are quotes from the Sergeon General's report which is comprised mostly of compiled numbers and projections from outside sources.

No where does it (or any of the sources) show undeniable proof that "third-hand smoke" causes cancer.

But no undeniable proof that second-hand smoke causes cancer and is fatal didn't stop the spin and beating with the ban-stick.

Reply

I find it very enlightening that the negative comments are all from smokers. They feel they have the right to pollute their surroundings with their filthy expensive addiction. They have absolutely no regard for any one else. If they wish to slowly commit suicide so be it but don't impose your disgusting behaviour on the rest of us that have chosen not to smoke. I have no idea where this sense of entitlement comes from but it proves that people can always justify their bad habits and denial is one of the strongest behavoiurs. As far as I am concerned go ahead smoke your lungs out I am a speciality nurse and you are all giving me job security! Thanks for being addicts.

Reply

Probably the last post I'll do... I was bopped here by accident.

I find it interesting that the anti-smoker jumped to the conclusion that anyone that didn't share their point of view HAD to be a smoker even though none of the opposing comments stated if the poster was or was not a smoker.

One of the main reasons the anti-smoking movement has gotten as far as it has is because the people involved with it are more vocal than anyone else.

Here, have another link for a different viewpoint.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf

Just because a viewpoint is put forth in a loud and boisterous manner does not mean it is popular. Even if it was the same opinon as the majority of people, that does not mean it is right.

Skip over the spin (there's a whole bunch of it.)The media in general will be biased towards what seems to be popular (even if it's not intentional.) Read the actual documents that are being quoted. Look for the unbiased truth and with that form your own opinion.

I am not for or against smoking. What I am against is people using backwards science and numbers come to a preconceived notion that fits into their agenda and then using that to get the government to step in and legislate behavior.

"Third-hand smoke" my aching backside!

Reply

The study was nothing more than a phone survey that asked people if they *believed* that third hand smoke was harmful. There was no science, no epidemiology, no research, just an opinion poll.

And here you are reporting unsupported nonsense as fact.

More information is available here: http://tinyurl.com/9a84gy

Reply

This is more of the same nonsense as we have seen before with other junk science. Second hand smoke was thoroughly debunked by the Congressional Research Service at the request of the U.S. Congress. And now this. How about fourth hand smoke! Our media only reports on the sensational headline. It doesn't have to be truth and they usually don't even investigate what they are reporting. If they did, how many of you out there have seen the CRS Report? According to the media headlines, let's face it, if in doesn't bleed it doesn't lead. Read this: http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3550

Reply

I totally agree, smoking is awful, whether it's direct, second-hand or third-hand.

Reply

I find it very surprising that as a daughter and granddaughter of very heavy smokers that I have not yet had any of these so called symptoms! I believe I would know if I had some sort of radioactive chemicals in my body and so would my mother. My parents smoked in the house, in the car etc,.. and I have no such affects much less my mother who is 50 years old and was raisied the same way! That is bull shit and If I want to smoke or any one for that matter it is our business. It is rude if you are around some one who does not smoke, but that is different if you are curtious to that person. Show me someone with these ailments and I will kiss your ass!

Reply

Who I voted for is irrelevant. I am a true conservative. While I do not feel government needs to be meddling in this issue any more, common sense dictates that if me and my family STINK after spending 24 hours in a smoke infested house (even when no one is smoking when we are there) then there is some kind of chemical residue remaining. Whether or not or to what degree it is harmful is not proven by this one study. But I do know out of the last 8 times we were there all 3 of my children picked up "colds" that dissapear within a day of leaving. To me it is just like when i was in the Army in Korea. Everyone got "sick" when they arrived because we were not used to the polluted atmosphere that Seoul had at the time. Just the same as if you are exposed to smoke when you are not used to it. Eventually you get used to it, as I do not recall smelling like that grwoing up with both parents who smoked. At any rate if you smoke in your home, or car and you have young children around you are a COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE adult. Period.

Reply

Who I voted for is irrelevant. I am a true conservative. While I do not feel government needs to be meddling in this issue any more, common sense dictates that if me and my family STINK after spending 24 hours in a smoke infested house (even when no one is smoking when we are there) then there is some kind of chemical residue remaining. Whether or not or to what degree it is harmful is not proven by this one study. But I do know out of the last 8 times we were there all 3 of my children picked up "colds" that dissapear within a day of leaving. To me it is just like when i was in the Army in Korea. Everyone got "sick" when they arrived because we were not used to the polluted atmosphere that Seoul had at the time. Just the same as if you are exposed to smoke when you are not used to it. Eventually you get used to it, as I do not recall smelling like that grwoing up with both parents who smoked. At any rate if you smoke in your home, or car and you have young children around you are a COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE adult. Period.

Reply