Third-hand smoke also bad for you: study

Originally posted by DeathShield
reply to post by tarifa37

 

Again, how do you know it was nicoteine?

First of all I would like to draw your attention to the title of the thread" Third-hand smoke also bad for you: study" Without question it was the cigarette smoke that had caused the yellow deposits on the doors walls and ceilings.The only room that was clean was her spare bedroom that she never went into or used. Secondly although I am not a chemist or expert by any means on the composition of cigarette smoke, I do know that it is common knowledge that the yellow stains found on heavy smokers fingers and pub ceilings are thought to be caused by the nicotine and probably the tar in the cigarette and that leaves a sticky film over everything it touches. I am sure that in many cigarettes there are additional chemicals that would also be deposited with the nicotine and tar. My point is its the smoke that causes the yellow ceilings and it was the smoke and ALL of its nasty ingredients that caused my skin to turn red and sore.

reply to post by tarifa37


Alrite, that makes sense. Are you sure that it wasn't the Sugar Soap.

reply to post by DeathShield


No because I have used that many times before with no ill effects.

Are there certain times of the year when grants are handed out?

Today we are getting told more than 2 sodas a week is bad, and now 3rd hand tobacco smoke is bad?

After the Global Warming fiasco, it's time we start taking a closer look at these junk scientists, and start thinking about what their agenda is. Most times their agenda is putting grant money in their pockets, but sometimes it goes alot further than that.

Hmmmmm, hardly surprising that my study exploring if second-hand smoking leads to second hand coolness was rejected.

Smoke if you want to, if you don't you might get hit by a bus, killed by a terrorist or die in a freak yachting accident. At least the slow lingering death afforded by smoking will enable you to sort out your financial affairs before you pass away and prevent the government stealing, sorry taxing, the inheritance you leave your loved ones.

I'm guessing seventh-hand smoke give dyslexic children rickets.

In todays world its hard to die of natural causes....

Second and third hand smoke; As dangerous as standing near a fire!

reply to post by buni11687


...from the article -
"when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid"...


...could someone, please, explain (in simple terms) what ambient nitrous acid is and where its found in our homes and autos or outside?...

...thx in advance...

My solution: Bio-hazard forehead tattoos on all smokers. I'm getting mine tomorrow, except for a little fun I'm putting the Philip Morris crest right in the middle of mine. Gotta show my brand pride (;

reply to post by buni11687

Flag for the quick response to the news item, and I would just like to link with the thread and anyone who commented previously on my "Third-hand tobacco smoke: The royal road to complete prohibition" thread: www.abovetopsecret.com... (which is now closed and redirected for comment here).
My central thought around this was that it is the final step in complete prohibition against tobacco.
Of course there are two ways towards prohibition and the creation of a lucrative tax industry along with a black market. I'm thinking here for example of alcohol in Norway, the sale of which is run by vastly overpriced government monopoly liquor-stores. The result is that people either buy illegally imported booze, smuggled booze or high-octane (uncontrolled) moonshine. As some have pointed out this semi-prohibition via "sin tax" is already regionally in operation and the basis for an illegal tobacco black market already exists.
What is great for the state is that any harm done by illegal produce falls on the "criminalized" consumer, and not on any legal company or government.
Apparently it is illegal in the US to plant tobacco or hemp seeds, so the prohibition against growing tobacco seeds already implies a kind of prohibition? Can one even legally get tobacco seeds in the US?

reply to post by halfoldman


I've never hard of it being illegal to plant tobacco. In fact, I remember a post here on ATS by member Redneck where he was talking about growing his own.

Hell, it would be news to me if it is illegal.

Originally posted by jjjtir
1 question for now.

The radioactive contamination on tobacco for decades.

Question: how many of the countless of studies done took into account this radioactivity in their results?

A multitude of radioactive isotopes were found in tobacco.

Includes for example uranium, thorium, strontium, radon, lead.

Uranium? There ya go, Iran can start growing a bunch of tobacco and get the remaining amount they need! LOL

Anyway, third hand smoke ? Besides making the walls yellow or clothes smell I do not buy it. The chemicals at that point have been burned out.
Smokers have yellow teeth but the teeth are not radioactive or anything.
That would put a whole new spin on kissing a smoker,lol

I think they want to make it look even worse than it is so they can tax even more health tax to it than they already are.

As to the illegality of growing tobacco: I'm almost certain its not illegal. You can legally buy tobacco seeds, here is a distributing company in Kentucky: www.newtontobaccoseed.com...

I have only tasted homegrown tobacco once, and I pray I will never taste it ever again. When I lived in Chicago some of my friends decided to take it upon themselves to fix a recurring problem we had: there was no way broke ass college kids could afford $8.75 a pack. My friend James ordered seeds on the internet, and God love him he really tried his best on those plants. I was kind of suspicious of the whole thing from the beginning and my suspicions turned out to be more than accurate. Once he dried and cured the final product, we all got out our zig-zags and excitedly gave it a puff, only to discover it tasted like a stale fart. That was about a $125 experiment gone down the drain.

There is no way America will give away their Newports, Marlboros, and Camels for homegrown, in my opinion.

reply to post by MarlboroRedCowgirl

Well I'm posting from South Africa, and I read in the book: "The Devil's Picnic" by Taras Grescoe, Macmillan: 2005):
"The following activities are strictly prohibited in North America (with penalties, in some American states, ranging from up to life imprisonment): planting hemp or TOBACCO SEEDS in one's garden ..." (p.3-4).

I've also seen the seed selling sites, but find it hard to get a clear answer. However it appears it is still largely legal - albeit the USA has very different laws between states. Perhaps something to take up with the editor of the book I read !

reply to post by amatrine


Yes, in at least 3 laboratory analyses uranium was found in tobacco.

The radioactivity argument is the only defense fairly without bias of commercial interests behind it.

The major culprit was the fertiliser used in the tobacco plants.

Analyses done by different researchers over 2 decades confirms this contamination.

What isotopes are found varies by sample.

A bit of trivia and curious information... one of the sources of fluoride to put in water? Phosphate fertiliser industries.

Farmers now try to get clean fertiliser or any way possible to remove the isotopes, now aware of this madness.

[edit on 10-2-2010 by jjjtir]

reply to post by halfoldman


Before you write that editor, find out what year the book was published. According to this source: "As a result of federal legislation in late 2005, restrictions of commercial tobacco production to quota holders are no longer in effect."

addiction is louder than logic to the average smoker.

if the SMOKE is full of poison (benzene for example),

then the smoke residues are filled with poison also.

We know you (smokers) are willing to kill yourselves rather than face the truth. What society needs then is a way to ensure the safety of its citizens from the dangers that you spew.

Find a way to "enjoy" the smoke entirely by yourself and I will support your actions in the name of personal freedoms.

but until you can smoke without ME smoking WITH YOU, then we have issues...

if i walked around with a spray bottle full of benzene and ammonia and squirted it at smokers... I would get arrested.

I think we are entering a new dark age. Science is used to prove anything
and everything. Its gotten to the point where the first question to ask is
who payed for the study and what axe they have to grind. It might
improve a bit if the MSM realized it and reported science with more
cynicism.

I think our society will veer so far from reality as to self destruct.

Tobacco is poisonous, but not nearly as much as many other substances
we are exposed to. For crying out loud the lethal dose in humans is
60mg/Kg. This means that an adult male would have to consume more
than 26 oz of tobacco to kill themselves! The symptoms would be most
alarming! It would be far easier to check out using alcohol.

All that said, tobacco isn't healthy, particularly delivered in smoke(20 times
as dangerous as chewed). The dynamics of its addiction are rather
diabolical, because it reinforces the memory of ingestion, giving positive
feedback to the addiction process.

People will manage to find some way to ingest addictive substances.
Society needs to determine cost benefit. In Saudia Arabia they don't drink
alcohol, but they smoke like crazy, drink coffee that walks and talks, and
chew Ghat. After prohibition, alcohol consumption stayed low for more than
a generation, but smoking became almost universal. Is tobacco worse
than some other choices?

I am personally opposed to tobacco consumption, but I think the pendulum
has swung too far. I remember when every public building reeked
strongly of stale tobacco. Now people act as if the mere smelling of
tobacco smoke will do irreparable harm.

It seems to be too much to ask that we approach the problem intelligently.

i think an intelligent approach would be to control toxic emissions.

public smoking is a grand place to start. wanna smoke? fire up at home and take precautions for your family, pets, and neighbors.

and let us also look at our industries and other sources of pollution.

The essential argument that I'm opposing says that it is OK to be harmed a little bit here and there in the name of convenience, or culture, or public pleasure.

i say that it is not. this is the rapists argument, your pain does not invalidate my pleasure. or perhaps, your pain is not real pain, you get more real pain from other sources...

of course no ARGUMENT can overcome TOXICITY. Defense of public smoking then can only rely on a denial of toxicity, or upon the INSANE notion that we are only being poisoned A LITTLE.

reply to post by uwascallywabbit

This is the second post on the page that is very critical of smokers. I suppose countries vary in their laws, but in South Africa the law protects non-smokers in all enclosed public spaces. There are still sealed smoking areas (25% or less of floor-space) in bars and restaurants, but I couldn't even imagine a public space where I could legally offend a non-smoker by smoking.
It's good, I smoke much less, and my mom has almost stopped completely.

At least both anti-smokers agree on personal use in personal space. This is what the theory of "third hand" residue will attempt to overthrow. The smoker will become an evil health hazarding persona, even when he isn't smoking! For me it's the royal road to total tobacco prohibition, and that will come at great social cost: black markets with low quality cigarrettes will flourish, new violent cartels will arise, law enforcement will be further corrupted and over-burdened, and more people will smoke (just as people are increasingly stopping).

On the argument of banning all poisonous emmissions: ban the meat industry, which spews tons of methane and carbon emmisions, and is not essential to survival. Never mind the pristine forests it destroys. Are perfumes, aerosols, cars or camp/barbecue fires essential? Mmm - that argument is a slippery slope.