Wherein the author argues that because certain compounds found at infinitesimally low concentrations in smoker's clothing are relatively more dangerous than purified air, it's dangerous to be around a smoker, even if they aren't smoking. They actually use the term "third-hand" smoke. I hate smoking as much as the next guy, but I hate dishonest spin much, much more. - Mr. Gunn

Likewise. Just don't smoke in a room I am in :) - Deepak Singh

What makes you think it's dishonest? - Tanath

Neil, you think we shouldn't do something about that too? - Tanath

In order to die someday, you have to be alive. Everything is dangerous, I suggest not leaving your home, not using any type of equipment, electricity, gas, etc inside, and not eating any food from unknown sources. Also filter the inbound air, water and any other fluid. And don't read the interwebs, there are crazy people out there. - pn

Oh please, Paulo. "Being alive" and being stupid are two different things. - Tanath

Neil, there's media on both sides of the debate, and this is a blog. Ad hominems don't help. - Tanath

Tanath, this is alarmism whichever way you look at it. I think most of us are non-smokers and agree that smoking is bad for you and everyone around you, but this is taking things to an extreme level of paranoia. - Deepak Singh

I am reading the article in question, mentioned in the blog post and it is actually about the belief of people regarding "third-hand" smoking. It is a survey were people were asked if: "Breathing air in a room today where people smoked yesterday can harm the health of infants and children.". This is very very far away from proof that there is any risk of what they are calling "third-hand" smoking. - Pedro Beltrao

Deepak, it's not paranoia, it's a conclusion drawn from research. Here's the original paper: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi... The first line in the abstract states clearly: "There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke." - Tanath

Tanath, read the paper, that is not what it says. - Pedro Beltrao

Neil, it's an ad hominem because it addresses the credibility of a source as opposed to the argument. - Tanath

Does anyone have any idea how harmful to your health a charcoal grill is? My smoking a cig on my father's back porch never affected him like the neighbor's bbq grill did. THAT sent him to the hospital quite a few times every summer. - April

The study is about belief, but it still makes the claim that there is no safe level of exposure. As the conclusion states: "Emphasizing that thirdhand smoke harms the health of children may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans." - Tanath

Ooh, this will only make me keep smoking. Keeps away the annoying people. ROFL. And April you're missing the point of these types of articles. No one grills everyday, so it's totally okay for your dad to get sick from that. The carcinogens and chemicals in the briquettes and lighter fluid or kerosene is NOTHING compared to going into a room where someone had a cigarette. Yesterday. </snark> - Anika

*sigh* But they'll all move into a pristine new construction house filled with fumes. Just the thought of it gives me a headache, I'd rather smell cigar smoke. - FFing Enigma

Anika, the snark is unnecessary. Obviously that's a problem too. - Tanath

The pediatricians I've worked with have always counseled parents who smoke to wash their hands carefully and change their clothes before interacting with their children. In a susceptible population like asthmatics and ex-premies with respiratory disease third-hand smoke does seem to have an effect on the progression of their chronic disease. It may not necessarily affect everyone, but it's certainly not just paranoia. - Victor Ganata

A key paper cited has some data on levels of accumulated 'third hand smoke' : Matt et al, Tob Control. 2004;13 (1):29 –37 ( http://is.gd/eEUt ). They studied levels of nicotine in the dust of smokers homes .. not sure if we really know whether all the volatiles found in fresh smoke are present in the accumulated dust, let alone how toxic under different routes of exposure (ie potentially also oral rather than the lung for infants). - Andrew Perry

Quote from Matt el al (ETS == environmental tobacco smoke aka 3rd hand): "Little is currently known about the differential health risks associated with the inhalation or ingestion of ETS and its toxic components or the health risks associated with ETS exposure within minutes, days, or months after tobacco smoke was emitted. As a first step, research is needed to better understand the validity of nicotine as a marker of ETS in air, dust, and surfaces over the time course of ETS contamination." - Andrew Perry

Yeah, this paper isn't going to answer any of these questions. It takes it for granted that third hand smoke is harmful. A more illuminating paper is probably one it references: Households contaminated by environmental tobacco smoke: sources of infant exposures http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi... - Victor Ganata

Neil, your comment was directed at the media in general, of which blogs you consider part. Since your criticism wasn't addressed at an argument, I took it accordingly. And how significant does it need to be to justify a ban? - Tanath

Victor, that paper seems to agree: "Conclusions: Dust and surfaces in homes of smokers are contaminated with ETS. Infants of smokers are at risk of ETS exposure in their homes through dust, surfaces, and air. Smoking outside the home and away from the infant reduces but does not completely protect a smoker’s home from ETS contamination and a smoker’s infant from ETS exposure." - Tanath

Tanath: Yes, they show that the "homes of smokers are contaminated with ETS". But they also note that (as of 2004) there is little research to demonstrate that ETS is in fact a serious health risk. ETS is different to 1st hand or 2nd hand smoke, which are the focus of most research. I'd like to see a paper that analyses the composition of ETS (what are the levels of the compounds on the NYT/Pediatrics article scare list), and then _maybe_ something could be extrapolated from other toxicity studies ... - Andrew Perry

The Matt et al paper is not Open Access, so unfortunately not everyone may be able to see the full text. I can provide a copy for the sake of scholarly discussion if anyone wants it. - Andrew Perry

Well, it does say the article is free upon registering. Nevertheless, I found a Google HTMLized version here: http://66.102.1.104/scholar... - Tanath

And lots more can be found here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar... - Tanath

Now if they can just establish that third hand smoke causes more deaths than Radon exposure, I'm sure they'll get funding :-) - Jim Hardy

I dunno, I get the impression from all these papers that it's taken for granted that ETS is harmful. But the paper that demonstrates that the rate of hospitalization increases pretty much convinces me. - Victor Ganata

In order for the government to intervene in private behavior(because that's what we're talking about), the public interest must be overwhelmingly compelling. Drunk driving barely meets that level of proof, which is why there is a BAC limit. What would be an acceptable level of third-hand exposure? You made the statement that it should be banned outright, with no regard for any safe limit. - Mr. Gunn

That's the usual nanny state mentality of US. - pn

Discounting to zero the value of freedom to engage in any behavior you personally don't engage in is why you're being jumped on. There is some safe level of exposure to ANY risky behavior, no matter how frivolous it seems. - Mr. Gunn

Gunn, I didn't make the statement that it should be banned outright. Paulo, I'm Canadian, not American. Try making an argument. Gunn, why would you assume that I don't want others to do something just because I don't do it? That's not me at all. And you've contradicted the conclusion of the paper. What's your argument? - Tanath

I'm all for limiting government intervention & all that, but do you really think drunk driving should be permitted? - Tanath

Sorry to hear that this fear mongering already reached Canada. I'm already worried about fourth- and fifth-hand smoking. What argument can I make? That a nanny-state is more important than individual freedom? Should we control everything, everywhere, always? It's like the case of the woman in Calgary that was complaining of people feeding squirrels with peanuts in a public park, because her daughter was allergic to peanuts. I hate smoking, but I don't hate people that smoke. Oxygen in excess is also bad. - pn

How is it fear mongering? You and Gunn keep making unsupported claims (spin, fear mongering, etc.). Personally, I tend to dismiss unsupported claims, but not everyone does. You both sound like you want to argue from an anarchist or libertarian position, but then that's also something that would need justification... If you can't make an argument though, then I guess spin & fear mongering is all you have. - Tanath

"Data were collected by a national random-digit-dial telephone survey from September to November 2005." This study demonstrated that ***beliefs*** about the health effects of thirdhand smoke are independently associated with home smoking bans." Where are the facts? - pn

Did you look at the last two links I posted? Here's one pertinent paper: http://www.bmj.com/cgi... There are many more: http://scholar.google.com/scholar... - Tanath

The BMJ paper is from 1997 and deals with second-hand smoking. And I won't waste my time with 59000 refs. - pn

Actually, it's a study of "environmental tobacco smoke" consisting of an "Analysis of 37 published epidemiological studies". And if you don't want to "waste your time" looking for evidence, then why should I? You ought to do that before making up your mind, not after. How about you point me to a published paper supporting the contrary claim? - Tanath

Hey, if you want to poison your kids, go right ahead. I won't stop you. - Victor Ganata

And here's another pertinent article to consider, when looking for papers: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi... "The conclusions of review articles are strongly associated with the affiliations of their authors. Authors of review articles should disclose potential financial conflicts of interest, and readers of review articles should consider authors' affiliations when deciding how to judge an article's conclusions." - Tanath

Tanah - Again , the paper that you cite (Hackshaw BMJ 1997) describes the increase in cancer risk for in non-smokers who lived with a smoker. This does not show that there is an increase cancer risk for people that spend time in places were people have smoked before. As far as I can tell, the claim that is made in the NYT article is not supported in the science article they cite nor in the main references within it. If they are making an unsupported scary claim in the news piece .. that would be alarmist. - Pedro Beltrao

I don't have access to recent research but this paper from 2004 agrees (along with other search blurbs): http://www.ehponline.org/members... "Still, acceptable levels of exposure have not been established. From the present analysis, we are unable to recommend a safe level of exposure to ETS because there is no discernable threshold for the impact of ETS on the cognitive functioning of children." - Tanath

Pedro, agreed, that would be alarmist, but I can't verify because NYT has restricted access to the article. Granted, the cited paper itself doesn't present the evidence, but it does make the claim. And if there is no safe level of exposure, as is claimed in many other published papers as well, then clearly it's a valid concern. - Tanath

Here's a more recent one from 2006: http://66.102.1.104/scholar... "the scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.” - Tanath

Another argument is that it's the opening statement ("There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.") in a published article in a peer-reviewed journal. If it weren't supported in the literature, it wouldn't have made it through peer review. - Tanath

The claim that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke is in the U.S. Surgeon General's Report from 2006: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library... - Victor Ganata

Your headline reads "Why Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere". Do you agree with that statement? Things are banned when the risks of doing it outweigh the value of freedom to do it. Because the relative risk of exposure to third-hand smoke is so extremely small, that values the freedom to smoke at essentially zero. - Mr. Gunn from twhirl

Let me be more clear: There's no acceptable level of exposure to concrete moving at 80 mph, but people still drive, sometimes even with their children in the car. How does the relative risk compare with other activities? - Mr. Gunn from twhirl

I do agree with public smoking bans. Doing anything beyond that, though, probably isn't cost-effective or enforceable. - Victor Ganata

I'm inclined to be in favour of smoking bans, though I'm still open-minded. Claiming it should be banned in no way implies "freedom to smoke" has no value. Your analogies don't seem helpful. Driving is useful, smoking is not. Driving can be done safer, smoking tobacco... arguably not. Do you value personal freedom over public health & safety? - Tanath

There's a whole activist infrastructure supporting the banning of smoking. If the people working full-time on this effort want to stay employed, they have to either continually push for more and more regulation(see MADD and the homeopathic concentrations of alcohol they think you should be arrested for), or switch their efforts to banning something else(see New York's new Soft Drink tax - a tax is the first step before a ban). As Al Gore said, it's hard to get someone to believe something if their salary depends on them not believing it. - Mr. Gunn from twhirl

You're right to point out the potential conflict of interest, but that in itself doesn't invalidate their arguments. Clearly there are others on the other side equally opposed, and salary-dependent. It's an ad hominem of sorts. - Tanath

Wow, sorry I missed this especially as I did my doctorate on smoking and it's effects. Whilst there is plenty of evidence that smoking and 2nd hand passive smoking can be harmful in some individuals who are susceptible, there is no real concrete proof that third hand smoking as described in the article and blogs is harmful. It may well be, but the article deals with beliefs not proof, so there is a clear distinction there. Thus, I would agree with the Life Scientists above that the article is sensational. - Sally Church

Sally, then what's a safe level of exposure? You might want to skim through the comments. Which parts are sensational? And do you have any industry ties or affiliations? - Tanath

Tanath. You say "Claiming it should be banned in no way implies "freedom to smoke" has no value." But how much value remains when you clearly claim that it has less value than minute amounts of tobacco smoke ingredients ? I would argue that it approximates zero. - Nils Reinton

Actually, it was barely snark. The crusade against smokers it so lame and stupid. They've banned smoking at the beaches because cigarette butts are found, yet I can easily go to any beach and collect 5 33gal bags full of trash in under an hour. I see parents with babies in strollers waiting at the bus stop, while the bus belches fumes in the kids face, yet I walk past with a smoke clearly trying not to get the smoke in the kid's face and I get dirty looks. - Anika

Nils, why do you think it's a zero-sum equation? - Tanath

Anika, and you think I'm crusading against non-smokers? No, if anything I'd be crusading against smoking, not smokers. And cigarette butts can cause cancer. Most trash on the beach won't. - Tanath

Tanath, I used to work for a pharma company over 5 years ago yes, but am a non-smoker and neither really has any bearing on my opinion as a scientist. Like the others, I believe in rational evidence rather than beliefs. As to safe levels of exposure, who knows? Some people are susceptible and some are not. Not all smokers develop lung cancer, for example, or you would have a much clearer case. - Sally Church

I should let Sally answer this, but I think the answer to "what is a safe level" is "we don't know". Now, from a public policy perspective, you could ban smoking entirely to play it safe, but this would be exactly equivalent to saying "freedom to smoke" has less value than the potential unknown risk of exposure, which as Nils observes, would pretty much be zero. Now, given that there are allowed activities with known risks higher than that of even second-hand exposure, why single this activity out? - Mr. Gunn from twhirl

Mr Gunn, agreed we don't know but you said it better than I did :) - Sally Church

So the plastics that are leaching chemicals and carcinogens into the sand and water don't cause cancer? That's news to me. Nor did I say that *YOU* were crusading, I just said what I said. You seem to read a lot into things people aren't really saying. Calm down a bit and reread. - Anika

Why single it out? Why do we have to single it out? People can't work to achieve all the goals they'd like. Individuals have to pick and choose their battles. Unfortunately things don't necessarily happen in the order they should. Sally, logic & evidence is the only rational way to form/justify beliefs. Now the literature says there's no safe level of exposure, so I'm inclined to suggest it should be a controlled substance. - Tanath

Gunn, et al, what makes freedom to smoke more valuable than freedom to be safe & healthy? - Tanath

It looks like the author of the article did read too much into the paper from Pediatrics. The data for what we're asking about just isn't there, although it's scattered throughout the references. Sally has it right, not everyone is susceptible to cigarette smoke, even 2nd or 1st-hand. If there is a "safe" level, it's likely different for everyone. I doubt you'll get cancer from 3rd-hand smoke, but that's not why I'm interested. It's the people who have pre-existing lung disease who suffer ill-effects. - Victor Ganata

This may interest some: http://www.iwantoneofthose.com/shop... - Tanath

I once saw a quip in Reader's Digest that was along the lines of "Mosquitoes avoid cigarette smoke, which only goes to show that you don't have to be big to be smart." - Ladyepiphanybug

I don't care as much about the third-hand smoke chemicals as much as the smell on the smoker. The smell of it makes me gag. Even if the smoker hasn't smoked in a few hours, I can still smell it on them. Drives me crazy. - Rochelle

Anika, nor did I say you said I was crusading. It was a question. "Calm down & reread." :P - Tanath

I think the only sane perspective on this, if we're going to debate what public policy should be, is one which takes the relative risks into account. If this is the battle you pick, then all the best to you. I'll be happy to discuss this further when we actually have some data to talk about. - Mr. Gunn from twhirl

Scientific American has weighed in on this: http://www.sciam.com/article... "Third-hand smoke" has been called residual SHS in the literature, BTW. - Tanath

every substance has a a level at which it poses a quantifiable health danger - too much water can kill you, too much vitamin c can cause health problems. What levels of 3rd hand smoke are required & over how long a period of exposure are we talking before you notice any health problems - bearing in mind that the body can recover from quite a lot of damage. Then we begin to enter the issue of living in ever more sterile environments and the *massive* damage that is doing to us.. That's a bigger health issue - alphaxion

Erm, there are clearly safe amounts of water... And overly sterile environments are a separate problem. - Tanath

In a strange sort of synchronicity, I just saw the following in my LinkedIn Activity feed. http://www.forces.org/static_... I'm not endorsing this group, I just thought it was funny given this whole conversation. - Mr. Gunn from twhirl

+1 on Mr. Gunn for saying wait for solid data. -1 postlinearity: we may be geeky, but wacky we're not - that would be a non-science crowd. - Nils Reinton