Quote:
Originally Posted by kayleigh.
If third hand smoke even exists then nobody can escape it at all , and we're all going to die of lung cancer induced by people smoking outside. What a load of balls, to be frank. Scientists need to waste time on something valuable.
|
Third-hand smoke definitely exists...it is the stink you smell on the skin, hair, and clothes of people who smoke, and in the rooms they smoked in due to contamination of sofas, carpet, walls, etc.
The main health concern is for infants, who breathe in more dust and residues in homes since they are closer to the floor, and so are more likely than adults to be affected by third-hand smoke. Also, infants are more susceptible than adults to respiratory troubles and developmental harm caused by carcinogens and other chemicals.
What is third-hand smoke? Is it hazardous?: Scientific American
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
AMEN.
Since the idea that trace amounts of 3rd-hand smoke is affecting people negatively is nowhere near ultimately proven, and even if it were, I would encourage these supporters of agenda-terror to focus on other things and realize that the battle is on such a small scale that it's inconsequential in the face of all the other dangers out there... Here are some, not including being raped and killed in an alley downtown:
- Tannins occur widely in plant foods and we ingest them daily in tea, coffee, and cocoa.
- Safrole, which is a liver carcinogen in rats, is found in sassafras tea, cinnamin, cocoa (trace), nutmeg, and other herbs and spices.
- Black pepper
- Aflatoxins and Ochratoxin A are natural toxins made by fungal food contaminants that also cause cancer in animals and humans.
|
The danger of a carcinogen is a function of the carcinogen's strength, exposure time, and the developmental stage of the person. I doubt most infants are given a lot of coffee, chocolate, pepper, and peanut butter, so the negative impact of third-hand smoke on infants whose parents smoke could be much greater compared to the impact of carcinogens in those foods.
On what basis do you assume that the harm of third-hand smoke is inconsequential compared to the harm of other carcinogens you list? And does the fact that an infant could be murdered mean we shouldn't care about environmental pollutants she is exposed to?
Second-hand smoke (the smoke inhaled by children as parents smoke around them) is much more of a concern than third-hand smoke, but this doesn't mean the negative effect of third-hand smoke on children or adults is negligible and should be ignored or minimized by claiming research into this topic is "agenda-terror." I find it odd that you both feel a certain topic should be off limits to scientists who are trying to understand more fully the negative impacts of smoking on people who are involuntarily exposed.
Here's a brand of cigarette to add to the list:
The Candy Cigarette. Hook your customers on the habit while they're young!
