Thirdhand smoke: another view
Monday, January 12, 2009 Geoffrey Kabat, co-author of the peer-reviewed study that seriously questioned the impact of secondhand smoke and author of Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology, has written about the study on thirdhand smoke, reported last week by the New York Times, the BBC and others. As always, Kabat is well worth reading:
The authors’ distinction between secondhand and thirdhand smoke is artificial and betrays an ignorance of the relevant science ... Since the distinction between secondhand and thirdhand smoke is an artificial one, questioning study subjects about their beliefs concerning the dangers of thirdhand smoke is questionable.
In the opening sentence of their abstract, the authors state that “there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.” While there are different theoretical models regarding effects of exposure at low levels on carcinogenesis, in practice there are levels below which any effects are likely to be trivial or undetectable. In fact, the dose does matter. Apart from the degree of ventilation, humidity, room size, and other characteristics of the home, the single greatest determinant of exposure is likely to be the number of cigarettes smoked in proximity to children.
However those of a nervous disposition should look away now because Kabat adds:
One aspect of the study that appears valid is the researchers’ implied reference to toddlers, who are likely to ingest some amount of tobacco smoke constituents deposited on floors and other surfaces. If the authors had focused on this special case in order to educate the parents of newborn children about the hazards of smoking, this would have been a better-conceived project.
The special case of toddlers is yet another reason for parents not to smoke in the home, in addition to the greater susceptibility of infants and children to the adverse effects of smoke exposure, the fact that unextinguished cigarettes can cause fatal fires, and the vitally important fact that parental smoking has a strong influence on whether or not children grow up to become smokers themselves.
There are enough scientifically documented harmful effects of exposure to cigarette smoke without concocting catchy but uninformative concepts that, while likely to attract the attention of the jaded media and its audiences, confuse the important issues regarding the health effects from exposure to cigarette smoke.
Full article HERE.
Reader Comments (8)
Frankly I am disappointed by his article. If sidestream and SHS does not contribute to early mortality how does he come to the conclusions of 3rd hand smoke in relation to toddlers.
Time for the Basildon Bond, methinks.
"The special case of toddlers is yet another reason for parents not to smoke in the home, in addition to the greater susceptibility of infants and children to the adverse effects of smoke exposure, the fact that unextinguished cigarettes can cause fatal fires, and the vitally important fact that parental smoking has a strong influence on whether or not children grow up to become smokers themselves."
So, what happened to the apparent evidence that said toddlers actually gain some benefit from parents smoking around them - a certain amount of immunity?
Everyone knows that a carelessly discarded cigarette can cause a fire, just as carelessness with other things around the house can cause fires - not least of which are toddlers themselves!
As for the strong links that children of smoking parents are more likely to become smokers - I have said before, both my brother and myself grew up with smoking parents and grand parents; I chose to smoke and still do; my brother has never smoked and is, in fact, extremely anti as well as anti drinking, anti punishment of children and anti many other things, that in my view is partly the reason for the current deterioration of our society today.
My daughter grew up with both myself and her father smoking, as well as many of our friends. She has never smoked and at 25 has no intention of starting now.
Going back to the apparent harmful effects; as children neither my brother not myself ever suffered much from colds or any other minor illnesses and neither did my daughter. I still don't suffer much from colds and have never had the flu. Since leaving home and a smokey environment both my brother and daughter have had numerous colds, minor infections, coughs and flu, amongst other things.
It seems to me very strange that whilst they lived with smokers these ailments appeared to be minimised, yet having left the so called harmful environment produced by smokers, both have become far more susceptible to all kinds of minor ailments.
Surely there must be some logic in this somewhere? I have no doubt that other people, particularly antis, could come up with similar stories, apparently proving the opposite, but doesn't that then say that actually, there is no real difference between children growing up around smokers and children who don't?
Children of today, who are far less likely to grow up around smokers as in my day (the 60's) have a greater prevalence of breathing related problems, such as asthma - how can that be blamed on smoking parents when there are far fewer parents who smoke than there were 30 or 40 years ago? Logic tells me that something else, that has been increasing over the past 30 to 40 years is far more likely to be responsible. Things like vehicle toxins and fumes and toxins and fumes from modern day cleaners, to name but just 2.
Am I being logical in my thinking or am I totally stark staring bonkers?
No Lyn you are most certainly not bonkers, although it is impossible to derive a general explanation from a single incidence. Mind you this is what most epidemiology appears to do these days. I was just wondering why we smokers don't get together and start a campaign against the dangers of first, second and third hand motorcar. First hand is getting hit by one, second hand is having to breath in all the shit they spew into the air and third hand is having to come into contact with people with petrochemical, exhaust and plastic and upholstery chemicals and fumes attached to their clothes, hair and fingernails.
Anyone interested? No, me neither.
The fact that residues adhere to people and surfaces is not unique to the chemicals in cigarette smoke, I probably get loads from the wood fired stove we use to keep warm, the cleaners I use on myself, my clothes and my home and any number of other things that I come into contact with at work, in a research laboratory. What needs to be said about the third hand smoke lunacy is that it is just that, lunacy. Anyone endorsing this nonsense should be publicly denounced as a moron, not given the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt, because there is no doubt.
Thanks MCO - perhaps if public flogging were brought back, these morons would not spout so much rubbish, despite what they might be paid to do so!
Lyn, my guess is that the orthodoxy surrounding SHS and the American scientific community has reached Inquisition levels. In my article for Devil's Kitchen I touch upon it. This is Professor Carl V Philips commenting on epidemiologists that dare to question SHS and no doubt THS. My guess Dr. Kabat did not want to upset the apple cart.
"Enstrom cites the reign of terror over biology under Stalin as one example of politics trumping science. Though the Soviet case is rather extreme (we North Americans who dare question the scientific orthodoxy only have our careers threatened; not our lives, at least so far), it is not the most extreme. Many cultures were hobbled for centuries because of religious adherence to pseudoscience, and damage to people's health was one of the many results."
http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/12/passive-smoking-and-salt-mines.html
I think that use of an abbreviation of a term (such as 'SHS' for 'second-hand smoke') implies an acceptance that the concept that the term describes has some weight; has veracity. In order not to contribute to this phenomenon, I will not use the abbreviation THS to refer to the myth that is 'third hand smoke'.
Joyce, my email to Dr. Winickoff took 2 hours to research and write, having the write acronyms long hand means an even later night :)
Dave, I agree with Joyce. Tapping into any part of the anti's invented world gives credence.
I also agree with Lynn who, like me, bases her belief on personal experience. At 75 I still have no need for doctors and prescription drugs. I have smoked, very heavily, all my life. My children grew up, equally healthily, in this smoke-filled atmosphere. Sadly,the lying propoganda has reached my daughter. Her's has become a no-smoking house. Both she and her previously healthy children are now prone to every illness going the rounds. .
Sometimes we overlook the scientifically proven age-old health benefits of smoking. May I refer you to the most recent post in the link below:-
http://www.freedom2choose.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=77495#77495
I particularly liked the reference to "smoker's cough". The mucous expelled is a lining created by nicotine as a barrier protecting internal organs. We cough up the harmful bacteria we would otherwise have absorbed. I have always believed this - nice to see it as a proven fact.
As to the myth that smoking shortens life - Rubbish! Our oldest inhabitants all smoke. Only when people "give up" and lose the protection and healing of nicotinem do all the ills rush in. Then the medics blame it on having previously smoked. THEN they prescribe their expensive nicotine-based drugs. [Niacin, Nicotinic Acid, Vitamen B3 etc.] Also their expensive operations.
Why don't they leave well alone? Well, there's no profit in that, is there.