Tuesday
Jan062009
Third-hand smoke? Oh please ...
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 I was just about to comment on the preposterous warning over "third-hand smoke", reported HERE and HERE, when I received - in response to the same story - the following email: "Oh please .... what will they dream up next?"
I couldn't have put it better myself.
The print edition of today's Telegraph reported the story with the headline "Smokers' clothes a risk to children", as if it's a proven fact. I know the Telegraph has gone downhill lately, but someone ought to have a word with the editor.
Update on Friday, January 9, 2009 by
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
Our old friend Tom Utley, a former Smoker-Friendly Journalist of the Year (Forest Awards), writes about "third-hand smoke" HERE.
Reader Comments (19)
Simon - I think we are on a winner here when even the most gullible of people may just think "what the hell does this mean to life as we know it"? The claim effectively scuppers the industrial world and means a lot of occupations will be deemed too hazardous to do (if taken literally).
The ant-smoking brigade has reached the bottom of the barrel and in 2009 have no where to go.
Good point Bill. I wrote to him today with a 4 page rebuttal. His own research shoots him in the foot and here is the extract.
"Might I also refer to the work of, err, Dr, J. Winickoff and your paper ‘Child hospitalization An opportunity for parental smoking intervention.’ (6) You state that 65 out of 298 admissions to hospital for respiratory illnesses were children of smokers. That is 65/298 = 21.8% were in a cigarette smoking environment. The Boston Times stated that in 1998 that “Two decades ago, nearly 28 percent of Massachusetts adults regularly smoked. By 2007, that number had fallen to 16.4 percent.” (7) Any reasonable person may conclude that 28% – 21.8% divided by 28 X 100 leads to a 22.14% (RR of 0.78 which co-incidentally seems to dove tail into the WHO and NCI studies) reduction in respiratory illnesses in children."
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749379701003555
This is beginning to get dangerously stupid, if that article had been on April 1st I would have genuinly thought it was an April fool. It is like saying a woman can get pregnant from being intimate with her clothes on, (yes, I believe those obsessed with sexual morality even thought that in the 'old days'). Or the one about getting VD from a toilet seat.
When you think about the 1940s and 1950s in particular, when around 80% of men smoked virtually everywhere, why arn't all that generation dead?
Another point, pity those poor children whose fathers are chefs or motor mechanics, and if daddy is a mechanic for buses or HGVs then that is certain death.
It is stupid. For those that were wondering (and there are many of them), this has done it.
The antis have lost the battle with this latest piece of 'news'.
They must be desparate. If they were so bothered about the health of the nation, money would be pouring into research instead of lobby groups and lies.
Lies do not improve health - they just socially-engineer. The health of the nation will always continue to go down the spiral until a stop is put to this nonsense.
Along with the moral of the country's citizens.
Dave, as an intelligent person, you always do your research for which I commend you but I think you are missing the point of this sinister story. In your posts here you are preaching to the already converted but this is something the avid anti-smokers such as the notorious liar Deborah Arnott, will seize upon to back up their case for total prohibition. People who read this kind of garbage believe it without any question. It becomes their mantra, their bible. With the threat of 3 million becoming unemployed this has the potential of causing untold misery - much worse than the smoking ban in pubs, the workplace etc. as it can stop smokers from getting jobs as the problem is that unfortunately a fact of life is that the smell of tobacco does linger on the clothes. It is impossible to hide it even with the use of products like Fabrese. As my work involves contact with children I find this potentially devastating and am extremely worried about loss of income. I have already had people sniffing me and asking if I smoke and putting on pretend coughs as they walk past me. My philosophy has always been, whatever you think of a person, you should never ever try to stop them earning a living. These people are devils not saviours of health. Do they really want to put thousands of people not only out of work but also be responsible for them losing their homes and put them on the streets or are they saying that is all we are worth, a life in the gutter?
There will be no need to outside to smoke.
"I know the Telegraph has gone downhill lately, but someone ought to have a word with the editor."
Simon, I take it that you mean to do so and whenever you see this dangerous rubbish reported? If this isn't robustly nipped in the bud then third-hand smoke will assume the status of second-hand smoke.
Arguing against these guys is like arguing against the Spanish Inquisition.
Welcome to the Soviet States of europe
Sylvia, I do take your point. The reason it is important to write, in my case pseudo erudite letters, like wot I writ is that in the USA nearly everyone there has been brainwashed into thinking that SHS is deadly. If some semi educated numpty like me can debunk their lies, proper scientists can do a better job. That is they are not going to pull the wool over our eyes.
The anti smoking lobby are quite sensitive to the pro choice organisations as all you need is one single journalist from a newspaper or TV to get hold of one of our articles, research it properly and find the emperor is wearing no clothes. The whole anti smoking edifice will collapse over night. Take the DoH/ASH "consultation" that has been exposed in the Telegraph, Evening Standard, papers and numerous political blogs like Devils Kitchen. ASH and the DoH look disingenuous.
I believe possibly, the high point of tobacco control has been reached and people may view me to be wildly optimistic but I feel within a year we maybe in a position to amend the smoking ban.
I have included an URL for a couple of letters I have had published in the BMJ. The scientists who wrote the paper work for the WHO in tobacco control and you can see their exasperation at some of the replies, this is Associate Professor Philip Pattemore.
"I am astounded at the tone of the negative responses to the article by Thomson et al. You can critique the strategy and suggest an alternative strategy to achieve the same ends, or you can criticise the ends to be achieved. These responses read uncannily like the authors are not convinced of the end to be achieved - reducing and eliminating disease and death due to tobacco smoke. Personal choice and freedoms, are unfortunately the words that have been used to cast doubt and delay action over tobacco policy ever since Sir Richard Doll made some observations about lung cancer."
I write maybe 20-30 emails a week in my spare time and normally get replies. What effect in the smoking dedate I do not know, but at least you cannot acuse me of sitting on my fat backside.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/337/dec11_3/a2806#205947
This is most certainly a crazy situation and a totally topsy turvy place we now live in. I may seem to digress here, but bear with me ...
It was reported this morning on GMTV that the 100,000 were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in 2007 but this rose to 150,000 in 2008 and this is mostly down to obesity.
I have a weight problem as well as suffering from depression and anxiety and my weight is adversely affecting my mental health. I am clinically obese with a bmi of around 33. This morning I had an appointment at the diabetes and metabolism clinic with the hope that I might qualify for surgical assistance to lose the weight as I have tried everything else and whenever I have dieted and lost weight, I late put it all back on, plus more.
Apparently, despite the depression and having tried everything else, I am not fat enough to warrant the PCT spending any money on my just now. The doctor basically said that if I really wanted surgery then I either had to pay for it myself, which I cannot afford, or put on another few stone in weight, risk becoming diabetic in the process, but then I would qualify.
My point is that whilst this government are apparently concerned about obesity, which we all know is a problem, they would rather waste money on the say so of those who appear to be their masters - ie ASH - rather than look to helping those with real personal life and health problems and save money in the long term. I believe the costs to the NHS of diabetes is far greater than the apparent cost of smokers and unless diabetics are smokers,they are not contributing to the government coffers.
The other issue here is that the local Mental Health section of the PCT can't provide any help for me either in terms of relevant counselling! If can afford to pay privately then I can have counselling, because I can't I am left to struggle.
Seriously these issues, including the smoking ban, have led me to make a few attempts to take my own life, with the total despair of it all - the last time between Christmas and New Year. Of course, the possible costs involved with these events and the consequences, assuming I don't actually succeed, are irrelevant to the PCT just now!
Sorry to have ranted on, perhaps it is just me, but I see all these areas as being intertwined, but the government puppets whose strings are pulled by zealots like those in ASH and their cohorts, do not seem to be able to see the connections.
Mary, I have illuded to your post in the one above, I am afraid the prognosis is worse than you describe. The antis in the USA have won the argument on active smoking, SHS/ETS and flushed with success have invented Third Hand Smoke. Like Senator Joseph McCarthy "smoking" has entered the lexicon as an Un-American activity and any dissent is treated ruthlessly, including the anti smoking lobby trying to get honest epidemiologists like Professor Enstrom fired from their posts. See my article published by Devil's Kitchen.
In the States pro choice is a very sticky wicket.
http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/12/passive-smoking-and-salt-mines.html
Unfortunately this sounds like the antis have found a new stick to beat us with. It's not a new idea in the US and it has no doubt been gathering support over there for a long time like slow-dripping poison.
10 years ago I was in San Francicso staying with relatives who had a new baby. One partner was forced outside to the garden to have a fag then harrassed afterwards for smelling of smoke when he came back inside. The baby's mother had been told in hospital that third hand smoke from the smell of clothes was dangerous and could kill her child. I explained how preposterous this idea was but the woman hated smoking anyway and wanted to believe the smell alone was enough to kill.
I fear the paranoid here in the UK will embrace the third hand smoke argument to justify their own hatred of smokers and dislike of the smell while also giving policitians a reason to make further discriminatory laws excluding smokers from decent society and jobs while also working towards ultimately separating them from their children on health grounds. After all, we smokers are sinners and the righteous puritanical antis will make us pay!
I wish I could share your optiminsm, Dave, but my own view is that nothing will get better. We can only hope it doesn't get worse.
If the second hand smoke rubbish reached the status of holy law 30 years after it first reared it's false and lying head then the third hand smoke argument could sadly give the antis a listening ear among media orgs that are generally anti-smoking themselves and always on the look-out for a good smoking health scare story which they present as fact.I think BBC news and the Telegraph have just demonstrated that.
I fear that this is not the last we hear about this ridiculous idea but we mustn't let it take the same cultural hold as the silly passive smoking rubbish. Our best hope is that the media is now too busy discriminating and spreading false lies about fat people to be that interested in beating smokers anymore but I wait to see.
Either way, fat or skinny, smoker or non-smoker, drinker or tee-total, anyone who truly cares about freedom and tolerance should join forces, round up the puritans, and lock them all up in sterile environments where their poisonous words and paranoias can't hurt anyone else.
Funnily enough, at work we have just had an email stating that from 2 February it will only be permitted for smokers to smoke during their lunch break and not have the odd one or 2 during the day. Whether this is coincidence or not, I don't know, but probably.
The thing is, there are some of us who smoke who do not have lunch breaks for one reason or another - myself because I work through and leave an hour early - doesn't mean I can go from 8.30 to 4.30 without a smoke!
I had always thought myself lucky in that the company I work for have, until now, been pretty good with regard to smoking, so long as people don't take the micky. If people are, then they should be spoken to, not a blanket ban apart from lunch breaks for everyone!
I had just come in from a quick smoke when I saw the email, which stressed me so much I had to go out for another - whilst it is still allowed!
If we don't watch out then soon us smokers will need to endure de-contamination chambers prior to entering any buildings, be they places of work or shops, pubs, restaurants, etc as the smell on our clothes might cause some poor soul to drop dead from heart failure!
If the fantasy of third-hand smoke was true,there would be NO-ONE left alive on this earth, as we are surrounded by toxins millions of times greater all the time, especially in food and drink.No babies would ever grow up, so it's looks like the end of the human race is close. These people must live in perpetual fear, or of course know the truth and know that there is always great rewards when you create fear.
This garbage should be laughed at. It's the best way to deal with these charlatans.
By the way, not forgetting fourth and fifth-hand smoke that exists in other dimensions and possibly could contaminate through contact with a spiritualist or even through the practice of meditation.
This reminds me of something I wrote a year or so back, when I imagined that as the hysteria mounted it would be pointed out that, after centuries of smoking by our forebears, our buildings and their contents were permeated with lethal tobacco smoke residues, in layer upon layer like annual tree rings, Famous works of architecture would be demolished, and priceless furniture and art and books torched.
i think i can go one better than third hand
smoke
i was recently in santa monica california
i live close to there redondo beach
well anyway i was in an apartment someone was renting for a few months . i went outside for a smoke but left the pack open indoors . the person said to keep the pack closed as they wanted to rent the apartment again and where
worried about the smell of an open pack of smokes in the air
Excellent fisking by Chris Snowdon:
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=67
You can convince people easier with a big lie, than you can with a small one
Adolph Hitler (meine Kampf )