Thirdhand smoke fever
Friday, February 12, 2010 
Chris Snowdon (left), author of Velvet Glove Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking, is the latest addition to our team of writers on The Free Society website. Today, Chris addresses the "thirdhand smoke" study conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and reported by the BBC and others last week.
He writes:
It was the kind of laboratory experiment that two chemists might conduct to kill time on a rainy Friday afternoon," writes Chris. "It resulted in global media coverage. The Daily Telegraph was only marginally more excitable than the many other newspapers which reported it:
"Third-hand smoke as dangerous as cigarette fumes … Third-hand smoke found in hair and on clothes can be as dangerous as the fumes billowing directly from a cigarette – particularly to babies and children."
This came just over a year after the concept of ‘thirdhand smoke’ – toxins lingering in hair and furniture for months after a cigarette is extinguished – was first launched into the public consciousness. On that occasion, a telephone survey asking whether parents would be less likely to smoke if they believed that dormant carcinogens in the upholstery could attack their children was reported as if such a phenomenon had already been proven. In fact it had not even been studied, but this speculative survey was enough to prompt think-of-the-children hyperbole from the Daily Mail under the headline: ‘Even smoking outside can harm your baby’.
Full article HERE.
Note: Chris has also written about the subject on his own blog HERE.
Reader Comments (34)
This is not science it is quackery.
How are they getting away with this.
It reminds me of the turn of the 20th century studies into race and intelligence.
Bad science with a political goal.
It is really sad to see why someone would want to fabricate a result like this .
Money ,power of course.
We all know the sick conurtations of this ,branding smokers as toxic.
Smokers are just becoming patsies for greedy people who have a very sick view of their position in society.
You know who you are.
What sad little weirdos anti smokers are.
Not just sad, but dirty with it. The article states that "the dust could linger for months". Not im my house, we do housework regularly. Maybe people think if they don't smoke they don't have to clean their homes. Whatever.An item covering this piece of rubbish in the Independent says "choose non-smoking venues". A very peculiar piece of advice as there are no public places where you can smoke. Perhaps this is code for "don't go into the homes of smokers". Next in line: advice to not buy property from smokers. What darling people these are. Even if they are unaware at a concious level of the damage they can do, they will never be forgiven for it. When the tide turns, as it will, I hope they will be ready to answer for their behaviour.
I have always been up for a good argument with an anti smoker and usually win simply because if you do your homework it is quite easy to prove that most of these claims are complete fabrications.
If you read the article the fact they had to use nitic acid and other chenicals to extract tiny amounts of supposed carcinagens which are all around in the environment anyhow says it all.
What I say to people who smoke stand your ground you have nothing to apologise for.
They are the ones who are basing their arguments on lies and deceit.
They are the ones who arrogantly believe they are better than you and can boss you around.
"Maybe people think if they don't smoke they don't have to clean their homes."
It wouldn't surprise me, MCO - after all, a lot of anti-smokers seem to think that they don't need to wash their hair and clothes these days!
Indeed Rick S, I was most entertained by an anti-smoking colleague who said that the smell of cigarette smoke clung to her clothes for weeks (weeks between washes, ick). The same woman also claimed to be able to smell smoke through a closed door at 25 yards when someone went out onto the balcony for a quick puff. The balcony door is double glazed, the cigarette extinguished before the errant smoker re-enters the building and there is usually a minor gale blowing along that side of the building due to wind tunnel effects. With a sense of smell like that, I told her, you really should hire yourself out to the rescue services, they wouldn't need dogs.
Such absurdities were bound to happen - once LIVING gave way to LIFE-STYLE.
Still if ever Comet X DOES strike, we'll have one final shot in our locker:
The delicious sense of revenge that comes from REFUSING a comforting fag to a suddenly-very-nervous Anti-Smoker.................
http://patnurseblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/expect-more-of-this.html
Some of you may be interested to check out my blog where I posted a job ad from my local paper for "non-smokers" only. I complained. Apologies in advance to any vegetarians on here. My comments are for the person in question as a mean of trying to get through to make him realise that it is discrimination.
The same hatred and misunderstanding about smokers has been posted on my Facebook page where there are people who think there is nothing wrong in this sort of advert. I am so sad. I feel less than human just for being a smoker and I blame this govt for encouraging such discrimination!
I was going to leave a comment on your blog, Pat, but I don't have the right ID.
As a project, Forest could do worse than request any examples of such ads for presentation to HMG.
Christ, we haven't progressed at all from the 17th century when harmless old women were scapegoated.
See Pat, I do agree with much of what you say. But like yourself, I have to vote with my conscience. The people who have posted on your site sound bloody awful, and you are giving yourself a hiding to nothing in trying to deal with rubbish like that.
There isn't a real answer of course, you either stand up for what you belive in and shout it regardless, which is what you normally do, or you quit, and from what I know of you, you are not a quitter.
I wonder what would happen Joyce if I were to throw myself under the Queen's horse at Ascot to raise awareness of the way smokers are being treated. They'd probably just dismiss me today as a complete nut and not a heroine.
Thanks Peter - I hear what you say about the self imposed hiding but I can't leave such horrible comments without response even from a dick such as that. I have felt wretched all day :(
It makes me scared for the future. If things don't begin to change, the 10% of us that are still smoking in 2020 will probably be criminalised and locked up for smoking as if we are drug takers. I wish the Conservatives could see how this issue is going and that a blanket ban is a slippery slide towards further discrimination because coming from Govt, it gives moral support to a crusade against people who choose to live their lives diferently to others
We can hope that the Baz's of this world are few and far between.
Nowadays, though, I never, ever, allow anti-smoking comments to go unchallenged: laugh at them for believing the rot about SHS and, don't they realise that everyone knows it's a fraud?!
I lost my last permanent job just over a year ago now, because I am a smoker! I had been there 4.5 years so the only good thing was they did have to pay me off!
Friday evening a candidate for the Lib Dems knocked on my door; I seem to be on his emailing list as I often get updates and did email him when I had a problem with the local council.
All that aside, he asked if this time the Lib Dems could count on my vote. I said it was very doubtful as I have not heard anything from with regard to amending the smoking ban and as the smoking ban has caused me to be really quite ill with mental health problems, I would prefer to vote for a party that at least showed some interest in smokers, appreciated that smokers were also voters and that the 'science' being spouted is nothing more than crap!
He said he could not agree with me because his father died of a smoking related illness. I said I was sorry, but was sceptical about his death being just smoking related when there are so many other toxins in the air that we breath from so many other sources, not least the combustion engine, that were likely to have had a greater effect. I also told him that my first husband died of lung cancer when I was 39 and although he was a smoker, no-one could, at that time, say for definite that smoking was the sole or main cause of his cancer. He was open to enormous amounts of toxins from vehicles as he was a motorcycle courier and often road the length and breadth of the country.
It didn't get me anywhere, but at least I made my stand. I also sent him a rather long email following his visit and giving him the information for this forum, as I said it might just be eye opening for him to read some of the comments here.
Yes Lyn, it is so sad. We ask for such a small thing - an amendment to allow for some element of choice. It sincerely saddens me that we are just ignored but I think that will show through at the election and then maybe they might begin to listen to us.
It seems these days that some people have a right to fair and equal treatment and some don't but when you begin to qualify who is entitled to be excluded and who is not, then we are on very dodgy grounds.
You are a smoker.
You poison everybody withiin five feet of you.
You smell.
You murder little babies.
You are destroying the planet.
You killed my dad.
Can we count on your vote?
Errr, the words "off" and "fuck" come to mind.
Lyn -
Re:
"He said he could not agree with me because his father died of a smoking related illness."
Er, so what ?
Why ARE we supposed to be impressed - or cowed -by such a statement?
EVERYONE dies of SOMETHING.
And the greatest killer today is Old Age.
Perhaps that, too should be banned.
Just two points about the Anti-Smoking Bereaved:
a) Their grief does NOT endow them automatically with an Infallible Insight into the Science involved.
b) Their grief does NOT bestow upon them the Divine Right to dictate how others should lead their lives.
Any more than the unfortunate victim of a flash flood in the West Country ("I lost my house") is entitled to spout nonsense about the monumental complexity of the Global Climate System - and the impact of lightbulbs thereon.
This particularly modern form of the Martyr Complex is - in reality - just a sanctified form of bullying.
The Victim-as-Hero routine.
And I despise it, frankly........
"And the greatest killer today is old age ... perhaps that too should be banned.." does anyone else find the debate on euthaniasia - or assisted suicide to put the spin on it - rather disturbing? I do, especially as old age people will become more of a burden on the state in future. We are living longer, despite the health hype, and frankly, they won't be able to support us as we get older so what better way of geting rid of us than "for our own good."
@ Pat Nurse.
Pat,
I honestly think that the subject that you raise (assisted suicide) is one that we ought not even to contemplate venturing into on this blog. It is too fraught with danger.
Many, many years ago I read this somewhere:
"Thou shalt not kill,
nor shall thou strive,
officiously,
to keep alive".
It may be a good idea to leave it at that.
Pat and Junican -
There is - if you care to look for it - now ample evidence that the ONE thing that the 'governments' of the World are truly TERRIFIED of is Overpopulation.
This is documented FACT - not fevered fantasy.
One tiny example (probably NOT reported in the 'Sun' or the 'Daily Mail'):
In the late Sixties, Dr Aurelio Peccei - of the Club of Rome - recommended that a PLAGUE be 'introduced', that would have the same effect as the Black Death in the 14 century.
The most popular idea was the CREATION of a pathogen that would attack the auto-immune system, and thus make 'vaccination' impossible.
Funding ($10 Million) for this innovative idea was granted by Congress in 1969 to the Department of DEFENSE as part of their 1970 budget - under HB 15090.
Object:
To produce "a SYNTHETIC biological agent, an agent that does NOT naturally exist, and for which NO NATURAL IMMUNITY could have been acquired.......refractory to the IMMUNOLOGICAL and THERAPEUTIC processes upon which we depend..."
Initial targets were to be the 'undesirable' elements of Society: Blacks, Hispanics, Homosexuals.
These would be infected via various 'vaccination' programmes - to meet the current Health Scare of the Day (eg Hepatitis B).
The project was initially carried out a Fort Detrick, Maryland.
The resulting vaccination 'trials' were begun in Africa in 1977, and America in 1978.
Ring any bells ?
And no - I don't for a moment imagine that the two 'Andy/Andrews' (Lansley and Burnham) are even REMOTELY aware of such things.
Any more than Henry Kissinger is aware of THEM.
Far too low in the Political Food Chain......
(Tomorrow: an exclusive interview with Katie Price - and what she REALLY thinks about Peter !)
PS:
So how does the Tobacco Control Programme square with the above ?
Answer:
It serves a DIFFERENT agenda, of course - 'Population Control' in the OTHER sense.
And - sadly - Tobacco simply doesn't kill ENOUGH people.
But maybe JUST enough for the WHO and its puppets to show their Caring Side to the World.
Easy - when you know how.................
Trying to talk any sense into the heads of people of such myopic persuasion as your local Lib-Dem candidate Lyn, is as I said to Pat the other day, like beating yourself up. There can be no winner!
People against smoking, either complain of the "ghastly smell" or that some relation or other, died of cancer caused through smoking.
Both arguments are flawed. As I have said here, and elsewhere, a thousand times, every single product in the world smells of something, some we love and some we hate, and everybody has different preferences with regard to what they like and dislike.
Why should anyone have the right to force me to leave a public building, or indeed a private building, just because they personally do not like the smell of a product that I absolutely love the smell of? I know people who love the smell of rubber tyres, and asphalt, but I loath them, so why don't we ban them? I am sure we could find some sort of poisons in them to justify this amongst these puritanical freaks if we tried.
As for people who have died of lung cancer, "caused through smoking, or smoking related", we all know this is a mute point. There is no such thing as "proof" that anyone has ever died as a direct cause of smoking, or even "smoking related" as they like to phrase it, in order to give it a wider possible cause, and hopefully proportion the blame of their pet hate onto the dreaded tobacco plant.
My grandfather was killed by a van reversing over him as he walked across a road. That is a fact, the van, or its driver, killed my grandfather! So should we now be calling for vans to be banned? Or maybe van drivers? After all, we all know that any road vehicle can kill, and indeed do kill, every single day of the week. This is an example of how ridiculous and prejudiced this law is. Why stop at smoking when we have so many other things we can punish people with? (Labour Party doctrine not mine).
The vast majority of people today, fortunately do not tolerate prejudice in any form, gone are the days when signs such as "No Blacks" could be posted in windows where rooms were to let, and when women could be barred from a job purely because of their sex. Yet the one prejudice that has now reared it ugly head and has become an accepted part of British society, is the "No Smoking" prejudice. Not only are smokers barred from almost all buildings in this country, they are even barred from many jobs. This is prejudice on a scale never before encountered in this country.
Tobacco companies have refused point blank to help their customers, as have pubs, restaurants and bars. Smokers themselves are in general, law abiding people, who are scarred stiff to disobey the law, they misquote the law in their own defence, by saying that if they smoke in a pub or bar, that the owner will be fined. They know this is not true. The owner can only be prosecuted if they "knowingly allow" someone to smoke on their premises. If they ask them to leave, they are complying with the law.
The tobacco companies are prepared to fight the government regarding their precious cigarette vending machines. I think they would be far better off putting their money into a fighting fund to challenge the anti-smoking law itself, on the grounds of it being prejudicial and based upon false and unproven "facts"
Peter -
Yes - Master Settlement Agreement or not - the toadying attitude of the Evil Tobacco Companies towards the health agencies of the world IS rather puzzling.
And who gives a FF about vending machines, anyway ?
In MY part of Hampshire, you can now buy cigarettes in SHOPS. And somewhat more cheaply, too.
A diversionary tactic, perhaps ?
Perhaps WE are supposed to vent a Huge Sigh Of Relief when/if the 'government' finally 'relents' on THIS one.
Auberon Waugh once mischevously declared that his publishing firm had a policy of ONLY recruiting SMOKERS.
THAT's a practice I'd like to see spreading.
In the meantime, perhaps SOMEONE would suggest to our Trendy Headmaster that allowing Playground Bullies to take over the School was perhaps NOT such a Good Idea after all.................
Incidentally:
For those who haven't already done so, it's worth visiting the BAT website at:
http://www.bat.com/servlet/SPMerge?mainurl=%2Fgroup%2Fsites%2FUK%5F%5F3MNFEN%2Ensf%2FvwPagesWebLive%2FDO79SFNF%3Fopendocument%26amp%3BSKN%3D1
The Banners won't have it ALL their own way forever.
And - sooner or later - their mindless, fanatical CARPING will get on EVERYONE'S nerves.
Let's hope sooner........................
Junican, I do agree that the euthansia debate is too difficult and complex and not one we should enter into fully here but I do fear when my generation is old for all sorts of reasons.
Peter - A taxi firm owner here was recently prosecuted for "allowing" someone to smoke in his taxi office. He said he asked her to leave and to put her cig out but that didn't save him from prosecution. I think you will find that it is a statutory offence - ie : if someone is smoking on your premises whether you like it or not, or try and stop it, you are still liable if that person has smoked on your premises at all.
Another discrimination against smokers is the ads for houses to rent to "non-smokers only". A smoker pointed out to me that he lives in such a property but smokes outside in his car. Such ads should be the law to say only that it is a "non-smoking property". There really can be no excuse in my opinion for any smoker to be excluded in this way --- unless of course house owners are prejudice in their belief that smokers are filthy people which we all know is simply untrue and born from hate propaganda against us designed to cause exactly that - discrimination! What better way to shame us further into quitting and meeting this EU target of 10% by 2020.
Pat
Much as I'd like to you can't lay the blame for the smoking target at the doors of the EU.
This is pure New Labour control freakery I'm afraid, probably aided by some pressure from Big Pharma.
Pat -
Most people/sheeple like to FEEL virtuous.
Doubtless, many 'Aryan' schoolchildren felt 'cleaner' in the Thirties, when they finally dissociated themselves from their Filthy Jewish Friends.
And I'm sure a great many white South Africans felt contaminated, when they'd discovered that they'd sat on a park bench reserved for 'Blacks Only'.
When the State (or the Church) itself DEFINES Good Behaviour, such things are inevitable, I fear.
Which is why, for example, NO politician (with career plans) would ever declare the 'War On Terror' as ITSELF an Act of Terrorism: that would just be plain silly.
We are Virtuous.
Terrorism is Not Virtuous.
Therefore, we CANNOT be Terrorists.
Even when we kill a thousand times more (virtuously). Including the odd terrorist.
Meanwhile, our Virtuous State continues its relentless - and valiant - war against the Tyranny of Common Sense.
And other things.............
"This is pure New Labour control freakery I'm afraid............."
No, Goodstuff - it's pure WHO control freakery.
Mediated through the various control mechanisms (aka 'governments') in the various regions (aka 'countries').
And the European Union IS fast becoming our 'country'.
Just ask Shirley Williams.
It's merely that WE have become BETTER at it than most others - even the Germans.
Doesn't that make you feel proud ?
Here's a scenario worth thinking about:
When a Union thinks its workers are being compromised in some way, they often threaten to withdraw their labour until their demands are met.
Can you imagine what would happen if all smokers in the country did the same? If we all said we would buy no more tobacco products from a British source until our demands for an amendment to this law was put into place?
I know it is an impossible task to get all, or even enough, smokers to agree to do this, but this is just a hypothetical thinking point, which is very high at the moment, on my wish list.
Can you imagine firstly, what the tobacco companies would do? It would be an enormous chunk out of their profits wouldn't it, and of course, if we did it, there could be a chance of other countries following our lead. The tobacco companies would HAVE TO sit up and take notice then wouldn't they. They would absolutely have to get off their super rich bottoms and start speaking up for their customers, and of course their shareholders.
Then there is the second piece of this scenario, our stupid, moronic government. They say they want only 10% of people smoking by 2010. If that really happened where on earth would the silly idiots get the money to run our NHS?
We are already having massive problems trying to sort out how to look after the elderly, with these idiots coming up with crackpot schemes to make us all pay £20,000 as a sort of NHS tax when we die. Yet, with all this money missing from the NHS budget, the best they can come up with, is let's throw a massive chunk of NHS income away by stopping everyone from smoking. Five years down the line, no, two, no, not even that, less than one year down the line, the NHS would be bankrupt.
So who would be first to see the light, the tobacco companies or the er...government?
Peter -
All good points, of course, and I'd love to see a British tobacco boycott - not of bona fide tobacconists, though: they have a tough enough time as it is.
How the Government (gosh, but I adore that word !) plans to square the circle of:
a) (Putative) reductions in tobacco revenue with:
b) Increased spending on the NHS (esp with all the Oldies)
I'm not sure.
I suspect that Their Cunning Plan is to go for a NEW 'target' of 80% University admissions by.......... (pick a year).
EVERYONE knows that going-to-university-and-'doing'-a-degree turns even semi-literate morons into GENIUSES.
Magicians, even.
The answer to our little problem will appear from THAT source.
And the NEXT question comes from.............
Peter - Gian Turci reported that what you suggest was highly successful in Italy in 1994. He writes :"I moved to Milan, the headquarters of the Italian Smokers Association... . This highly effective organization is 100,000 members strong, growing by 10,000 members a month, and represents 13 million Italian smokers. It promotes culture, arts, and social dialogue and debate.
"At the first indication that the Italian government was tempted to follow the American path, the organization threatened to give the government exactly what it appeared to want. They called on all Italian smokers to quit smoking overnight in a smoking strike that lasted several days. The resulting decrease of only 10% in cigarette consumption (2 cigarettes a day for an average smoker) made the point, and the association was quick to point out that a sustained strike could create a tax "hole" of about 100 million U.S. dollars each month in the government's coffers. Moreover, Italian smokers took to the streets in demonstrations that blocked traffic on major highways.
"Soon after, talks with the government initiated a process that has led to proposed legislation soon to be discussed in Parliament. This law, when passed, will protect the rights of nonsmokers and smokers alike, on a basis of equality, mutual respect, and mutual accommodation. The action of the Italian Smokers Association has possibly prevented the onset of a North American-style persecution of smokers, while setting an example of activism now widely followed in Europe."
http://www.forces.org/Forces_Articles/article_printer.php?id=1
I fear the Italians did cave into the EU on this because they did introduce a smoking ban in 2007. The 10% target is the EU's target. The EU is even telling MEPs they have to sign up to a smoke free pledge. The EU cancelled our anti-prohibition conference hosted by elected MEPs after one phone call from smoke free in Europe that objected on the grounds that to discuss it "went against the dignity of the Eu Parlt". It really is not just Labour and that is why I fear the Tories and LibDems.
Anyway, Gian's article is fantastic and well worth a read.
Soylent Green
"Soylent Green..............."
But would they play Beethoven in one of TODAY'S Euthanasia Clinics ?
That's what worries ME.................
How'se about this scenario.
All us smokers go for an all out ban on the sale of tobacco and demand that the govt ban the smoking of tobacco completely.
Sort of play them at their own game and call their bluff and just see what happens.
We could demand it on the grounds that us smokers dont enjoy it anymore having to smoke outdoors, the resentment from non smokers, fear of being attacked outdoors and the embarrassement of being descriminated against, the abuse of a minority by the authorities and the lack of resources to defend ourselves.
I doubt if they would ever allow that to happen as it would dry up the gravy train for them and they would be left holding the baby so to speak.
It would put the ball back in their court and we could all see how they like it and cope with it for a change.
It would also be a good test to see if the prolatariat would stand for it or have the balls to make a squeak.
If nothing else it would shake things up and if it did start a furore, however small, it would be the best advertisement we could hope to get, and would bring our plight to the god of media attention.
It might also take away the sham promises and debate of the'common purpose' agenda of the govt at the next election.
Vigorous and original thinking, Ann.
But let's organise a list of Friendly And Reliable Smugglers first.
THESE people are just mad enough to call your bluff.
Hell, with their Bunker Mentality, they've probably laid charges already in all the electricity-supply stations - in readiness for punishing an Ungrateful Electorate.
(No, Gordon - that was what we Normal People call a 'J-O-K-E'............)
Ha, Ha, you're probably right Martin.
Guess my frustration would land us in worse peril than we're already in!