Econuts Now Insist Third-Hand Smoke Is Bad For You
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 5:07 AM
These statists won’t be happy until they control your every breath…
A recent scientific study released by a group of American scientists insists that third-hand smoke is harmful and may cause cancer.
Lara Gundel, a co-author of the study, is a staff member of the Obama government’s Environmental energy Technologies Division.
The Age reported:
You know smoking is bad for you. You know inhaling someone else’s smoke is bad for you. Now a US study says third-hand smoke — tobacco residue clinging to surfaces — is also bad for you.
When a cigarette burns, nicotine is released in the form of a vapor that collects and condenses on indoor surfaces such as walls, carpeting, drapes and furniture, where it can linger for months, said the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
“Our study shows that when this residual nicotine reacts with ambient nitrous acid it forms carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines, or TSNAs,” said Hugo Destaillats, a corresponding author of the study.
“TSNAs are among the most broadly acting and potent carcinogens present in unburned tobacco and tobacco smoke,” he said.
The most likely human exposure to TSNAs is through either inhalation of dust or the contact of skin with carpet or clothes — making third-hand smoke particularly dangerous to infants and toddlers.
Ken Solomon added:
I’ll be damned if a few leftist, do-gooder, ‘we-know-what’s-best-for-you’, maniacs get to decide what you can do with a fully legal product in the privacy of your own home and vehicle.
Cass Sunstein and his merry band of Marxist assistants to Obama are ‘nudging’ your individual freedoms, liberties and Rights straight out from under you.
This ‘third-hand-smoke’ garbage is a perfect example. It starts with a ‘study’ of a legal thing that some folks don’t like being legal. The study gets done by an agenda-driven entity, usually financed by a taxpayer-funded government grant. Then, since there’s almost never any challenge to any of the results and ‘scientific’ publicity because the results are always written as “it’s for the children”, something gets put to Congress about banning or regulating whatever the study was about.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Horrible… Obama Tells Foolish Supporters: I’m Not Over-Spending… “I’m Running to Pay Down Our Debt”
Published May 23, 2012 at 11:51 pm - 69 Comments
daryl commented:
Disprove one liberal lie (global warming) and they hit you with a brand new one.
Alinsky’s Rules are alive and well and being practiced every day in D.C.
LilMissSunshine commented:
I agree 100%. My A$$ has been itching ever since the Obama Administration has started telling me the truth about how to live my life.
Stephana commented:
Lead poisoning is also harmful to your health. HeHe.
neomom commented:
These people need a life. Third hand French Fries anyone? You know, the grease get’s on your fingers and when you touch someone it could get absorbed into their skin creating all kinds of health issues. I think I have figured out this whole thing. These people do not want to work for a living. They issue PHD’s to those that buy their philosiphy. Stay cloistered in a university system that offers big money, protection, legions of barely pubescent sycophants, and they spend their days trying to out stupid each other. I think we have a winner! At least this weeks winner.
Male Silverback commented:
What in the heck is third hand smoke?
daryl commented:
Yeah, that use only one square rule is the pits.
I think they stole that one from Elaine on the Jerry (forgot his last name) show, though.
Even old Alinsky wouldn’t have foisted that off on us, I don’t think. Or would he?
pontoon commented:
more idiots trying to take liberties.
Justice comes at the barrell of a gun.
Redwine commented:
These eco-dimwits would have their panties up in a knot if they had lived before the automobile dominated transportation. Imagine the fuss they would have made about the pollution caused by the methane produced by all of those horses – with no alternative form of transportation (and there WAS pollution). Third-hand residue was everywhere! And if you stepped in a pile on the street… Oh, well, you get the picture.
BigAlSouth commented:
What do these people want? Do they want to make tobacco illegal? Don’t they know how much tax revenue that smoking produces or do they just not care. Do they want to tax it more? Fine, tax it until the return diminishes to zero.
I guarantee that in our lifetime, there will be a legitimate medical study that will find tangible health benefits from smoking. (There is already a study that said that smoking reduces the instances of prostate cancer. Non-smoking males should begin mandatory smoking at age 50!)
BTW, K. Solomon rocks.
bill-tb commented:
Sounds a whole lot like second hand fraud. I assume all people who sat around campfires are dead now.
Dell commented:
BigAlSouth
February 9th, 2010 | 8:44 am | #11
What do these people want? Do they want to make tobacco illegal?
My friend, you’ve struck the nail squarely on the head! Of course, politically, it has been impossible to destroy the economy of those tobacco producing states, so they simply go the long way around – attacking everything that’s related. Next will be a special tax on cigarette paper and an environmental “study” on ashes.
shibumi commented:
Next from the eco-nuts: being alive is bad for you.
Andreas K. commented:
Third hand smoke? WTF is that supposed to be?
There is a similar German study and they actually used ALL deaths of people in a certain age group and claimed that so and so many people of that group died of second hand smoke.
They produced absolutely no data to back this up. And the numbers they’re pulling out are clearly based on nothing at all.
They made interviews, so they claim, but never stated how many people they interviewed. Several pages later, they talk about 35 million second-hand smokers as the number they used.
When looking at the actual stats they used for this sham, you quickly realize that mortality rate for second-hand smokers is EXACTLY the average mortality rate for all people in the different age groups.
Another claim is that Germany has 2,148 deaths because of “passive smoking”, as it is called here, every year. Where does that number come from? Nobody knows, the “study” doesn’t show any sources.
If we assume that Germany has 20 million “passive smokers” and from those 333,000 passive smokers in every age group from 20 to 80, then we notice quickly that the number of deaths due to “second hand smoke” is actually way beyond the statistical confidence limit and thus irrelevant.
Another funny thing is that the German “study” says that up to the age of 65 the death rate of passive smokers is ~13%. Between 65 and 85, however, according to this “study” again, passive smoking kills ~53% of the people. And now it’s getting really funny: according to the University of Heidelberg 53% is also the average mortality rate of the group between 65 and 85.
Even the WHO said that the second-hand smoke is, statistically, irrelevant.
Andreas K. commented:
Addition:
I’m going to light up a cigar now. Hommage 1492 Churchill, my favorite.
Kathy from Kansas commented:
I’m not going to argue whether or not the stuff is carcinogenic–it probably is–but how can I take seriously their arguments for making cigarettes ILLEGAL, when they are mostly the very same people who argue vociferously that DIRECTLY KILLING BABIES before birth should remain LEGAL?!?!?!?!
Somebody’s got their priorities majorly out of whack!
spayandneuter commented:
I am glad to see that there are others that are not buying into all this “smoke” killing. I came from a huge family, after WWII. Almost everyone who came home from the war smoked. All of my friends had parents who smoked. We were around smoke constantly, and no one was ever sick and I never even heard of anyone with asthma.
I think so many of these studies are bogus. The truth is that all of us baby boomers are the healthiest generation EVER, and we had parents who smoked like chimneys. Even the younger generations are having more problems than us.
–
Justin commented:
Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it good for you. And just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it’s bad for you.
11B40 commented:
Greetings:
I have long thought that, to be a practicing liberal, one must have missed out on “The Princess and the Pea” fable in one’s youth. No matter how many mattresses you put over it, that pea is always there.
Plus, doesn’t smoking tobacco contribute to global warming, I mean climate change.
crosspatch commented:
Yeah, smoke stinks, but there is really no evidence that even second-hand smoke causes cancer. The study that came to that conclusion that everyone cites as “proof” has been shown to be incorrect. There was no statistically meaningful rise in cancer from second-hand smoke.
And what is probably most responsible for the decline in lung cancers are two things:
1. The reducing in smokers themselves.
2. The ending of above-ground nuclear weapons testing. The last such test done in 1980 by China. This has reduced the number of radioactive isotopes in the dust that we breathe, some of which are EXTREMELY carcinogenic.
Alaskan commented:
How well with this go over with California, George Soros, and Obama’s desire to legalize marijuana?
RFP commented:
So, by extension, Obama is poisoning our Whitehouse… Nice…
Kenny Solomon commented:
Hi:
Here’s the rest of the mail I sent to Jim with the article link…… verbatim.
— — — — —
Problem right now is this current administration is bypassing Congress every chance they get…..and I’m betting before November, Congress will be completely irrelevant, because Cass Sunstein and the rest of the Czars will have regulated everything away……. including the funding aspect of The House…… yes I’m serious. This administration couldn’t care less about The Constitution.
And by the way, on this e-mail’s topic……. I don’t smoke…. unless I’m on fire.
Fourth-hand smoke…… That’s when someone who doesn’t smoke, takes a carton of Marlboro’s and shoves ‘em down the throat of some leftist-agenda-driven ‘scientist’, then lights ‘em through the bastage’s nose.
Cheers !
Kenny Solomon
DC Works For Us
http://www.dcworksforus.com
Mitch commented:
Legal product?
They regulate that stuff to death.
You already can’t smoke in most buildings, so why are you so made about this study (which may or may not be based on science, but if it is based on science, you can’t disagree with it for political reasons)?
It’s not like this study changes anything. You can’t smoke in buildings, anyway.
And this study shouldn’t affect smoking in homes, since it’s the people who live in the home (outside of the kids, maybe, but the parents are kind of like owners of the kids) who take the risks of smoking.
That said, it doesn’t really matter if they make smoking completely illegal, because smoking is harmful and pointless, so it being illegal won’t affect most people.
Nahanni commented:
spayandneuter,
I agree with you.
According to all the “evidence” that the anti smoking “scientists” have cited me and my brothers and sisters should have never made it to adulthood. We should have died from “second hand smoke”. Instead we are all reasonably healthy for our ages-we all do have a bit of arthritis, a couple of bum knees due to injury, etc. but that is about it. Our parents, according to the “evidence” that the anti smoking “scientists” have cited, should have died from lung cancer, too. They didn’t-dad died of old age and mom fell in the shower, had a massive brain hemorrhage and died (she was relatively healthy for an 88 year old woman when it happened).
When I was growing up I did not know one person who had asthma and almost everyone’s parents smoked. Now it seems that you can’t swing a cat at a primary or secondary school without knocking the “rescue inhaler” out of some asthmatic kid’s hand. I wonder why that is? The vast majority of their parents do not smoke and run screeching in horror if they get within 100 yards of someone who smokes.
jim commented:
The government, academia, and the mainstream media are contaminated with leftist pathology. It didn’t happen overnight, and it won’t be fought back overnight, but Americans needs to start throwing these parasites out of their jobs.
And stop them from brainwashing glassy-eyed young dopes who think a blowhard with a teleprompter is a messiah.
Gelladar commented:
I have no problem with people smoking. I find it difficult to breathe when somebody is smoking near me, but I believe that the current restrictions of where people can (their own private property) and cannot (banks, hospitals, schools) smoke are perfectly reasonable. People have their rights, what they choose to do with those rights is their own choice.
seven commented:
So I plan on getting cancer from Obama the smoker third hand Talk to obama. The day the creeps on the left care about polution, their mis guided leader will give up smokes. In countries where people live 30 years, they have few lung cancer deaths. 75% of the people in China and India cook on unvented wood, charcoal and coal stoves. Go talk to them.
AuntieMadder commented:
neomom
February 9th, 2010 | 8:09 am | #5
What about the greasy residue that’s produced from frying those spuds? You know, the film that you discover on the cabinet door fronts and the outer surfaces of the ‘fridge while cleaning, and make you say, “Ewww…how long did it take to grow that?” Deadly, I tell you. It’s deadly. Someone, quick, perform a study!
spayandneuter commented:
Nahanni
February 9th, 2010 | 12:05 pm | #26
Agreed. Also, do you remember flying in the 60′s and 70′s? Cabin air, no ventilation, with half the passengers chain smoking. LOL
I really suspect it is something that is in the environment today that was not there previously, like wall to wall carpeting. Floors used to be wood or tile with some throw rugs. Also, homes were not airtight. Houses need to breathe.
Somehow, somewhere, basic simple common sense has been replaced by “studies”. Like with this autism problem, blaming it on vaccinations. If any of these people had ever seen a case of polio, they would be horrified.
–
joe commented:
I love how the mere mention of something scientific sends you retards into hyperventilating paroxysms, screaming mah libburdy!! mah freedum!! mah guns!!
You’re totally incapable of responding to the actual science of the report. You know what? It could be wrong. Third-hand “smoke” could be totally harmless. But you retards are the last people who could refute the report.
Also, what if it is true? Don’t you people love your children? Oh wait a second, you love your guns more than your children, that’s right. My bad, nevermind.
Another thing I love: Male Silverback’s response. It’s amazing people like that can type. Doesn’t all the drool screw up your keyboard? Oh wait let me translate — yur gunna lectercute yurself if ya keep droolin on the tappy-tap.
Penny commented:
I don’t understand the instant and high-level anger targeting people looking closer at anything that promotes better health for our children.
I am pro-child.
I want to keep the children safe.
I don’t understand why everyone else is so full of anger about this. Think of the children.
Had It In Ohio commented:
Joe – What a schmoe!
Third Hand smoke, what a JOKE!
Eric S. commented:
This truly is all about personal liberty. The ‘third hand’ smoke thing is just plain crazy from a personal liberty viewpoint, but the people arguing that second-hand smoke isn’t a problem just aren’t thinking clearly. Second-hand smoke is also a personal liberty issue. I should be free from having to put up with other peoples’ smoke when I’m in a public place. Lets put it this way, if I’m forced to breath someone else’s smoke, shouldn’t I be able to run around throwing asbestos dust into the air?
Ann commented:
I agree. All conservatives should smoke at least a pack a day to show solidarity with the tobaccoo industry, what cares about us. Let your kids smoke, too, because if the government doesn’t like it, it’s something we should definitely partake in!
Charlie commented:
Wonkette mention! You’ve made it now!
Charles M Burns commented:
Yeah! These people should just stop doing research altogether. Don’t they realize that these scientific studies of theirs just make us common sense conservatives angry? Why else do you think we call global warming a hoax despite a virtual consensus among biologists? And don’t even get me started on evolution.
DLA commented:
I agree w/ RFP. Was there anything critical in the report of the Smoker in Chief, for endangering his children and foreign dignitaries who may come to the white house?
Will the Won now change his ways?
Solaratov commented:
joe
February 9th, 2010 | 4:32 pm | #34
You’re an idiot, nancy-boy.
Why don’t you shove both hands up your butt and grab an ear in each hand – and see if you can drag your head out of your ass.
It’d make it easier to see what you type – and how stupid it is.
Solaratov commented:
Charles M Burns
February 9th, 2010 | 8:12 pm | #40
And what do biologists know about global warming? And why should I care if a bunch of biologists have a consensus about climate?
Perhaps, if you listened to climatologists rather than biologists on the subject of climate change, you’d seem like less of a complete dolt.
Thanks for trying to play. Come back when you finish high school.
Burn! commented:
Yeah Solaratov, good use of “nancy boy.” Just spout some good old fashioned homophobia and you’re bound to get all your bigoted friends all hyped up.
Solaratov commented:
Burn!
February 9th, 2010 | 9:18 pm | #44
Typical leftist loser: When all else fails, call someone a “bigot”. That’ll show’em.
BWAHAHAhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!11!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
suecris commented:
I find it interesting that you have to call her a staff member of Obama’s government. Here’s a link to her grants for this work – dated 2002 and 2006.
http://www.trdrp.org/fundedresearch/Views/Person_Page.asp?person_id=1887
I’d say that pretty emphatically makes her W’s staff member and this work is attributable to his administration.
Xopher commented:
Well, my grandparents smoked until their deaths – at 85 and 99. My parents both smoked too – their deaths: 84 and 86. I smoke too and strangely I am not constantly beset by health problems involving lots of prescription drugs. I guess a daily whisky helps. This 3rd (and 2nd) hand smoke is all nonsense. I remember when “studies” indicated that butter and eggs would kill you too. Now, not so much. In any case, I grew up in a house where all the adults smoked and drank liberally, and I suffered no ill effects whatsoever. Third hand smoke – LOL!! What about fifth hand smoke to the eleventh power? BTW, it is most assuredly not “all about the children.”
AuntieMadder commented:
Awww, the libtarded trolls have arrived. Aren’t they so ugly that they’re cute, like the s**t-slinging monkeys in the zoo? I’d try to pet one of them, but like those monkeys, they’re covered in s**t and likely to bite. And only God knows what diseases they carry.
spayandneuter commented:
Xopher
February 10th, 2010 | 12:59 am | #47
“BTW, it is most assuredly not “all about the children”
Yeah, totally agree. More about the lawyers who made billions off the tobacco lawsuits.
–
Michael J. McFadden commented:
If you read the study itself you’ll find they “assumed” a “high but reasonable” level of SIXTY for their HONO value. But if you follow the references they give you’ll find that the average HONO level in houses is FOUR.
Do you understand what that means? It means they got their “scary numbers” by exaggerating normal conditions by a whopping 1,500%.
Don’t believe the nonsense you read in antismoking press-release-based news stories. Do some research yourself and you might be surprised at what you find. Visit:
http://www.cupblog.org/?p=493
and read my AfterComments to Dr. Kabat’s CU Press article to see last year’s version of this nonsense. They’re playing with social engineering, abusing our love for our children in a cold and calculated way to push smokers step-by-step to quit whether they want to or not. Visit http://www.TheTruthIsALie.com to see more such lies exposed.
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”