[NA] 3rd hand smoke?

Pi1otguy

Pi1otguy

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
2,477
Location
Fontana, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Fox McCloud
Article
Study
Toronto Sun said:
The study, which was published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, found that nicotine constitutes a major part of thirdhand smoke and often reacts with indoor air and fabrics to form pollutants that pose dangers to people's health.
The risk for young children, who are more likely to be crawling on carpets, is especially concerning, the study found. But people napping on tainted sofas or eating food that may have been previously exposed to the smoke are also at increased risk.
Click to expand...


Most smokers I know try to be kind WRT 2nd hand smoke. How are they supposed to avoid causing 3rd hand smoke?
Does this means everything around a smoker is toxic?
 
I am sick of these studies and the "goodies" trying to protect everyone from everything. Either ban them or leave them alone. I freaking cannot stand those "Truth" commercials, or whatever group it is, that has the lame as anti-smoking commercials.
 
100LL on the hands is probably far far worse than 3rd hand smoke exposure.
 
tdager said:
I am sick of these studies and the "goodies" trying to protect everyone from everything. Either ban them or leave them alone. I freaking cannot stand those "Truth" commercials, or whatever group it is, that has the lame as anti-smoking commercials.
Click to expand...
Too bad about you and your sensitivities. We'll try not to send you the bill for repairing the damage to our respiratory system.
 
No need to send me a bill Peggy, I do not smoke. Never have (well I tried it twice as a kid and puked, plus I had a chain smoking grandma threaten to break my hands if she ever caught me) and never will.

My problem is with the continued harassment of people that are doing something legal. I do not like it, hate that my parents still smoke even, but it IS legal and this continual assault on it is ridiculous. Ban it already or quit the freaking whining.
 
tdager said:
No need to send me a bill Peggy, I do not smoke. Never have (well I tried it twice as a kid and puked, plus I had a chain smoking grandma threaten to break my hands if she ever caught me) and never will.

My problem is with the continued harassment of people that are doing something legal. I do not like it, hate that my parents still smoke even, but it IS legal and this continual assault on it is ridiculous. Ban it already or quit the freaking whining.
Click to expand...

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it won't harm me if I'm nearby. Hence I get to *****. Besides, it smells bad.
 
tdager said:
My problem is with the continued harassment of people that are doing something legal. I do not like it, hate that my parents still smoke even, but it IS legal and this continual assault on it is ridiculous. Ban it already or quit the freaking whining.
Click to expand...
The continued assault on it is legal as well.
 
Nevermind....some of you just do not get it. That is OK...it is indicative of this country.
 
steingar said:
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it won't harm me if I'm nearby. Hence I get to *****. Besides, it smells bad.
Click to expand...
Maybe it does harm the bystanders, but is it significantly greater then the normal background "harm"?

The longer I live, the more it seems things are trying to kill me. According to CA (via "prop 65" notices) virtually every place I've ever worked or shopped at increased my cancer risk. Even the receipts, any restaurant that serves potatoes, and my car are out to get me.
 
tdager said:
Nevermind....some of you just do not get it. That is OK...it is indicative of this country.
Click to expand...
Somewhere along the way we became safety obsessed. In 2 years try buying a new car without traction control or air bags and see what happens.
 
How did any of us get through childhood? Dont tell anyone but I used to ride a bicycle without a helment or being wrapped in bubble wrap.
 
NBPD336 said:
How did any of us get through childhood? Dont tell anyone but I used to ride a bicycle without a helment or being wrapped in bubble wrap.
Click to expand...
Next you'll tell us you don't walk your kids on a leash. :D
 
Really. First-hand smoke kills. We know it. Second-hand smoke maims. We know it. So, now someone studied third-hand smoke and found it is also harmful and we get objections to the STUDY. Fine. Put your head back in the sand. If you yell about the study enough maybe smoke will be good for your lungs.
 
I never really minded other people's smoke. I always thought of it as a minor inconvenience. I still think the dangers of second hand smoke are over-rated. I can think of a lot of things that many people do voluntarily that are more dangerous than 2nd hand smoke. (anybody here fly little airplanes?).

But I did find out a fact that suddenly made me absolutely forbid anyone to smoke in my house or even on my screened porch. 2nd hand smoke is about 20 times worse for cats than it is for children. The smoke gets in their fur and they lick and groom that stuff all day. They act like little dust mops and just absorb the smoke and nicotine. I have even convinced a lot of my veterinary clients to finally quit. They wouldn't quit for the sake of their children, but they went cold turkey when they found out it might kill their cat.
 
NBPD336 said:
How did any of us get through childhood? Dont tell anyone but I used to ride a bicycle without a helment or being wrapped in bubble wrap.
Click to expand...

Pi1otguy said:
Next you'll tell us you don't walk your kids on a leash. :D
Click to expand...

We kept our son on a leash at the Grand Canyon when he was about 2 years old. People who never had kids thought we were terrible. People with kids wanted to know where to get the leash. :D He's 34 now and doesn't seem to have suffered.
 
jesse said:
The continued assault on it is legal as well.
Click to expand...

If it involves public health, it means a government agency will get involved. The FDA in particular does not seem to be too shy about asserting that U.S. citizens do not have a right to determine what they ingest - even when it doesn't affect anyone else. Nevermind 2nd or 3rd hand whatever. The FDA filed this particular (and peculiar) claim in a recent legal brief:

"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/litigation-FDA-status.htm

I find it peculiar since "right to obtain" is somewhat redundant, so maybe they were trying to impart some other meaning (leave "to obtain" out and see if their sentence still seems to say the same thing.) A "right", as I understand it, refers merely to a potential unhindered by other humans - the actualization may be blocked by other physical reality. Maybe they meant to argue something else like "you don't, for example, have a fundamental right to obtain Martian grown apples, because they don't exist yet, so therefore you don't really have a fundamental right to food choices; ergo we can regulate this food over here such that you can't obtain it."

That doesn't fit my definition of "right" but they may have had something else in mind. I get the distinct impression they believe they own my ass.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Really. First-hand smoke kills. We know it. Second-hand smoke maims. We know it. So, now someone studied third-hand smoke and found it is also harmful and we get objections to the STUDY. Fine. Put your head back in the sand. If you yell about the study enough maybe smoke will be good for your lungs.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem I always have: I tend to assume people have some underlying philosophy or set of rules that they apply to these issues and I have to reverse engineer them from whatever specific thing is under discussion, since they rarely bother to state them in equation or symbolic form, showing the variables. I know I don't do that for others either, though.

So when I try to reverse-engineer the underlying philosophy, I get what I think is the working equation and substitute different values to see how universal that person's life philosophy might be and hence show any flaws in intent. In this case I seem to get this:

"Airplanes can crash and kill the people on board. Studies have now shown that airplane crashes kill innocent third parties on the ground. If you yell about this fact enough maybe airplane flying will be good for people."

If one seeks to deny a freedom to someone else's action simply because it creates a statistically higher danger of causing harm to a third party, one should realize the consequences to freedoms they hold dear that fall under the same rule.
 
NBPD336 said:
How did any of us get through childhood? Dont tell anyone but I used to ride a bicycle without a helment or being wrapped in bubble wrap.
Click to expand...

The falacy with that thinking is that we don't get to hear from the children that didn't survive.

It's like saying that flying through a thunderstorm is ok, because there are pilots that survived it.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Here's the problem I always have: I tend to assume people have some underlying philosophy or set of rules that they apply to these issues and I have to reverse engineer them from whatever specific thing is under discussion, since they rarely bother to state them in equation or symbolic form, showing the variables. I know I don't do that for others either, though.

So when I try to reverse-engineer the underlying philosophy, I get what I think is the working equation and substitute different values to see how universal that person's life philosophy might be and hence show any flaws in intent. In this case I seem to get this:

"Airplanes can crash and kill the people on board. Studies have now shown that airplane crashes kill innocent third parties on the ground. If you yell about this fact enough maybe airplane flying will be good for people."

If one seeks to deny a freedom to someone else's action simply because it creates a statistically higher danger of causing harm to a third party, one should realize the consequences to freedoms they hold dear that fall under the same rule.
Click to expand...

Are there not safety requirements for aircraft?

What are the corresponding safety requirements for tobacco products?
 
Bob Noel said:
Are there not safety requirements for aircraft?

What are the corresponding safety requirements for tobacco products?
Click to expand...

Don't know, but tobacco has a government agency devoted to it so I'm sure there are plenty of rules.
 
Bob Noel said:
Are there not safety requirements for aircraft?

What are the corresponding safety requirements for tobacco products?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

These don't appear to be enough for some people. As I said, if people don't tell me what their underlying philosophy is I have to reverse engineer what it might be. I like freedom as much as humanly possible. I have never agreed with the concept that an act should be illegal if there is some probability it may cause harm. So right off the bat I'm already out of step with a large portion of the world!
 
This is pretty simple really as long as you follow the classic definition of democracy that most modern countries are based on: Everything is ok as long as it doesn't harm others.

This -can- become complicated, but it's not in this case. Smoke = dangerous. Smoking in public inevitably affects others negatively. Thus, it should be banned. There aren't many other issues in modern politics as simple as this one.

I don't mind stating that I dislike smokers.
 
This is pretty simple really as long as you follow the classic definition of democracy that most modern countries are based on: Everything is ok as long as it doesn't harm others.

This -can- become complicated, but it's not in this case. Smoke = dangerous. Smoking in public inevitably affects others negatively. Thus, it should be banned. There aren't many other issues in modern politics as simple as this one.

I don't mind stating that I dislike smokers.
 
Same argument works for the little airplane haters.
sba55 said:
This is pretty simple really as long as you follow the classic definition of democracy that most modern countries are based on: Everything is ok as long as it doesn't harm others.

This -can- become complicated, but it's not in this case. Smoke = dangerous. Smoking in public inevitably affects others negatively. Thus, it should be banned. There aren't many other issues in modern politics as simple as this one.

I don't mind stating that I dislike smokers.
Click to expand...
 
Jim Logajan said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

These don't appear to be enough for some people. As I said, if people don't tell me what their underlying philosophy is I have to reverse engineer what it might be. I like freedom as much as humanly possible. I have never agreed with the concept that an act should be illegal if there is some probability it may cause harm. So right off the bat I'm already out of step with a large portion of the world!
Click to expand...

A ban is not the same as a safety regulation.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The FDA filed this particular (and peculiar) claim in a recent legal brief:

"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/litigation-FDA-status.htm

I find it peculiar since "right to obtain" is somewhat redundant, so maybe they were trying to impart some other meaning (leave "to obtain" out and see if their sentence still seems to say the same thing.) A "right", as I understand it, refers merely to a potential unhindered by other humans - the actualization may be blocked by other physical reality. Maybe they meant to argue something else like "you don't, for example, have a fundamental right to obtain Martian grown apples, because they don't exist yet, so therefore you don't really have a fundamental right to food choices; ergo we can regulate this food over here such that you can't obtain it."

That doesn't fit my definition of "right" but they may have had something else in mind. I get the distinct impression they believe they own my ass.
Click to expand...

NO FREAKING WAY. I do not care what side of the political spectrum you are on, EVERYONE should read those words and scream. How dare the fscking government tell me what I can, and cannot eat.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Really. First-hand smoke kills. We know it. Second-hand smoke maims. We know it. So, now someone studied third-hand smoke and found it is also harmful and we get objections to the STUDY. Fine. Put your head back in the sand. If you yell about the study enough maybe smoke will be good for your lungs.
Click to expand...

Actually to be correct you should be writing something like this:

First hand smoke MAY kill We know it. Second Hand smke MAY main.



Let's face it if smoke killed everyone who every smokes we would have a lot fewer people to deal with. Yes it's not good for you but so is lots of other things we allow like alcohol, small planes and eating too much.
 
I always want to know who paid for any of these "studies". Haven't seen too many "scientists" hired in the last decade that went against their sponsor's pre-conceived notions.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Don't know, but tobacco has a government agency devoted to it so I'm sure there are plenty of rules.
Click to expand...

Yup. Seen on a t-shirt, "Alcohol, tobacco and firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency".
 
You know, fourth hand smoke (knowing that tobacco exists) causes instant death. We must eliminate the knowledge ASAP.

Third hand smoke. I have to let out a gigantic LOL, and then refrain from any further comment.

LOL!!!:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Last edited:
Ghery said:
Yup. Seen on a t-shirt, "Alcohol, tobacco and firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency".
Click to expand...

I've seen that as: "Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms: Sounds like a great weekend!"

Of course, I vehemently state unequivocably that the first item in the list and the last item in the list should never, ever, be mixed. But separately, they're a barrel of fun.

Perhaps they should just reverse the order of the words, so they're in a safer order. :P
 
ClimbnSink said:
100LL on the hands is probably far far worse than 3rd hand smoke exposure.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the cadmium used in many of the parts and MEK that is so heavily used in maintenance operations. I know mechanics who pretty much bathe in the stuff, have for 60 years, and are still doing well health wise. I'll be happy if I'm as healthy as they are when I get to be that age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top