The Nose Knows (Or Why Smoking Should Be Banned Everywhere)
According to a recent Harvard study, published in this month's journal of Pediatrics, there isn't just first-hand and second-hand smoke, now there is another kind of smoke to fear: third-hand smoke. As the New York Times described it, it's "the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers' hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room." It's that smell that non-smokers can distinctly pick out when the go to a hotel room that has been declared a "non-smoking room" but they know it recently has been occupied by a smoker.
So what's the big deal anyway? So there are these lingering odors that remain? As long as children and other non-smokers aren't present for the actual puffing away--are they actually at risk for unhealthy exposures? The simple and unequivocal answer is: YES.
As the New York Times explained:
Among the substances in third-hand smoke are hydrogen cyanide, used in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid; toluene, found in paint thinners; arsenic; lead; carbon monoxide; and even polonium-210, the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006. Eleven of the compounds are highly carcinogenic.
That's enough for me to say: third-hand smoke can kill. And to also argue that smoking isn't safe for anyone, anywhere. It's effects are long-lasting and deadly.
Summer Johnson, PhD
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
I am no fan of smelly hotel rooms, but I find it somewhat disheartening that
the media and highly educated people would cite a social science study as
If it revealed some new information about oncology, biochemistry, or toxicology.
I'm not sure which worries me more, the presence of so many "arguments
from authority" in the paper, when it addresses the toxicity of smoke residues or the fact
that a social science paper about the beliefs of a population is presented in the media as if
it were a work in biochemistry.
All of this material seems to completely ignore perhaps the greatest conceptual
contribution by Paracelsus, often regarded as a founding thinker in toxicology. That is, the
notion that "the dose makes the poison."
I doubt that many readers of either this blog or the newspaper take much care
In avoiding the myriad toxic (and specifically carcinogenic) chemicals present in even the most mundane
natural meal. Whether it's hydrazine in mushrooms, aflatoxin in peanut butter, or any of a hundred
others, there's a reason we don't worry much about them. The human body
quite capably clears a variety of these in trace levels. You're far more likely
to have an uptake of benzo(a)pyrene, a potent carcinogen from eating a backyard-
grilled hamburger than from sitting on a smoker's couch, regardless of the
aesthetic undesirability of the latter choice.
One might reasonably question the public mental health impacts of scaremongering
from these sorts of stories.
For those who really care about trace levels of carcinogens in their environment, I would direct readers to check out the "holiday menu" on the website of the
American Council on Science & Health, an organization of hundreds of scientists
trying to bring back rational discussion of real science as it applies
to health issues. They're as likely to excoriate the Tobacco Institute's documents as those
of the American Cancer Society when it comes to bad science.
In your post, you state that there's yet-another kind of smoke to fear. I respectfully
disagree. What we ought to fear is the real impact on the mental health of the public of continual unsupported scaremongering.
It's no wonder antidepressants sell so well. There is no dearth of headlines telling people to be afraid of things.
It is incumbent upon people with real understandings of science and mathematics to help our fellow humans understand concepts of risk in an honest way.
- by Robert Stratton on Jan 6, 2009 at 5:03 AM | link
With respect to the article by Dr. Summers titled "The Nose Knows", and her statement that "third hand smoke can kill", it is appalling and frightening that someone with a doctorate should make such a statement, based as it is on such an astounding, unbelievable leap of logic. It ranks with the worst excesses of communist or fascist state-sponsored "science". It raises political correctness to the level of obscenity, and replaces reasoned debate with hysteria.
- by Gary Perkins on Jan 21, 2009 at 9:53 PM | link
Dear Gary, thank you for your comment. As for my "leap of logic" that "third-hand smoke can kill", let me just quote the previous paragraph of the New York Times article that I cited and leave it to you to judge whether I make a illogical claim about whether cancer, a disease that results in approximately 500,000 deaths per year, is serious enough to raise concern. From the New York Times: “There are carcinogens in this third-hand smoke, and they are a cancer risk for anybody of any age who comes into contact with them.” This is why I made the claim that third-hand smoke can kill, or perhaps I should have said more accurately, that the carcinogens in third-hand smoke are deadly.
- by Summer Johnson, PhD on Jan 23, 2009 at 8:06 PM | link
"This is why I made the claim that third-hand smoke can kill, or perhaps I should have said more accurately, that the carcinogens in third-hand smoke are deadly"
Unleaded gasonline contains benzene (when they took out the lead they replaced it with benzene). Benzene poisoning causes leukemia. So, according to your logic, anyone who is exposed to third-hand car exhaust is going to get leukemia. Puh-leeeze! If that was the case, nearly the entire population of the country would have leukemia.
- by Steve L on Feb 14, 2009 at 3:23 AM | link
"This is why I made the claim that third-hand smoke can kill, or perhaps I should have said more accurately, that the carcinogens in third-hand smoke are deadly."
However by natural extension of your "leap of logic" then a vast majority of products in the consumer market should as you put "be banned everywhere", products such as air fresheners are well known for containing a myriad of carcinogens.
Carcinogens may indeed raise the risk of cancer but I would hope that you would know that there is no such thing as toxic substances just toxic concentrations. Enough water would be toxic to you and a single atom of arsenic wouldn't harm you. Whilst not denying the existance of this "third hand smoke" I would dispute that the concentrations of these substances are so minute they pale in comparison to the risk to your health presented just by walking down the street.
- by Gecko on Feb 14, 2009 at 10:57 AM | link