Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Smoking Bans Don't Prevent You Having To Breathe in Smoke Particles (newscientist.com) 169

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
You can breathe in harmful chemicals from tobacco use even in non-smoking venues because they are carried on smokers' bodies and clothes. From a report: Third-hand smoke -- the residue from cigarette fumes that sticks to surfaces and then wafts back into the air -- has previously been found indoors in places where smoking is allowed. To find out if third-hand smoke also pollutes non-smoking venues, Drew Gentner at Yale University and his colleagues monitored the air quality in a non-smoking cinema in Germany for four days, after first flushing it with clean air. Smoking is banned inside cinemas and other public places in Germany. They observed spikes of tobacco chemicals in the air just after audiences arrived, which decreased over time but didn't go away completely.

The polluting substances were probably brought in on the bodies and clothes of people who had recently smoked cigarettes or been near smokers, says Gentner. They observed larger spikes during movies rated for those aged 16 and above, most likely because the audiences were older and had greater tobacco exposure than those attending movies suitable for younger people, says Gentner. The amount of tobacco chemicals that people watching the films aimed at older teens and adults were exposed to per hour was equivalent to that inhaled while sitting directly next to someone as they smoke up to 10 cigarettes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smoking Bans Don't Prevent You Having To Breathe in Smoke Particles More

Smoking Bans Don't Prevent You Having To Breathe in Smoke Particles

Comments Filter:

  • Can't get them all (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @11:26AM (#59799400) Homepage

    May not prevent you from breathing in smoke, but it sure cuts it down significantly, and that's good enough for me.

    I don't know if we have to make sure that we aren't exposed to a single particle from smoke; I'm not sure that this is even possible. The fact that we can't prevent being exposed to every particle doesn't mean that it isn't valuable to prevent exposure to the vast majority of them.

    • Yes, you could presumably detect and then back calculate that seeing the movie was like standing in a closed garage with a running car for X interval of time, too. It'd be important to know if the concentration was sufficient to paralyze your cilia like happens in a smoker, but otherwise your lungs should clear it out like any other pollutant.

      • Yes, you could presumably detect and then back calculate that seeing the movie was like standing in a closed garage with a running car for X interval of time, too. It'd be important to know if the concentration was sufficient to paralyze your cilia like happens in a smoker, but otherwise your lungs should clear it out like any other pollutant.

        More likely the concentration is similar to being in a restaurant where they have a grill going that you don't even smell.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I always thought it was weird that if someone smelt bad we would generally let them know and avoid them... Unless it's tobacco in which case them stinking does not seem to have any negative impact.

      Well, not entirely I suppose, it can make their house and everything in it less valuable. A friend who used to smoke tried to scrub the stains away but ended up paying out to get the whole place redecorated so she could sell it.

      • Re:Can't get them all (Score:5, Informative)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @12:33PM (#59799710)

        In my experience it's actually the other way around. Smokers are called out while it's apparently socially acceptable to smell like a pile of dog shit.

      • I bought a house that smokers had lived in. (We didn't realize this until after the sale.) The walls were coated with residue from the smoke. If we just painted the walls, the stains would seep through so we needed to use an alcohol based primer first. (I believe it was called Bin.) The stuff smelled horrible and we had to take frequent breaks to give our lungs fresh air. (It didn't help that it was during a heat wave and we had no air conditioning in the house.) At one point, I removed a wallpaper border f

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          In the UK such houses are often unsaleable because even if the new owner doesn't care the bank issuing the mortgage does. The bank will insist on an inspection and it will come up on the report.

      • my mom was a chain smoker. You just don't notice it. As for selling a home you have to repaint and replace any carpet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jahta ( 1141213 )

      May not prevent you from breathing in smoke, but it sure cuts it down significantly, and that's good enough for me.

      Exactly. The smoking bans here in Europe have dramatically improved air quality in bars, restaurants, and other public places. I'm not going to get stressed about any potential "3rd-hand smoke".

  • I'm not old (very) and I remember when "Second-hand Smoke" was a new thing.

    Now we're worrying about 3rd hand smoke? Wow! Life is good!

    • Yep. 3rd hand smoke = 1st world "problem." It's amazing what we in the developed world get worked up about anymore.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        Finding out whether something happens is the first step in deciding whether it's worth worrying about. It doesn't necessarily lead you there.

        Chance are you can detect *some* radon in your home; in most cases it's less than the 4 piocuries/liter limit and nothing to worry about. But a few years ago there was a house in Pennsylvania that tested positive for radon at over 6000 picocuries per liter. You wouldn't want to live there without installing mitigation systems.

  • doesn't keep you from breathing in plastic particles from people's synthetic clothes.

    • Yeah, worrying about "third hand smoke" is fucking retarded. The height of idiocy. You are breathing in worse shit on a daily basis.

  • Wow science (Score:5, Funny)

    by rldp ( 6381096 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @11:33AM (#59799426)

    They monitored a cinema in germany for some sort of something for a whole 4 days, anyways clearly the science is settled and just happens to jive with our politics!

    Here is an updated list of rights you will no longer have!

    • It isn't exactly a bad thing to know, but you'd need to do a toxicology study to determine if it really represented a problem.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Actually their main concern seems to be that the theatre was not well ventilated. They point out that in better ventilated theatres the problem goes away. In the poorly ventilated one people are exposed to 1-10 cigarette's of second hand smoke per visit.

      So the only "right" that might be removed is the "right" of the theatre to have crap ventilation that's so bad it puts patron's health at risk. I bet it smells lovely too.

    • That means they got a lot more evidence, than you of the majority of things you consider having happened to you today.
      Hell, if you just moved to a new apartment/house, they got more evidence of there being ground under your feet in the morning when getting out of bed.

      Or, even better: A study might be the most established one ever, yet *you* still merely got anecdotal evidence of that study itself existing. Or of me existing. ;)

  • No surprises there. The Europeans still tend to smoke like chimneys. I mean, for 80 percent of people sitting inside that movie theater, this experience was actually a 2-3 hour long detox, at the expense of polluting the air with their bodies and clothing. This wouldn't happen in the USA because in America the only people who still smoke are either immigrants or marginals.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • US has over 400,000k a year die of lung cancer tied to cigarettes. We have 11k firearm homicides, roughly half of which occur in five or six inner city gang ridden areas.

        Try again with your false claims
        • Your point is well made, but your numbers are a little off This CDC data for 2018 [archive.org] show higher numbers and you have omitted suicide which about triples the total to a little shy of 40,000, not to mention that the number of police killings is likely under counted according to the CDC. Also according to This [gunviolencearchive.org] incidents have increased since 2018.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by samdu ( 114873 )

            Of course they excluded suicides. Because suicides weren't remotely relevant to the conversation.

            • I apologize, but I was not able to find numbers that are directly relatable to compare the number of homicides by smoking to to homicides by shooting, I'm guessing guns for the win there. Similarly if you consider smoking related deaths not to be somewhat self-inflicted then I guess guns for the win on that too.

          • ...and you have omitted suicide which about triples the total to a little shy of 40,000, not to mention that the number of police killings is likely under counted according to the CDC.

            Well, suicides shouldn't be counted really....when people are talking about gun violence, they generally mean someone illegally shooting another.

            If someone wants to off themselves, well, if not a gun, they'll find some other way....who cares about that?

            That's their choice.

            And cops killing criminals, well, if justified it

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Depends which part of Europe you mean. Many European countries consume less than the US, including the UK.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • Yeah. Back 20 years ago, smoking seemed to be everywhere in Europe, but last time I was there, it was much less common.

        In Western Europe, anyway. From the list linked, looks like Eastern Europe still smokes like wildfires. (Along with Luxembourg and Belgium. Who knew?).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I wonder if Luxembourg and Belgium are artefacts of people buying more tobacco there but exporting it. The so-called "booze cruse" used to be popular in the UK, people would go to France or Belgium and stock up on cheap wine and cigarettes.

        • Where did you go last time? I have been to Portugal, Spain, France, Austria, and Czech republic. It seems like all people around me, specially in coffee shops, take time off from smoking only when they're liting the next cigarette. Do you know how to find Europeans on an American university campus? Just start looking for a group of people who are smoking. It's going to be very hard to find someone smoking on a US university campus, but once you find them you know they're probably grad students or professors

      • Many? Amounting to two or three island nations (one no longer part of EU), and other relatively small countries (by population). The rest of EU continues smoking like chimeneas [wikipedia.org]. Every country from Portugal going east all way through to Poland.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Exitar ( 809068 )

      And yet EU life expectancy is higher that US one because we
      - have good national health services
      - aren't fat like whales
      - don't spend our free time shooting at each other

  • I'm more worried about the air pollution in cities than third hand smoke. Far more people die from it day to day.

  • PREVENT it? No, obviously not. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @11:48AM (#59799482) Journal

    ...but it sure as hell REDUCES the intake load, obviously, as compared to people smoking in your presence, everywhere.

    I'm curious at the intention of the article?

    Is the intent to rationalize something more...comprehensive than locational bans? Prohibition, perhaps "for the children"?

    I don't smoke and never have. My mom smoked like a chimney for the first 20 years of my life, and likely this has caused me to "enjoy" every single cold virus that goes around as an additional, long-lasting chest cold at the end. I don't like the smell of smoke. ...but at the same time, I *deeply* resist the pernicious idea of the nanny state telling people what they can do in their private lives, even if it's "for the children". I admit, that's what this smells like to me...and that smell is worse than secondhand smoke.

    • Re:PREVENT it? No, obviously not. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cyberchondriac ( 456626 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @12:09PM (#59799570) Journal

      Not a smoker either, but I also found this bit to be dubious:

        "..the amount of tobacco chemicals that people watching the films .. were exposed to per hour was equivalent to that inhaled while sitting directly next to someone as they smoke up to 10 cigarettes."

      So, sitting for an hour next to people who smoked outside, a minute or two prior, somehow equals sitting right next to someone who actively smokes a cigarette every 6 minutes for an hour? That's practically non stop. With all the actual smoke and exhalation floating around them? Riight. Who ran these tests?

    • and likely this has caused me to "enjoy" every single cold virus that goes around as an additional, long-lasting chest cold at the end.

      It likely didn't.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eth1 ( 94901 )

      ...but at the same time, I *deeply* resist the pernicious idea of the nanny state telling people what they can do in their private lives, even if it's "for the children".

      And these people have just shown that what smokers are doing "in their private lives" doesn't STAY private, and may be negatively affecting others.

      Sure, hermetically seal your house, and decontaminate yourself before you leave - THEN it's totally private, and you can do what you want.

  • If you don't like breathing in smoke particles... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @11:50AM (#59799488)

    You *definitely* never want to step foot in a bathroom. Guess what happens when you flush a toilet?

  • I have just one question: How can a few lucky lead lawyers earn tens of millions off a class action lawsuit?

    Follow the money.

  • Plenty of chemicals in the air. Not just man-made, but from nature. As it is, most of those chemicals from cigs comes from the tobacco.
  • of any Kmart, Target or walmart, there is always somebody sitting near the doors smoking a stinking cigarette, they should make smokers stay at least 50 feet away from the entrances

    • of any Kmart, Target or walmart, there is always somebody sitting near the doors smoking a stinking cigarette, they should make smokers stay at least 50 feet away from the entrances

      How about they get a gilded entrance just for you? All the exhausts from those cars outside and the stink of the BO and cheap bodyspray inside are fine , nope it's the guy having a cig at the door that's the problem.

    • Personally, I find the smell of people far more problematic than just smoke. Either they stink like they are allergic to soap or they try to cover it up with body spray that reeks even worse.

  • Wow. Breaking news: Mitigation measure results in less than 100% perfection. "Massive reduction in general harm," no longer sufficient for some people.

  • The problem nobody is talking about (Score:3)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @12:07PM (#59799560)

    I find it an amusing case of blatant hypocrisy that some state governments go full dictator when it comes to tobacco smoke but give pot smoke a total pass.

    • They don't. But since you can't outlaw pot anymore for some reason because you'd immediately piss off your liberal voters, well, let's shame the other component required to smoke pot sensibly out of existence.

    • It's not as full hypocrisy as it seems on first pass. Both forms of smoke contain irritants, but the carcinogenic effect seems to come from inflammation caused by those irritants. Pot smoke seems to bring enough anti-inflammatory agents to the party to fully mitigate the effect.

      As for heavy metals in the smoke... Has no one considered the fact that those would be absent if they banned cultivating the tobacco in contaminated soil?

  • Sounds like an entremely tiny fraction of smoke, way below anything else in the air that might be harmful. (Like that lovely coal plant, or that herd of farting cows, or simply the CO2 concentration or whatever. Hell, let's compare it to that burger and those fries ane your obese car etc.)

    Maybe let's focus on the most harmful thing first. And when it's *this*, *then* we can deal with it.

  • They needed a study for this? Do do they not have noses?

    - Necron69

  • It's in the smokers' lungs, not just their clothes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Misagon ( 1135 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @12:35PM (#59799714)

    The article just assumes that the polluting substances were brought into the movie theatre on the smokers' bodies.

    Previous studies done already up until the early 90's have shown that it takes some time for smokers to ventilate the pollutants from their lungs.
    That time is approximately ten minutes of breathing after they have been smoking.

  • We don't live in a binary world. (Score:3)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday March 05, 2020 @01:18PM (#59799928)

    We like to think in terms of Good and Bad. Right and Wrong. Ying and Yang. However the world is much more complex,
    The way the article title is posted is is implying smoking bans are a failure because our ability to breath in smoke isn't 0
    A guy who smells like smoke, I'll probably inhaled some smoke but a lot less then second hand and much less by not smoking myself. We will never get 0% toxins in our systems living in the environment.

    Our bodies are actually good a dealing with toxins, and more or less expects them at a safe level. We can breathe and thrive with air with particles of dust and smoke, as we had evolved millions of years with dust and smoke in the atmosphere. That said, after a level our risk starts to go up at a higher rate.

  • Also when is someone going to do something about the air we breathe being contaminated by Caesar's last breath? [sciencefocus.com] I have to breathe it in all the time, an it's super morbid and is really stressing me out.
  • If people knew what's in the air just about anywhere you go at any given time, they'd freak out and start wearing spacesuits with their own self-contained scrubbers. Even in the middle of 1,000,000 acres of virgin wildland there's all sorts of stuff in the air that you probably shouldn't be breathing. Tiny amounts of tobacco smoke particles on someones clothing isn't much of anything to worry about.
    Also there's feces just about everywhere in the world on just about every surface.
    Also there's all sorts of bacteria living on your skin.
    Also your house is full of dust mites who are living off you dead skin cells.
    'Articles' like this are nigh-unto clickbait.
  • the smokers would go out, take a huge puff, and then walk in and release it. Not sure where it started, but it's why I don't go bowling anymore.

    To be fair I haven't been in a while, maybe it's stopped, but as a non-smoker it hurts my lungs and eyes to be around even second hand smoke. Which is weird since my mom smoked and I grew up around it.

Slashdot Top Deals

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close