Smoking Bans Don't Prevent You Having To Breathe in Smoke Particles (newscientist.com) 169
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.
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.
Can't get them all (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
You get used to it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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".
We live in a wonderful time! (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
and natural clothing (Score:2, Insightful)
doesn't keep you from breathing in plastic particles from people's synthetic clothes.
Re: (Score:3)
Wow science (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Your point isn't wrong, but ... (Score:2)
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. ;)
The amount of tobacco... up to 10 cigarettes (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try again with your false claims
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they excluded suicides. Because suicides weren't remotely relevant to the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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]
Europe [Re:The amount of tobacco...] (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
...e simply not done here. (Score:2)
[Stupid fuckin touch screens. Stupid fuckin touch screen keyboard. Stupid fuckin browsers. Stupid fuckin Slashdot mobile UI. Everything today's fuckin *retarded*!]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, on that huge continent there exist two or three microscopic nations who feel butthurt or offended when someone says Europeans smoke like chimenes. I really don't give a damn.
Personally (Score:2)
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)
...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)
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?
Re: PREVENT it? No, obviously not. (Score:2)
Of course it's BS. Truth has no presence in most public discussions and all media since a decade or so...
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
You *definitely* never want to step foot in a bathroom. Guess what happens when you flush a toilet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Frankly, it’d be more hygienic if they just had a plague-infested gibbon sneeze my hands dry.
Re:Bathroom particles... (Score:2)
You *definitely* never want to step foot in a bathroom. Guess what happens when you flush a toilet?
OIf you shut the lid before flushing you dramatically reduce those fecal particles from spreading. Also, for public restrooms the stall walls help prevent some of the spread. Make sure you properly wash your hands and use a paper towel to open the door as you leave (why re-infect your clean hand?).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please mod parent up.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait your public restrooms give you paper towels? Or do you bring your own? (I don't think I've seen a paper towel dispenser in a public bathroom in years... all air blowers).
Surely that would be very messy and get even more shit all over the place?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I shut the lid. Do you know whether the pig that used the room before you did?
Re: (Score:3)
Or, a far better question, do you know any public toilets that even have lids that could close the toilet?
Re: If you don't like breathing in smoke particles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, I started as the same, but my wife agrees, both stay down.
Re: If you don't like breathing in smoke particle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yikes.
Here, we insist that people close the lid *after* they use the toilet . . .
hawk
Re: (Score:3)
The toilet aerosol thing was tested on Mythbusters... Okay not the most scientifically rigorous experiment but they found zero evidence of anything in the toilet escaping it when flushed.
Useful (Score:2)
I have just one question: How can a few lucky lead lawyers earn tens of millions off a class action lawsuit?
Follow the money.
Get over this. (Score:2)
just walk by the entrance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And as a non-smoker ... (Score:2)
... please do. If you didn't, I'd pay you to do it.
Seriously, how selfish and smug are some "people"?
Newsflash: Stuff is Imperfect (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Yeah, but come on, how bad is it? (Score:2)
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.
Study? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't live in a binary world. (Score:3)
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.
What is dilution? (Score:2)
'Smoke particles' are the tip of the iceberg (Score:3)
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.
When my city did a smoking ban (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You can smell polonium?
Re:Obviously! (Score:4, Informative)
Probably not. Polonium is a solid metal at room temperature, and forms few compounds. It is administered as a fine powder and is soluble in weak acids.
Olfaction evolved to detect and recognize common small, volatile organic compounds. You can't even smell elemental sulfur, which is in the same column of the periodic table, even though our sense of smell is particularly sensitive to sulfur compounds in things like rotting eggs or garlic.
Organic polonium compounds might smell like sulfur compounds; for obvious reasons nobody has tried to find out. Tellurium dioxide ingestion produces a garlic breath effect, and tellurium is also in the same column of the periodic table.
Re: (Score:2)
Read about outgassing [wikipedia.org]. Everything is a gas at low enough pressures.
BTW, seriously, I can smell most metal (steel, copper, etc.) at room temperature. Can't you?
Re: Obviously! (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we reduce harm to zero? Possibly.
Is it desirable to do so? Not remotely.
Banning people whoâ(TM)ve stood near a smoker from entering a public place is a great way of getting no customers.
Smoking, like drinking, or driving, or running, or eating, or anything has both costs and benefits. At some point we almost certainly mitigated the costs through taxation and regulations. Further restrictions are cost without benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of smoking to the smokers themselves we can't eliminate without removing their freedom. However the cost to OTHERS is important here, if there is harm to others then the rights of others is more important than the rights to the individual. The the first question is whether there's a way to remove this harm before we start worrying about the rights of smokers to poison others.
Unfortunately, evolution isn't solving this, as tobacco companies keep getting younger people hooked.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the real point should be "There are degrees and degrees.", and I doubt that the amount of residue emitted by a smoker 2 minutes after his cigarette/cigar/pipe/etc. is out is worth worrying about by anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
I"m guessing you get more damage from car exhaust daily than you do from being near smokers walking by that had a couple a few minutes before you crossed their path.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we reduce harm to zero? Possibly.
No, it's not possible, let alone practical, to reduce the probability of harm to exactly zero. But that's a strawman objective. More realistically, it may be practical to reduce the harm to an acceptable level in terms of expected impact on measurable health outcomes.
Is it desirable to do so? Not remotely.
Banning people whoâ(TM)ve stood near a smoker from entering a public place is a great way of getting no customers.
The study doesn't attempt to diagnose the sources of the hazardous chemical emissions, but my guess is that there is a huge difference in emission rates between smokers and non-smokers in their vicinity. That is, my guess is that emission ra
Depends on the customers you're after (Score:2)
Businesses will make a calculation to maximize customers, but that calculation might not be what we'd expect.
Re: Obviously! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm trying but failing to see any benefits of smoking.
I'm trying to see the benefit on bungee jumping or posting stupid opinions on the internet but people still do them all the time.
Here you go though from one perspective. Just imagine everyone gave up smoking overnight. What would that do do the tax coffers and what would follow that? They like to make a big noise about getting people to quit but they'd be fucked if everyone suddenly did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Increasing taxes on tobacco to say $20 a pack of cigarettes would help offset the heath care costs, but unfortunately ends up being a regressive tax paid by those least able to afford it;
There are people who are too poor to give up smoking?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it lowers the risk of obesity. That's a claim I used to make when I smoked, but I've lost (some, not enough) weight since I quit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's highly unlikely any of those are benefits of smoking. They may be benefits of nicotine.
Re: (Score:2)
No...but health care cost mitigation IS provided by the said smokers dying earlier in life and not having long, old age related drawn out expenses.
It's the healthy folks that live long, extended lives with lingering age diseases that cost you in the long run.
Re:Obviously! (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile you're exposed to 10,000 times that amount of car exhaust every single day. And more like 50,000 if you live or work in a city.
But yeah, worry about the third-hand smoke from cigarettes because...umm...reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a group that you can more easily bash. For one, it's smaller than car owners.
Re: (Score:3)
I bought an old shop car (Score:2)
I agree we should do something about smog, but there's something about Cigarette smoke that just lingers in a way smog doesn't.
Can I have retard-free restaurants? (Score:2)
How about asshole-free ones?
Or "voter"-liivestock/mob-free restaurants.
Frankly, I find life much more enjoyable, if I don't obsess over imaginary or negligible dangers, and leave people be, as long as they leave me be, for merely reasonable amounts of leaving me be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most illness from particulates now comes from traffic fumes. But we are not allowed to talk about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the highest estimates don't put the fatality rate high enough to eliminate any target group. Possibly to markedly reduce it. I think I've seen an estimate for one fraction of the population that had a fatality rate of 20%...but do note that all these estimates are based on really bad data, and thus shouldn't be trusted.
Epidemiology experts say we won't really have a good handle on the fatality rate until after the cycle is complete, and point to multiple bad estimates made on the rate of Spanish flu.
Are you gonna rename Earth then? (Score:2)
Into "Idiocracy of psychopathic anxious-minimalist pussy perfect clone poser hipster robots (with airpod antenna ears for remote control)"? :P
. . .
Ipamipupeclpohr.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, boomers are in the target group of the coronavirus.
Hey, there is a silver lining after all!
Re: Smokers literally stink (Score:2)
Women smoke more than men in my country. They also find it harder to quit.
Meanwhile, in my country of residence, NL, the ratio in my peer group is 20:1 for the non smokers.