http://health.yahoo.com/news/afp/hea...209102313.html

This is getting ridiculous.
[Reply]

Just watch out for fourth hand smoke.
[Reply]

Saw this. What crap.
[Reply]

Guess they will have to put me on "Double Secret Probation." :-)

Wow...
[Reply]

If you have a young baby at home, this actually does matter, so it's advisable to change your clothes and wash up after a smoke before being around the baby. There's also been studies linking this kind of third hand exposure to SIDS. Beyond that, I agree that people are going to far. I don't think an adult should worry about that little of a residue. I'm sure filling up your tank at the gas station exposes you to more carcinogens than this.
[Reply]

Soon it will be an entire octopus of smoke and no one will be safe. It is ridiculous how much people worry about it, but saying that I do agree if you have a newborn it is probably better to err on the side of ridiculousness.
[Reply]

This is a little much. I do hit the showers between a cigar and holding my little girl because she is only five months old, but otherwise... this just seems over the top.
[Reply]

I'm suing my neighbor because he smokes on his porch 600 feet away from my deck, where wind has caused us second hand exposure. I blame my low intelligence, general ignorance, and boneheadedness on this exposure.
[Reply]

Applecare warranty service department: 1
Smokers: 0
[Reply]

I don't care how many hands it has, its not going to kill me any faster than my cell phone, TV, radio, car exhaust, computer, fluorescent lights, animals, politicians, meteors, global warming, terrorists, the large hadron collider, drug cartels..............
[Reply]

or you could make the baby smoke, so it doesn't matter anymore

Image

:-)
[Reply]

I think everyone would agree that we want to protect our kids from any chemical exposure, but we do that anyway - it's just common sense. If the media is so interested in reporting danger, maybe they should take a look at the chemicals in bug sprays, paint, cleaning products, carpets and rugs, food containers, soaps and detergents etc. that are routinely used around kids. But then, that wouldn't be as popular as demonizing smokers... :-)
[Reply]

When is the study going to be made that watching someone smoke on tv is going to give you cancer?
[Reply]

I would love to see the source on those studies. My guess is that they might be a tad biased. There have been studies linking a lot of things to a lot of other things that have been nothing but Horse Hockey too. At what concentration levels are they talking, and for how long, and what kind of exposure? I suppose that the highly popular "Toddlers licking ashtrays" sport will now be banned too.





I wash my hands before I have interaction with people other than BOTL after a smoke not for health reasons, but because it's a little stinky, and I have respect for those around me when I am not excercising my right to smoke.
[Reply]

Here's one article: I've heard it from several friends, and had it pounded into me by my wife, who is a research scientist for a pharmaceutical company and who doesn't take a study seriously unless it was published in a respected medical journal. Not that people don't demonize smokers, but there is really no escaping that it is harmful to infants.
[Reply]

And to think I happily played with hair pins and electrical outlets as a child!
[Reply]

Sorry, that link was second hand smoke, here is a reference to the study about third hand smoke.
These studies are generally sponsered by anti-smoking groups, but they are done by impartial scientists with impartial science, so I wouldn't question the results just because the funding came from some a-holes that want to ban tobacco. It's not a question of whether or not smoking is a filthy habit, it's a question of whether or not we want the governent regulating our filthy habits:-)
[Reply]

I won't correct the spelling, but...

Sure, we all know how impartial they seem to be. Ever hear of global warming debate? Ever seen an anti-smoking group that will hire an impartial scientist? Every group with a goal will always fund someone else with same goals, otherwise its a waste of money on their part. I am not saying nicotine is not bad, I am simply pointing out that one can always "find" proof if need be, especially when there is money involved.

Going back to the first article posted, just how common is nitrous acid in everyday environment? This should be key and I would like to see some numbers, not only how common, but if it is, then at what levels and at that point, at what levels does it bind with nicotine. Without these numbers this whole debate is BS.
[Reply]

wow....
[Reply]

With all due respect, that statement is completely contradictory. Scientists who depend on grants from anti-smoking groups are going to be inherently biased - anti-smoking groups aren't funding any more studies if the scientists don't come out against smoking. There goes the scientists' money.
[Reply]