clipped from www.nytimes.com

A New Cigarette Hazard: ‘Third-Hand Smoke’
That’s the term being used to describe 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 second-hand smoke has cleared from a room. The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor.
Doctors from MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston coined the term “third-hand smoke” to describe these chemicals in a new study that focused on the risks they pose to infants and children. The study was published in this month’s issue of the journal Pediatrics.
“Everyone knows that second-hand smoke is bad, but they don’t know about this,” said Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.
blog it
What will they think of next? 3^n-hand smoking? This article is so comical, so underhanded and so repulsive that it defies all logic. It is beyond reason and delving into a waste of scientific time to even ponder such questions.
But just in case, I’ll tell you everything you need to know:
Can we stop treating smoking as “the worst thing ever” and get on with our lives? Here’s the subtle reality and how you know this story is, for lack of a better word, bullshit -
  1. 1st rule of epidemiology: it is the dose that makes the poison, not the poison that makes the dose. (ok, maybe it isn’t 1st, but it is a major rule)
  2. You come into contact with an equally significant set of potential toxins every  single day. That new car smell you love? Toxic. Paint vapors? toxic. Everything is toxic at some level.
  3. The researcher is quoted to the effect of your brain tells you that the smell is toxic because it essentially isn’t pleasing.  Your brain isn’t telling you anything at all aside from what you like or dislike.
  4. The cited study is, for lack of a better word, missing some important details – specifically why the introduced a single factor without weighing potentially significant things like whether a mother smoked while pregnant. As the good Dr. Siegel over here points out:

    The authors of the study acknowledge that because of its cross-sectional nature and these other issues, this study is not sufficient to draw a causal conclusion. They also acknowledge that there is no known biologic mechanism by which post-natal ETS exposure could lead to neurologic damage. Nevertheless, this acknowledgment does not appear to stop the authors from drawing such a causal conclusion anyway

The anti-tobacco crowd has long outlived its welcome. Fanatics have spoiled what should be a responsible discussion on public health policy by winning the argument and sparing no expense to rub it in. The problem is that many scientists and doctors of otherwise distinguished credentials have become biased by their own perceptions and ignorance of common logical fallacies in the statements, and studies, they participate in.

Omaha’s MOTAC, The American Lung Foundation, the American Cancer Society, Americans for Non-Smokers Rights – have all made dubious claims in the media using flawed studies, slanted data and ignorance predation.

Sphere: Related Content