Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
That's kind of a misleading test, and position you're taking if basing it on that test.
Firstly, the tests performed only tested for the presence of Nicotine itself in the houses. Nicotine, in and of itself, is not a carcinogen and in healthy children and adults, the worst it does is constrict blood vessels, resulting in higher blood pressure for a period of time. Considering the vast difference in nicotine levels between first and second hand smokers, this can be concluded to be a nearly moot point unless there's some initial underlying illness being exacerbated by these effects.
Here's a quote from Wiki about Nicotine:
|
Nicotine interacts with nitrous oxide, a common indoor air pollutant resulting from the burning of natural gas, to produce a strong carcinogen. So the presence of nicotine in the hair, etc., of babies due to parents smoking *outside* the house indicates a potential for the presence of carcinogens:
Quote:
Carcinogens form from third-hand smoke
Nicotine in third-hand smoke, the residue from tobacco smoke that clings to virtually all surfaces long after a cigarette has been extinguished, reacts with the common indoor air pollutant nitrous acid to produce dangerous carcinogens, tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs.
Smoking outdoors is not much of an improvement, as co-author Gundel explains.
"Smoking outside is better than smoking indoors but nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing," she says. "Those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere. The biggest risk is to young children. Dermal uptake of the nicotine through a child's skin is likely to occur when the smoker returns and if nitrous acid is in the air, which it usually is, then TSNAs will be formed."
Original Reference: Thirdhand Smoke Identified as Potent, Enduring Carcinogen -- Dreyfuss 60 (4): 203 -- CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
Furthermore, why didn't they test for the actual carcinogens that harm smokers? It certainly can't be "assumed" that just because Nicotine is there, proportionate amounts of other trace elements from cigarette smoke will be there as well. I would like a more thorough study regarding that.
I won't assume that your opinion regarding people who smoke outside still harming their kids is based on that study alone, but I'm interested as to why you would use that study to fortify your statement, because it's a pretty shoddy backup.
|
My guess is that testing for nicotine may be simpler than testing for other compounds in cigarette smoke. While it can't be assumed that the presence of nicotine means other nasty substances from cigarette smoke are present, it suggests the possibility that they are.
The study I cited in the previous post has an advantage over some studies in that it actually shows babies of parents who smoke outside the house are getting exposed to residue (nicotine) from cigarette smoke in measurable levels. So, parents should not assume they are fully protecting their children by smoking outside, because they aren't.
I agree with you that the study has some flaws, partly because the studies of third-hand smoke are very new. It looks like researchers still need to measure the long-term effects of third-hand smoke on children. I agree that measuring the levels of smoke carcinogens directly (50 of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are known to be carcinogens) would be preferable to just measuring nicotine levels in and on babies.
However, probably some parents would not want to expose their babies to an addictive substance, nicotine, regardless of whether or not their doing so also exposes children to strong carcinogens. And I see no reason to think that only the nicotine sticks to the fingers, hair, skin and clothes of parents who smoke outside.
Hybrid Mode