Thirdhand Smoke Causes DNA Damage
Source: Science Daily
Furthermore, the study also found that chronic exposure is worse than acute exposure, with the chemical compounds in samples exposed to chronic thirdhand smoke existing in higher concentrations and causing more DNA damage than samples exposed to acute thirdhand smoke, suggesting that the residue becomes more harmful over time.
"This is the very first study to find that thirdhand smoke is mutagenic," said Lara Gundel, a Berkeley Lab scientist and co-author of the study. "Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, some of the chemical compounds in thirdhand smoke, are among the most potent carcinogens there are. They stay on surfaces, and when those surfaces are clothing or carpets, the danger to children is especially serious."
Their paper, "Thirdhand smoke causes DNA damage in human cells," was published in the journal Mutagenesis. The lead investigator was Bo Hang, a biochemist in the Life Sciences Division of Berkeley Lab; he worked with an interdisciplinary group, including chemists from Berkeley Lab's Environmental Energy Technologies Division -- Gundel, Hugo Destaillats and Mohamad Sleiman -- as well as scientists from UC San Francisco, UCLA Medical Center and the University of Texas.
"Until this study, the toxicity of thirdhand smoke has not been well understood," Hang said. "Thirdhand smoke has a smaller quantity of chemicals than secondhand smoke, so it's good to have experimental evidence to confirm its genotoxicity." It is the first major study of disease-related mechanisms to come out of the California Consortium on the Health Effects of Thirdhand Smoke, which was established two years ago largely as a result of work published in 2010 by Gundel, Destaillats, Sleiman and others. The Consortium is funded by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which is managed by the University of California and funded by state cigarette taxes.
Read more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130620132459.htm
Cigarette butts are the most littered item in the world.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)1) There's people, called 'smokers', who sit there and directly (and deeply) inhale every possible drag from, say 20-30 cigarettes, directly into their lungs, every single day, for decade after decade ...
2) On top of that, such people undoubtedly also absorb MANY TIMES more 2nd hand smoke than any non-smoker could possibly ever absorb, and
3) On top of that, such people undoubtedly also absorb MANY TIMES more '3rd hand' smoke than any non-smoker could possibly ever absorb.
And yet, such people (actual smokers) will only have their lifespan reduced by, on average, approximately 10 years.
And given the above reality, I'm supposed to believe that the amount of 'carcinogens' emanating from friggin cigarette butts is actually a 'concern' to human beings?
I don't personally even subscribe to the idea that 2nd hand smoke (in anything less than ABSURDLY higher concentrations than any human would ever willingly subject themselves to, over many, many years) is in any way life-threatening to anyone who's not like already sick, so I'm damn sure not going to buy into the idea that 'cigarette butts' are killing people, it that's indeed the implication here.
But by all means, let the anti-smoking paranoia rage on. I don't smoke cigs anymore anyway
I firmly believe that things like car exhaust, industrial pollution, indoor pollution (radon and the like), and the residual lead in our environment are all far, far more dangerous than anything related to cigarettes, for everyone but *actual smokers*.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Both have been firmly established.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)The idea is to scare people. You are way too practical...
BadgerKid
(4,559 posts)Theoretically, you can get cancer from a one-time exposure. Or by random chance. But it's not likely. If mutations appear in the "junk" part of DNA, you don't really see much in the way of direct effects. With exposure to carcinogens over time, you increase your chances of having mutations in the coding regions (non-junk) of DNA -- and that leads to cancer.
Last I checked, regulating one's personal exposure isn't entirely out of one's control.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Not to mention, wait tables where people smoke
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)brought to you by the same folks who gave us Reefer Madness: Like the Tonken Gulf Resolution, just fill in the blanks.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)I want to see tobacco executives drawn and quartered and this is not hyperbole. But I do have the same question. I don't even know what third hand smoke is.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Writely Wrong
(22 posts)What the F*ck are people eating cigarette butts for anyway? Give me a break. Scientist should be trying to figure out why a Congress Person's brain gets small every time they get re-elected.
Nimajneb Nilknarf
(319 posts)Blue Owl
(50,547 posts)n/t
kentauros
(29,414 posts)Keep those pinkie fingers away from those butts and you're safe!
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Wait, they have nitrosamines! Isn't that the stuff in bacon?
kentauros
(29,414 posts)You'll get DNA mutations retroactively. We all need to be on the lookout now for the X-Y Men
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Amazes me that people who claim to love to smoke, who wouldn't dream of throwin trash from their car, will not hestitae to throw a lit butt out the window. Call them on it and they will come up with every excuse in the world.
christx30
(6,241 posts)She used to get a new pack, open the wrapper, and throw tg aplastic on the ground. When I picked it up to put it in my pocket or the trash, she would get snotty and say "what? You gonna pick up all the trash out here?" Like I was the jerk here.
flamingdem
(39,335 posts)mais oui
flamingdem
(39,335 posts)puff puff
kentauros
(29,414 posts)So they only put prime numbers in their packs?
sinkingfeeling
(51,490 posts)kentauros
(29,414 posts)Or cake.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Cigarettes are not. They have no beneficial purpose and do nothing but harm to us and our ecosystem.
sinkingfeeling
(51,490 posts)of cancer-inducing chemicals on their lawns each year.
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/factsheets/facts%26figures.php
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Including both cigarette and smokeless tobacco marketing, the tobacco companies spent $10.5 billion on marketing in 2008, or nearly $29 million each day.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/
DebJ
(7,699 posts)just to keep dandelions out of the lawn. Phoniest of priorities ever.
The Scots Lawn Service truck used to come by here every year and try to sell me their poison.
They actually had to hear from me TWICE that if I had my way they would be out of business,
their business would be illegal.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)go after those in your face, easy to see ciggie butts.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Clearly they're in cahoots and can't be trusted.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)There aren't even any studies funded on, oh say urine tests on every person who lives near cropland that is routinely sprayed with 'agent orange' type chemicals to clear the land for the next crop. The same herbicide is also routinely used by our forest service, parks to clear brush.
round-up/chemical corps. should be paying for Gov.medical testing and healthcare. Good to know we Americans have other first world countries like the UK to watch ban all these chemicals, while they continue to poison Americans.
Good to notice old Pres. Bush was a guinea-pig for his ranch brush clearing days. Racked up with Parkinson's of the legs.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Can smoking be harmful to you? Yes. Is it harmful to everyone? No.
Secondhand and especially this new "thirdhand" seems like a whole lot of hokum to me.
I think some people are more susceptible to diseases than others. Whether it is from genetic inferiority or just bad luck it's hard to say.
I'm not going to be concerned about this at all.