Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: A question about the span of second hand smoke carcinogens

  1. #1 A question about the span of second hand smoke carcinogens 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United States Of America
    Posts
    112
    If an item is exposed to cigarette smoke, how long will it remain carcinogenic without being washed, if that changes at all?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Most studies show that there is actually very little risk of cancer from exposure to small amounts of second-hand smoke. You have to spend a LOT of time inhaling a LOT of second-hand smoke before there is any statistically significant increase in your cancer risk. Simply being in contact with objects that have been exposed to smoke is probably a negligible risk.

    Although if anyone knows of studies that contradict this, I would be interested to hear about them.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Not a very scientific reply, but

    to put this in perspective one may reflect that humans survived in cramped quarters breathing smoke of wood, oil, dung, and even coal fires for over half a million years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Not a very scientific reply, but

    to put this in perspective one may reflect that humans survived in cramped quarters breathing smoke of wood, oil, dung, and even coal fires for over half a million years.
    ...when life expectancy was about 30 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Not a very scientific reply, but

    to put this in perspective one may reflect that humans survived in cramped quarters breathing smoke of wood, oil, dung, and even coal fires for over half a million years.
    ...when life expectancy was about 30 years.
    Yeah. :? But I've been studying the Arctic Natives lately, and apparently they had good life expectancy by today's standards, yet they spent an extraordinarily large part of life huddled in tiny covered pits burning seal fat for heat. That crap's like bacon smoke.

    Perhaps we have evolved a resistance to smoke?

    Not to say smoking isn't bad for you. But humans may be more resistant than animal subjects...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United States Of America
    Posts
    112
    I disagree with your statement about inhalation, but maybe items previously exposed to smoke aren't quite as dangerous as I have imagined. I have a better idea of the issue now. Thank you, Scifor Refugee.
    Last edited by Theresa; July 17th, 2018 at 09:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Smoked foods, are carcinogenic though, but only slightly just don't eat them more than once a week.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United States Of America
    Posts
    112
    I tried to edit my first reply to include these, but for some reason that didn't work. Bunbury, I thought the same thing that you did when I read the second reply. Pong, the quality of our air and nourishment changed a great deal which weakened our abilities to fight DNA damage. Large amounts of smoke probably were not as harmful centuries ago when there were less toxins for humans to deal with. Thank you both for reading my question.
    Last edited by Theresa; July 17th, 2018 at 09:56 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    *
    It is possible the risk may be zero, or close to it.

    As we all know, there have been extensive studies on the carcinogenic properties of the chemicals in air-borne cigarette smoke. But I have heard nothing about any studies on the solid residue that is deposited by the smoke. Nor do I know of any problems that are caused by skin contact with such trace residue.

    If there have been any such studies, negative results may be the reason for the failure to publish the findings.

    Until any such results appear, I shall assume the health effects of smoking residue are nil.

    *
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United States Of America
    Posts
    112
    Thank you. I don't entirely understand why there would be a great difference between smoke and smoke residue in terms of danger, but gather that the carcinogens in question must weaken very much when solidified if this theory is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •