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

If an item is exposed to cigarette smoke, how long will it remain carcinogenic without being washed, if that changes at all?

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

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...?

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.

Smoked foods, are carcinogenic though, but only slightly just don't eat them more than once a week.

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.

*
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.

*

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.