Low levels of cigarette smoke residue highly toxic

Posted on Dec 30, 2008 by Susie Collins in Blog, Research

“Similar to low-level lead exposure, low levels of tobacco particulates have been associated with cognitive deficits among children, and the higher the exposure level, the lower the reading score.”

So basically, once again, people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity are way ahead of the curve on knowing that even extremely low levels of toxic chemicals can be neurotoxic.

Need another reason to add “Quit Smoking” to your New Year’s resolutions list? How about the fact that even if you choose to smoke outside of your home or only smoke in your home when your children are not there – thinking that you’re keeping them away from second-hand smoke – you’re still exposing them to toxins? In the January issue of Pediatrics, researchers at MassGeneral Hospital for Children (MGHfC) and colleagues across the country describe how tobacco smoke contamination lingers even after a cigarette is extinguished – a phenomenon they define as “third-hand” smoke. Their study is the first to examine adult attitudes about the health risks to children of third-hand smoke and how those beliefs may relate to rules about smoking in their homes.

“When you smoke – anyplace – toxic particulate matter from tobacco smoke gets into your hair and clothing,” says lead study author, Jonathan Winickoff, MD, MPH, assistant director of the MGHfC Center for Child and Adolescent Health Policy. “When you come into contact with your baby, even if you’re not smoking at the time, she comes in contact with those toxins. And if you breastfeed, the toxins will transfer to your baby in your breastmilk.” Winickoff notes that nursing a baby if you’re a smoker is still preferable to bottle-feeding, however.

Particulate matter from tobacco smoke has been proven toxic. According to the National Toxicology Program, these 250 poisonous gases, chemicals, and metals include hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, butane, ammonia, toluene (found in paint thinners), arsenic, lead, chromium (used to make steel), cadmium (used to make batteries), and polonium-210 (highly radioactive carcinogen). Eleven of the compounds are classified as Group 1 carcinogens, the most dangerous.

Small children are especially susceptible to third-hand smoke exposure because they can inhale near, crawl and play on, or touch and mouth contaminated surfaces. Third-hand smoke can remain indoors even long after the smoking has stopped. Similar to low-level lead exposure, low levels of tobacco particulates have been associated with cognitive deficits among children, and the higher the exposure level, the lower the reading score. These findings underscore the possibility that even extremely low levels of these compounds may be neurotoxic and, according to the researchers, justify restricting all smoking in indoor areas inhabited by children.

Link

Photo by lanier67

Thanks, Linda!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: Air, Chemicals, Children's Health, Environmental Illness, Home, Indoor Pollution, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Research, Stink, Toxic

10 Responses to “Low levels of cigarette smoke residue highly toxic”

Ruth

30. Dec, 2008

This is an excellent article!! I’d like to be able to show it to the woman across the hall from me….she smokes extreme amounts of cigs every day…when her door is open to the hallway, even slightly, the strong odor of cigarettes spills out into the hallway…this is the reason that the landlord won’t remove one of the 7 plug-in air freshners that are on this floor, that continues to polllute my air space every day of my living here. Yes! I will get out of here as soon as possible….but hope that I won’t go from the frying pan into the fire!!! My choices are so limited.

Reply to this comment
Irene

30. Dec, 2008

again …Thank you I printed this out last night as I awake to view all the butts by my neighbours under the melted snow . they are not suppose to smoke on property!! Right ‘

“What’s your problems ,it’s only smoking not our laundry today”…

I shutter today that I must get from under the less snow I HOPE to reach my van so as to travel for water /food etc. I also must bring gifts to an old friend who reeks of cig.smoke and get away out side his house before he gives me a hug of gratitude.! my gift from him would be Stop smoking as I can not be safe being your friend! Smoke bar b q… shaving lotion ,soaps hair gel.,Downy .
… PS.. was out for 5 1/2 hrs . 3 months ago from neighbours smoke,required trip to ER . WOW!! so thank you I will once again take this printed copy to many people I know !! big thank you Susie.

Your site continues to give me courage to continue that I too have rights, the right to clean air!! have a great day . Irene BC Canada

Reply to this comment
Leslie

30. Dec, 2008

This is an amazing report, as a child I was exposed to alot of cigs growing up – my family would play board games, smoke cigs and get drunk. I developed some strong reactions to it by the time i was a teen and never smoked one in my life. I also had learning disablities like they describe here. There are alot of cause for things like that, but certainly exposing children to toxic fumes, particles and other chems can only make the behavior much worse. It’s too bad Bog Pharma decides to just drug these poor kids with ADD meds when really they just need healthy lifestyles and diets!

Reply to this comment
linda

30. Dec, 2008

Fragrance chemicals also cause 2nd and 3rd hand exposures as most of us know.

Coming near anyone who has shopped in a regular supermarket or pharmacy will affect me the same way as walking in the door myself (I haven’t been able to step foot in one in over 3 years, nor be near anyone who has, or even have food or anything that has sat in one of those places unless in glass – and even that has to be washed before I can safely be near it!!!) the chems are so volatile and powerful and stick to hair and clothing and everything else like nobody’s business.

And like we canaries all know. a $3 plug in can permanently ruin even a million dollar home, with the way those chems seep into all the nooks and crannies, and then permanently re-release those VOC’s.

I think fragrance chemicals will prove to be even more harmful than tobacco smoke.

Reply to this comment
Leslie

31. Dec, 2008

You know Linda, i think you are totally right. People can deny as they might that chems stick in clothes hair and other objects but science as we know it doesn’t even allow for that to make sense – we all know that molecules are all constantly moving, interacting and vibrating … outgassing are molecules breaking free and then we inhale them – whether it be just a little or a whole lot. Some people react stronger then others, some breathe these things and then catch colds 7 times a year and develop cancer – never understanding that over exposure to daily modern chems might have contributed to their ill health.
Also, I think fragrance is definitely going to be worse them tobacco, mainly because tobacco is a natural plant and although some plants can harm us, it’s the man made stuff that always seems to be the worst in the end. Also, big tobacco companies use pesticides, additives, bleached paper and all sorts of BS that make those cigs way way worse!

Reply to this comment
Ruth

31. Dec, 2008

You know the thing that amazes me most, is that everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY, isn’t sick, right now!!!! But then I think of all the millions of people who aren’t sick, just doing their thing, not having a clue about any of this stuff (chemicals) and I remember that I was one of them for most of my life!!
Does it take getting sick to wake a person up????

Reply to this comment
Leslie

31. Dec, 2008

I think it takes something personal to wake people up – if they are not effected then they won’t want to change their habits. Sometimes people ARE effected and still can’t bear to change their habits.

Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

31. Dec, 2008

More and more research is showing that low levels of toxic chems are actually HIGHLY toxic. Why or how the bodies and minds of people with MCS know this is still a mystery to science, but dammit, WE KNOW it.

The National Institutes of Health say that 30% of the general population in the US is chemically sensitive to some degree, meaning maybe not with MCS, but having some sort of symptoms from toxic chem exposure. Most people are not making the connections with between their symptoms and everyday chems in the environment, and Leslie you are right, most people (and the chem industry for that matter) don’t wanna change anyway unless totally forced to because of health or financial reasons. That’s human (and corporate) nature.

Reply to this comment
Amanda

29. Aug, 2009

This is a wonderful informative website and I applaud your efforts and all the important hard work you’re doing. It gives me hope! I created a blog about the same critical issue and I’m doing what I can to raise awareness on this critical vital issue from my own personal experience. I’m striving to raise awareness about the vital importance of protecting children and animals from the horrifying dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke. Please love your animals and don’t smoke anywhere near them! The blog discusses everything
related to big tobacco, non-smokers’ rights, and all the health dangers related to smoking and having to breathe secondhand smoke and secondhand smoker’s breath. I invite you to please take a few moments to take a look and share it with those you love and care about and help them quit the nasty ugly habit. http://smokenscreens.blogspot.com

Thank you,
Amanda

Reply to this comment
linda

31. Aug, 2009

Hello Amanda, Thanks for being so passionate about the SHS issue, and I hope you are looking beyond just the 2nd hand smoke issue as an Indoor Air Quality and environmental health issue, and into the fragrance issue too.

Fragrances can contain as many and more harmful chemicals as shs, and can damage as much and more of the body, as they contain not only carcinogens, but endocrine disruptors and neurotoxicants as well.

I have found most non-smoking advocates are unwilling to deal with the fragrance chemical issue, as they prefer the scent of fragrance chemicals to smoke. We canaries know both are harmful.

Reply to this comment