Anti-Smoking Researchers Claim that Thirdhand Smoke is as Dangerous as Active Smoking

Thirdhand smoke is as dangerous as active smoking, according to anti-smoking researchers at the University of California, Riverside.

According to a Business Standard article entitled "Third-Hand Smoke Just as Lethal as First-Hand Smoke": "A scientist at the University of California, Riverside suggests that second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke are just as deadly as first-hand smoke. While first-hand smoke refers to the smoke inhaled by a smoker and second-hand smoke to the exhaled smoke and other substances emanating from the burning cigarette that can get inhaled by others, third-hand smoke is the second-hand smoke that gets left on the surfaces of objects, ages over time and becomes progressively more toxic."

The Business Standard reporter was not the only one to get this message from the study and its authors. According to an article at Medical Xpress: "Do not smoke and do not allow yourself to be exposed to smoke because second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke are just as deadly as first-hand smoke, says a scientist at the University of California, Riverside who, along with colleagues, conducted the first animal study of the effects of third-hand smoke."

The Business Standard and Medical Xpress reporters were not the only ones to get this message from the study and its authors. According to an article on the CBS Atlanta web site: "Exposure to surfaces and objects that have been saturated in cigarette smoke, labeled as “third-hand smoke,” may be as deadly as smoking the cigarette itself."

In the same article, the lead study author is quoted as stating that: "with prolonged exposure, they [children] may be at significant risk for developing more severe neurological disorders."

In addition, the authors concluded that: thirdhand smoke exposure among children causes "multiple short-term and longer health problems, many of which may not manifest fully until later in life."

To add icing to the cake, Medical News Today reported that: "researchers from this latest study say thirdhand smoke is left on surfaces and ages over time, becoming increasingly more toxic. The team suggests second and thirdhand smoke are just as harmful as firsthand smoke."

Where in the world did these reporters get the idea that thirdhand smoke could possibly be as harmful as active smoking? After all, thirdhand smoke is merely the residue from tobacco smoke that is deposited on surfaces and exposure occurs after smoking is no longer taking place.

Moreover, the study was a laboratory study involving mice. How could these reporters possibly extrapolate from a mouse study showing impairment of healing and liver damage in mice exposed to thirdhand smoke to the conclusion that thirdhand smoke is as harmful as active smoking?

The Rest of the Story

Where did the reporters get the crazy idea that this mouse experiment shows that thirdhand smoke, like active smoking, is lethal?

The answer:

From the researchers themselves!

A press release issued by UC Riverside states unequivocally that this research finds thirdhand smoke to be every bit as harmful as active smoking.

According to the press release: "Do not smoke and do not allow yourself to be exposed to smoke because second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke are just as deadly as first-hand smoke, says a scientist at the University of California, Riverside who, along with colleagues, conducted the first animal study of the effects of third-hand smoke."

This conclusion - that thirdhand smoke is deadly - was disseminated widely throughout the world. Headlines read like this:

"Third-Hand Smoke Could Kill You"

"Third-Hand Smoke Just as Deadly as First-Hand Smoke"

And all the way from Pakistan: "Third-Hand Smoke Just as Lethal as First-Hand Smoke"

Perhaps it should be no surprise that these researchers have drawn such a wild and scientifically implausible conclusion like this, one which does not follow at all from their actual research. Why? Because, as I revealed yesterday, these researchers had reached the conclusion of their study years ago, before even conducting the research! In fact, they drew their conclusions when they submitted their grant application. So it comes as no surprise to now see that they are drawing pre-determined conclusions that have nothing to do with their actual research.

The rest of the story is that this research is making a mockery out of the modern-day tobacco control movement.

But the story also has some serious and possible damaging implications.

One reason why these conclusions are so dangerous is that they may lead smokers to figure that there is no value in their smoking outside the home. If thirdhand smoke is as harmful as secondhand smoke, then why bother smoking outside?

In fact, this is precisely the way some are interpreting these findings. One article on the study is entitled: "Think smoking outdoors always protects others? This study suggests not."

If this study leads some smokers to smoke inside because they believe the researchers, who say that thirdhand smoke is no less harmful than secondhand smoke, then this could lead to serious public health harm to children.