Cigarette Smoke Smell: Health Hazards & Time Factors

[chrisdimassi]

Everyone's been in a house or motel room and smelled the residue of tar from cigarettes that stays in walls, carpet and ducts from previous smokers.
The important question is does it pose a hazard to health? How much, if at all, does the threat diminish with time?

 

[NoTime]

No. Last report I saw says second hand smoke is not a hazard. Don't think the smell even qualifys as second hand smoke.

OTOH, The formaldehyde outgassing from the particle board furniture, the fungus growing in the ducts, whatnot from the carpet, and the lead paint on the walls...

 

[dansydney]

I remember reading a lengthy report a few months back about the soil that certain tobacco was grown in. It seems certain brands grow their tobacco in soils containing radioactive elements and these can be transferred to the plant and therefore into the ciggarettes that you smoke. It also noted that the radioactive particles given off with the smoke can stay in the residue in homes etc if you smoke indoors. I think the report was pointing out that in excess the smoke build up in the house can give up radioactive elements but I am unsure as to how severe they may be. The main element they referred to was polonium-147? i believe(number is most likely wrong sorry for that), just my addition to the post.

 

[Evo]

I remember reading a lengthy report a few months back about the soil that certain tobacco was grown in. It seems certain brands grow their tobacco in soils containing radioactive elements and these can be transferred to the plant and therefore into the ciggarettes that you smoke. It also noted that the radioactive particles given off with the smoke can stay in the residue in homes etc if you smoke indoors. I think the report was pointing out that in excess the smoke build up in the house can give up radioactive elements but I am unsure as to how severe they may be. The main element they referred to was polonium-147? i believe(number is most likely wrong sorry for that), just my addition to the post.

I found this citation "Lung cancer: is the increasing incidence due to radioactive polonium" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3003925&dopt=Abstract

But oddly, this was another "Radon testing in households with a residential smoker--United States, 1993-1994." "This report summarizes the results of this analysis, which indicates that households with a residential smoker are significantly less likely to test for radon than those without smokers". Were the houses tested for radon prior to the smoker moving in? If not, what's the merit of such a study? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=10484124&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[NoTime]

which indicates that households with a residential smoker are significantly less likely to test for radon than those without smokers".

:rofl: Obviously smokers can detect radon and avoid living in a radon filled house.

Hmmm
I read onetime that with the reduction of smokers, that lung cancer rates have gone down, while the overall cancer rate has gone up.

What's up with that?
Is smoking protective against cancer in general with the exception of lung cancer?

 

[russ_watters]

No. Last report I saw says second hand smoke is not a hazard.

Actually, we now have the first direct evidence that SSS is a hazard, coming from businesses in cities that have recently gone smoke free. I read an article about it just a week ago: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=53873

Bar workers in Scotland showed significant improvements in respiratory symptoms and lung function within 2 months following a ban on smoking in confined public places, according to a study in the October 11 issue of JAMA.

Don't think the smell even qualifys as second hand smoke.

No, I wouldn't think so. A lingering smell from a someone smoking in a room a few days ago would be very unlikely to be harmful.

 

[NoTime]

Aggravation of Asthma?

20 people out of 77 claimed an improvment in symtoms.

Why don't you cut down all the trees, bushes and flowers.
As well as get rid of all the smoke beltching power plants and cars while your at it.

 

[chrisdimassi]

:rofl: Obviously smokers can detect radon and avoid living in a radon filled house.

Hmmm
I read onetime that with the reduction of smokers, that lung cancer rates have gone down, while the overall cancer rate has gone up.

What's up with that?
Is smoking protective against cancer in general with the exception of lung cancer?

The population has risen in general so there will be higher rates of every disease. Now if you mean that the percentages have actually gone up, there are lots of things to account for that. The main one being the american diet has gotten worse and worse.
Fast food gets cheaper and cheaper (the dollar menu wars, lol!) and most people don't have or make the time to prepare healthy food (not freezer dinners and packaged stuff) at home.

One interesting thing to note is that there are naturally occurring carcinogens in produce such as apples! http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.103/pub_detail.asp"

I guess it's the good elements in those foods that are counteracting all of the bad?

 

[chrisdimassi]

Actually, we now have the first direct evidence that SSS is a hazard, coming from businesses in cities that have recently gone smoke free.

Is the problem in the tar? Also, I wonder how long the sss has to linger to be harmful.

 

[NoTime]

Is the problem in the tar? Also, I wonder how long the sss has to linger to be harmful.

Look at the study.
There is no control group.
This would be important because other environmental concerns like general ozone levels or the reproductive cycles of various plants have great impacts on asthmatic symptoms.
Seems like it would be easy enough to find a control group either from nonsmoking resturant employees (a similar occupation) or since they claim there is no economic impact, then nonsmoking bars. Basic economic principals would say that if there is a demand then someone will provide the product.

Also the count of people with no symptom change plus the count of people who claimed improvement don't total to the number of participants.

Did the remaining people show worse symptoms?
Convienently ignored because that wouldn't support their hypothesis?

Frankly, studies of the placebo effect say the should have gotten better numbers than they show.

AFAIK there is no statistically significant connection between sss and health issues.

 

[Ouabache]

For those who are affected by allergens in cigarette smoke (I am a member of that population), residual smoke does pose a health problem.

 

[NoTime]

Peanuts will kill people that are allergic to them.

If your allergic to tobacco smoke then chances are that your allergic to wood stoves and fireplaces, since the byproducts are almost identical.

So do you think they should make fireplaces and peanuts illegal?

 

[russ_watters]

No Time, you are not arguing logically. Whether or not you want to ban peanuts, the fact of the matter is that some people are allergic to them (as you say). The two question simply don't have to be related. And whether or not you want to ban cigarettes, the fact of the matter again is that they are harmful. Same thing again - and the OP was asking about whether it is harmful, not whether or not you think it should be made illegal.

 

[NoTime]

No Time, you are not arguing logically. Whether or not you want to ban peanuts, the fact of the matter is that some people are allergic to them (as you say). The two question simply don't have to be related. And whether or not you want to ban cigarettes, the fact of the matter again is that they are harmful. Same thing again - and the OP was asking about whether it is harmful, not whether or not you think it should be made illegal.

What argument?
I was asking Ouabache his opinion related to his particular problem.

 

[chrisdimassi]

Indeed I did not not mention second hand smoke, Russ. There's no doubt that second hand smoke is dangerous (cancer, emphysema, asthma) by degree of amount and length of exposure.
So that wasn't my question.
No Time, you sound like someone trying out for a leading role in the movie, "Thank you for Smoking".

Anyway, I asked about the residue from the cigarettes...
If anyone knows what makes up the residue that is left behind (on walls and in ducts) and whether or how unhealthy it is.

 

[NoTime]

Both my parents smoke so I have an interest in looking at the data.

I managed to find a link on the web.
Since they do provide links to the actual reports you can read them yourself.
Seems to me that Unable to find an exposure response curve is a fairly consistant finding.
With a relative risk around 1, dosn't look like much going on.
They nicely provide a key of what the numbers mean at the bottom of the page.

http://193.78.190.200/smokersclub/studies.html

 

[chrisdimassi]

If you live in the house, then you definitely have no choice but to breathe second hand smoke. However, the risk is minimized the further you are from the smoker and the shorter the duration (number of years). Unless you live with them for the next 30 years, there probably won't be enough signficant damage for you to get emphysema or lung cancer. Especially if you aren't asthmatic, never smoke and don't become a firefighter.
I don't understand why parents don't just smoke outside.

 

[Ouabache]

...If your allergic to tobacco smoke then chances are that your allergic to wood stoves and fireplaces, since the byproducts are almost identical.
So do you think they should make fireplaces and peanuts illegal?

In aggreement with Russ, the OP "appears" to be asking whether the residual smell from cigarettes, poses a health hazard.
I don't believe Russ was arguing with you. Argument is a term commonly used in the study of valid inference or logic.

My physiology does react to the residual gases, with an debilitating allergic reaction (a heath risk). In answer to your other question; no I don't think they should make fireplaces and peanuts illegal.

post #1
Everyone's been in a house or motel room and smelled the residue of tar from cigarettes that stays in walls, carpet and ducts from previous smokers.
The important question is does it pose a hazard to health? How much, if at all, does the threat diminish with time?

post #15
Indeed I did not not mention second hand smoke, Russ. There's no doubt that second hand smoke is dangerous (cancer, emphysema, asthma) by degree of amount and length of exposure. So that wasn't my question.
Anyway, I asked about the residue from the cigarettes...
If anyone knows what makes up the residue that is left behind (on walls and in ducts) and whether or how unhealthy it is.

Chris, Your original question led me to believe your post referred to the "smell of the residue". The residue left behind from tobacco smoke is not just a substance left on the wall, it includes the gasses absorbed by the walls, wood, carpet, mattress, pillows, window shades, curtains, etcs. That absorbed residue outgasses back into the air of the room and poses a health risk as we discussed.

I don't know the compositon of the discolored substance left on walls. Perhaps the chemists on our forum may have a better handle on that. It probably contains at least, carbon and tar.

 

[NoTime]

I don't understand why parents don't just smoke outside.

For one, I haven't seen any scientific evidence that there is any particular harm in it.
Lots of religion though.
The insurance companies dock you 5 years on your potential life expectancy, if you smoke.
If you don't have the genetic allele that makes you prone to emphysema, I doubt that any of this is any concern.
I wouldn't mind seeing some numbers on this, but there is a lot of complaints about using genetic data for insurance purposes.

I don't see any reason to gripe at them.

My younger sister would agree with you.

PS: I read a report last year that said being 10lbs overweight had the health risk equivilent to smoking a pack of cigaretts a day.
Something to think about.

 

[NoTime]

My physiology does react to the residual gases, with an debilitating allergic reaction (a heath risk). In answer to your other question; no I don't think they should make fireplaces and peanuts illegal.

Are you allergic to fireplaces?

Seems to me that burning a C14 plant is burning a C14 plant.
With the exception of the nicotine there doesn't seem to be anything particuarly unique about the plant.

Just curiosity.

 

[Moonbear]

NoTime, you're arguing nonsense. There is no difference between first hand smoke and second hand smoke...it's all smoke coming from the same cigarette. And yes, there IS a difference between smoke from burning wood and smoke from a cigarette, and that's the nicotine content. Tar is also an additive to cigarettes. It is NOT healthy to inhale smoke from ANY source, so I don't know where you're trying to go with any argument that it would be safe.

I hardly would expect a site called "Smoker's Club" to provide an unbiased review of literature on the subject.

Just a handful of the articles that do show harmful effects of second-hand smoke:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=17027075&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=17035147&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=17000575&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=17000095&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16948348&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_DocSum

As to the original question of whether the residues left in a hotel room are harmful, I don't know how harmful, and it would likely depend on how long ago the room had been occupied by smokers and what components of the residue are remaining when you get there. I only found one old study that might even begin to address the question:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=434927&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_DocSum

I think so much focus has been on the smoke itself that little attention is given to the surface residue in a room that someone was smoking in, and what continues to linger in the air from that residue (if you can smell it, something is airborne). I can only offer that there might be something coming along in the near future that addresses the effects of residue clinging to smokers on their children based on some brief discussions with people who are working in that area (i.e., with parents who smoke, but claim to always step outside and smoke away from their children, but would still have the residues clinging to their body and clothing). Those studies aren't complete and aren't published, so I won't discuss any more details than that because I don't know whether it will turn out to have an effect or not. Or, perhaps it doesn't and that's why there is little in the literature on it.

 

[chrisdimassi]

Chris, Your original question led me to believe your post referred to the "smell of the residue". The residue left behind from tobacco smoke is not just a substance left on the wall, it includes the gasses absorbed by the walls, wood, carpet, mattress, pillows, window shades, curtains, etcs. That absorbed residue outgasses back into the air of the room and poses a health risk as we discussed.

I don't know the compositon of the discolored substance left on walls. Perhaps the chemists on our forum may have a better handle on that. It probably contains at least, carbon and tar.[/QUOTE]


The composition is what's puzzling me. There is an asthmatic in the household and the smell causes a burning sensation in the mucoid membranes. It's made me wonder just what is left behind and the effects.
Generally, when there is smell, there is substance. Have you ever "tasted" rubbing alcohol when dressing a wound? That's because the fumes literally are the rubbing alcohol and you are literally tasting it!
I don't know to what extent this applies with cigarette residue but you folks who have allergies certainly know that something isn't good with teh stuff.
Outgassed residue from walls and carpet is making me think "formaldehyde". Indeed some very nasty stuff!
Ionizers and hepa filters have not done much to help her situation.

 

[chrisdimassi]

For one, I haven't seen any scientific evidence that there is any particular harm in it.
Lots of religion though.
The insurance companies dock you 5 years on your potential life expectancy, if you smoke.
If you don't have the genetic allele that makes you prone to emphysema, I doubt that any of this is any concern.
I wouldn't mind seeing some numbers on this, but there is a lot of complaints about using genetic data for insurance purposes.

I don't see any reason to gripe at them.

My younger sister would agree with you.

PS: I read a report last year that said being 10lbs overweight had the health risk equivilent to smoking a pack of cigaretts a day.
Something to think about.

Your parents really should be griped at for smoking in the house. They have a choice, you don't.
It might never affect you, the effects probably depend upon how much exposure over how much length of time, in addition to genetic factors.

Being overweight is a big problem for the health. However, there is no lung damage left behind from being overweight. Once weight is lost, the after-affects seem to mostly be cosmetic.
A doctor will be quicker to ask "have you ever smoked" than "have you ever been overweight". Insurance companies know their stuff. They are unbiased because their bottom line is profit.
We could start picketing them for being sexist (insurance for young females is cheaper than for young males). As cold and uncaring as they are, they don't have any agenda, they simply look at statistics to make those kinds of decisions. Young males get in more/worse wrecks than young females.

I hope that you do not grow up to be a smoker. I've known 3 people with emphysema who were long-time smokers.
One rolled his wheelchair outside and put a gun to his head because he was tired of suffering. His wife was in the house at the time.
The other two suffered horribly (not sure if either are still alive) with wheezing that sounded as bad or worse than any case of asthma I've ever heard.

 

[Ouabache]

Are you allergic to fireplaces?

Seems to me that burning a C14 plant is burning a C14 plant.
With the exception of the nicotine there doesn't seem to be anything particuarly unique about the plant.

Just curiosity.

I'm allergic to the fungal saprophytes that colonize the tobacco as it cures in the drying barns.

Your guess about firewood is partially true, however I'm not allergic to the wood but to the fungi that colonize the wood as they season. In both cases, I'm inhaling fungal allergens that become airborne when burned. I don't have an allergic reaction to smoke from unseasoned firewood.

 

[chrisdimassi]

Speaking of wood, pine and cedar are irritating to most asthmatics. A few articles reference the production of enzymes in the liver of animals exposed to them, also!
If you have caged critters (ferrets or rabbits/other rodents), avoid cedar and pine wood shavings.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/1999/Cook/Text.htm#EFFECTS%20OF%20SOFTWOODS%20ON

Incidentally, bugs tend to avoid cedar and pine oils.
Citronella is something that also aggravates many asthmatics and since bugs tend to avoid that too, I wonder what a study on citronella might reveal.

 

[NoTime]

First let me thank you for response.
You are the first person to make an attempt to help clear this up for me.
Frankly, I'm just trying to get some idea of the actual validity of all these claims.
I would have to say this is not an easy thing to do.

My overall impression.
The medical industry can not cure heart diease or most cancers.
So rather than just say this, they tag on to something like cholesteral and give the impression that they are doing something by telling you to change your diet.

I once saw in a respected journal the comment to the effect "Diet has no significant effect on blood cholesteral levels"
My blood tests show just fine despite all the things I eat that are on the "It will kill you list" :uhh:

It's all about trust.
If you might have noticed in other theads, I don't think much of what I call the "illusion of safety".

NoTime, you're arguing nonsense. There is no difference between first hand smoke and second hand smoke...it's all smoke coming from the same cigarette.

True enough, there is however a huge difference in effective dose.

And yes, there IS a difference between smoke from burning wood and smoke from a cigarette, and that's the nicotine content. Tar is also an additive to cigarettes. It is NOT healthy to inhale smoke from ANY source, so I don't know where you're trying to go with any argument that it would be safe.

They sell nicotine over the counter to anyone who cares to buy it, since I had the occasion to read the box, there are no particular warning labels on it.
The problem seems to be strictly related to the smoke as you note.
It would be my understanding that tar is a combustion product, not an additive.

In general I will agree that smoke is not good for you.
This seems clear enough.

OTOH, there are a lot of sources of smoke.
I've never been driven out of the house by a smoker, but I have been driven out of various houses by the fireplace. I can also readily smell smokers, wood stoves, and fireplaces.
They all smell about the same to me but the latter two much more intense.

Since i am exposed, on a regular basis to fireplaces and wood stoves, with what I would say is greater exposure than anything I ever got at the folks house.
Should I be concerned?
If so, why isn't this being publicized?
I'm guessing that any worry I might express might be more dangerous than than the problem.
Worry, is after all, something I've seen as a health risk too.
So is this right or wrong?

Also the data I've seen on car exhaust, makes second hand smoke look like a fresh breeze.
No warnings on this effect either.
Unlike smoking reports, I did see exposure/response curves here.
I put in 50k to 60k miles a year, about 5 times what the average person might do.

So tell me what's up with that?
In other words, why should I be even remotely concerned about this cigarette issue when I'm commonly exposed to things that seem much more likely to have a far larger effect?
And why are these things not being mentioned?
Are they trying to give me a warm fuzzy with the smoking thing while ignoring major issues? :grumpy:

I hardly would expect a site called "Smoker's Club" to provide an unbiased review of literature on the subject.

The World Health Organization, one of the links on this page, does not strike me as a tool of the American tobbaco industry or the AMA for that matter.
Most of what I know of the subject comes from what I see in actual journals and the numbers look reasonably consitant with what I've seen before or the one abstract you show that included numbers.
This link is the first item you get when you type smoking studies into Google.

 

[NoTime]

Insurance companies know their stuff. They are unbiased because their bottom line is profit.

That's my take on it.
Barring the obvious emphysema connection.
Would their numbers be much different?
My guess is no.
Knowing those numbers would go a long way to answering my questions on this matter.

 

[NoTime]

I'm allergic to the fungal saprophytes that colonize the tobacco as it cures in the drying barns.

Your guess about firewood is partially true, however I'm not allergic to the wood but to the fungi that colonize the wood as they season. In both cases, I'm inhaling fungal allergens that become airborne when burned. I don't have an allergic reaction to smoke from unseasoned firewood.

Interesting.
So at least in principal, fireplaces and smoking can be considered similar?

BTW, how are you getting unseasoned firewood to burn?

 

[chrisdimassi]

First let me thank you for response.
You are the first person to make an attempt to help clear this up for me.
Frankly, I'm just trying to get some idea of the actual validity of all these claims.
I would have to say this is not an easy thing to do.
My overall impression.
The medical industry can not cure heart disease or most cancers.
So rather than just say this, they tag on to something like cholesterol and give the impression that they are doing something by telling you to change your diet.
I once saw in a respected journal the comment to the effect "Diet has no significant effect on blood cholesterol levels"
My blood tests show just fine despite all the things I eat that are on the "It will kill you list" :uhh:
It's all about trust.
If you might have noticed in other threads, I don't think much of what I call the "illusion of safety".

I don't know any more than anyone else here. Less, actually (which is why I asked the question here).
I am a non-smoker and I don't think anyone wants to force smokers to quit smoking, it's just that it needs to be done outside or an extremely well-ventilated room away from the air intake vent(s).

I do think that they haven't really gotten to the bottom of certain health issues (cholesterol being a good example of that, supposedly cholesterol is ironically involved in patching up weak areas of arteries yet when it and calcium, etc harden, they form dangerous plaque) but like any theory of science, the best guess or the latest findings of the day are what they have to go by.

They sell nicotine over the counter to anyone who cares to buy it, since I had the occasion to read the box, there are no particular warning labels on it.
The problem seems to be strictly related to the smoke as you note.
It would be my understanding that tar is a combustion product, not an additive.

I wouldn't be so sure that chewing tobacco doesn't harm the body. I think there is a higher incident of mouth and throat cancer with chawing.

OTOH, there are a lot of sources of smoke.
I've never been driven out of the house by a smoker, but I have been driven out of various houses by the fireplace. I can also readily smell smokers, wood stoves, and fireplaces.
They all smell about the same to me but the latter two much more intense.

That smoke might be harmful too but at least there is not the added harm of what's in tobacco. If the smoke goes straight up the chimney, that's helpful and homes with fireplaces don't generally have that same kind of lingering aftersmell that cigarettes do.
As a nonsmoker, there is nothing worse than being in a rental car when someone smoked in it.

Since i am exposed, on a regular basis to fireplaces and wood stoves, with what I would say is greater exposure than anything I ever got at the folks house.
Should I be concerned?
If so, why isn't this being publicized?

Good question. With pollution from companies, it's too bad that the EPA doesn't nail them harder than they do. Everyone "feels" okay because, unlike smoke in a house, it's usually harder to detect pollution after it is diluted with outdoor air. Money seems to make a lot of people look the other way.
However, I can tell you that there is a BIG difference from breathing NYC's air and breathing a small town in Texas' air. No doubt that stuff is killing people/shortening life spans.

In other words, why should I be even remotely concerned about this cigarette issue when I'm commonly exposed to things that seem much more likely to have a far larger effect?
And why are these things not being mentioned?
Are they trying to give me a warm fuzzy with the smoking thing while ignoring major issues? :grumpy:

We should be concerned with all of it. Logic requires, however, that we do what we can and smoking outside is certainly something that we can do.

Let's cut Moonbear some slack. Smokers can sometimes be very indignant and outright arrogant. Not all but...
it's more than once that I can recall someone lighting up in the non-smoking area of a restaurant.
Even if you were there first, they expect YOU to get up and leave! And will many times even tell you so!

So someone who appears to be swinging a pro-smoking axe can be difficult not to get frustrated with.
There's always two sides of a story.

I will talk about the movie "Thank you for smoking" when I get around to it. I thought there was no point to the movie after I watched it but after reflecting, it does make a person think.

 

[NoTime]

The best guess or the latest findings of the day are what they have to go by.

That's one of the problems I see.
Originally, there was no cholesterol test you could go to the DR for.
I also understand that diet can be helpful for people with a cholesterol problem, like the diabetes diet.
They got the idea that since they couldn't tell who had a problem, then get everybody to go on the diet
With a bureaucracy, once a process is in place, hell will freeze over before change occurs.
They never were willing to say nevermind, once it was possible to test people.

Emphysema was their original complaint on smoking and it was another 10 years or so before someone discovered the genetic connection.
They applied the same "everybody" solution they dreamed up with cholesterol.
Once a genetic test for the original problem was found, did they once again forget to stop?

I wouldn't be so sure that chewing tobacco doesn't harm the body. I think there is a higher incident of mouth and throat cancer with chawing.

I was thinking of the gum.

That smoke might be harmful too but at least there is not the added harm of what's in tobacco. If the smoke goes straight up the chimney, that's helpful and homes with fireplaces don't generally have that same kind of lingering aftersmell that cigarettes do.

This might be just me.
I think the residual on fireplaces is worse.

However, I can tell you that there is a BIG difference from breathing NYC's air and breathing a small town in Texas' air.

Once had a GF in The City.
I left one her chairs out on the balcony overnight.
Got the royal ream for that.
Found out why when I went to clean it.
Had to use a solvent to get that crap off.
Good thing it wasn't fabric :yuck:

Let's cut Moonbear some slack.

Moonbear is cool.
I always find her worth reading.

I will talk about the movie "Thank you for smoking" when I get around to it.

:rofl:

 

[chrisdimassi]

That's one of the problems I see.
Originally, there was no cholesterol test you could go to the DR for.

Emphysema was their original complaint on smoking and it was another 10 years or so before someone discovered the genetic connection.
They applied the same "everybody" solution they dreamed up with cholesterol.
Once a genetic test for the original problem was found, did they once again forget to stop?

Once had a GF in The City.
I left one her chairs out on the balcony overnight.
Got the royal ream for that.
Found out why when I went to clean it.
Had to use a solvent to get that crap off.
Good thing it wasn't fabric :yuck:

Keeping the arteries elastic is probably one of the best preventatives (so they don't develop cracks that need "patching" -one factor that eventually leads to clogged arteries).

Genetics might be part of it but if someone is exposed to a carcinogen long enough, they will get cancer. Genetics might factor in on, say for instance, which type of birth defect the offspring of the Chernobyl accident would get.

Been to NYC only once. Air is so thick you can cut it with a knife and driving there is a nightmare. What killed me was the "Honking: $500 fine". What was everybody doing? You guessed it!
As well as a line of people running the red lights...you literally had to "challenge" opposing cars when you have a green light!

About the movie "Thank you for Smoking":
I couldn't figure out what the real message was. First it looked like it was anti-smoking, then pro-smoking in the name of free will and democratic society. It went to a lot of extremes, jumped around (I guess) to show all sides of the debate.

This is what I think and of course I'm a non-smoker: cigarette smokers can be warned, even nagged about the dangers of smoking but because we do live in a free society, the government should not cross the line and ban smoking. It does not interfere with a person's ability to think or operate machinery as alcohol consumption does.
By the way, the reason why alcohol is not illegal is because it does not impair mental faculties after it has worn off. Certain drugs are illegal and should remain that way because they can have residual effects.

Smokers should be free to smoke outside of public buildings. Freedom to smoke does not mean freedom to pollute someone else's breathing space.
As for the argument about people with obnoxious cologne or hairspray, someone who bathes in cologne will usually cave to ostracization and the dirty looks they are given from people who are allergic or offended. Smokers, on the other hand, absolutely don't give a damn what anyone else thinks and will not give into social pressure to smoke elsewhere. That's why it had to become a law. :D
As far as insurance companies go, they are free to raise a smoker's rates.

It would be tempting to put a "sin tax" on ice cream and other junk foods but food in general is still necessary in order to survive, there is no survival argument for smoking. A cigarette would never save a starving man's life. Ice cream on the other hand, could. Unhealthy as it is in the long run.