Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cigarette smoke smell

  1. Oct 18, 2006 #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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 19, 2006 #2

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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...
     
  4. Oct 19, 2006 #3
    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 im 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.
     
  5. Oct 19, 2006 #4

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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
     
  6. Oct 19, 2006 #5

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    :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? :confused:
     
  7. Oct 20, 2006 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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
    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.
     
  8. Oct 20, 2006 #7

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  9. Oct 22, 2006 #8
    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 occuring 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?
     
  10. Oct 22, 2006 #9
    Is the problem in the tar? Also, I wonder how long the sss has to linger to be harmful.
     
  11. Oct 22, 2006 #10

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  12. Oct 23, 2006 #11

    Ouabache

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    For those who are affected by allergens in cigarette smoke (I am a member of that population), residual smoke does pose a health problem.
     
  13. Oct 23, 2006 #12

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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?
     
  14. Oct 23, 2006 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2006
  15. Oct 23, 2006 #14

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What argument?
    I was asking Ouabache his opinion related to his particular problem.
     
  16. Oct 25, 2006 #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.
    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.
     
  17. Oct 26, 2006 #16

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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
     
  18. Oct 28, 2006 #17
    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.
     
  19. Oct 28, 2006 #18

    Ouabache

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2006
  20. Oct 28, 2006 #19

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  21. Oct 28, 2006 #20

    NoTime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Cigarette smoke smell
  1. The Physics of Smells? (Replies: 10)

  2. Hormones and smoking (Replies: 4)

  3. Smoking gun. (Replies: 4)

  4. The smell of spiders (Replies: 8)

Loading...