Redrant: I occasionally get newsletters from the Enviormental Protection Agency. There is an Superfund arsenic remediation programs near my South Minneapolis house. There was an arsenic pesticide plant just North of Lake Street and Hiawatha Av. The EPA admits that arsenic dust from the former facility spread over a very wide area but the EPA claims that the arsenic are low enough so they don't pose a threat. Arsenic is well proven as a carcinogen.
The "safe level" rationale is based one seemingly practical economic and practical reasons. First the economic reasoning. Remediation consists of digging up the top four to six inches of soil, replacing the soil and re sodding. Obviously a costly operation. For the practical reasons, I am a mile south east of the former plant site so I would logically have relatively low arsenic dust "fallout" and test samples in the area have confirmed this.
That said, there is above normal arsenic levels. An arbitrary decision was made on "acceptable risk" of cancer and other health problems. Having researched out arsenic a bit, I feel relatively comfortable with the situation. I try to wait until after a light rain to mow the lawn, to avoid kicking up up too much dust but otherwise don't worry very much.
For the EPA the "safe level" rationale has a practical side. If the EPA took a position of "no safe level of arsenic dust from the old pesticide plant" the cleanup area might extend from I 35W to the Mississippi River. It could further extend as detection technologies improve. Chemicals now be detected in the parts per billion or sometimes parts per trillion. If there is "no safe dose" the "risk" would expand and detection technology increases. For a somewhat comical example of there were headline earlier this year about caffeine being found in the Minneapolis water supply. The concentration was so small that a typical cup of coffee has 50,000 times the caffeine as the tested drinking water.
This is comical because the wild roses in my yard probably contain caffeine in their leaves as do a number of other leaves. The caffeine was probably from natural vegetation runoff, not upstream pollution.
The widely discredited EPA report on Secondhand Smoke made the claim, "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke." This "no safe level" claim contradicts the EPA risk criteria philosophy. It is also a "bear trap" because of steadily improving detection technology. The EPA secondhand smoke report seemed to severely "cherry pick" data. The EPA report, over 700 pages made no mention of the Framingham Heart study, which found no detectable additional risk with non-smoking spouses of smokers versus spouses of smokers. The Framingham study was large, starting out with close to 5000 participants in 1948 and it is 60 years "longitudinal", tracking up to four generations.
The "third-hand smoke" concept is not new. When my parents were out of town I had to check on their house and do some work on it. These were not "bar clothes" but the had a smoke smell when I got home. If you wash the inside windows of a smokers house or car you defintely notice the smoke. Someone once borrowed my pickup for moving and smoked in it. It was summer and I could smell it for several weeks in the truck.
These are all examples of "third hand smoke". It exists but the "no safe level" claim is scientifically invalid. With science, you need to prove your claim rather than try to make the other side prove that your claim isn't true. As the old saying goes, "the burden of proof is on the accuser". You cannot prove something by deductive logic. As an example, you can argue that with billions of stars in the universe it only stands to reason that some of these stars contain planets with intelligent life. Perhaps there is, it cannot be proved that life does not exist on other planets outside of our solar system but no one has found any "little green men" or other signs of extra terrestial intelligent life that can be verified. The same is true of "third hand smoke".
Please read he source article linked and pasted below. Greg Lang
Thirdhand Smoke Boosts Cause of Anti Smoking Groups and May Lead to More Smoking Bans
Third hand smoke is in the news, and unless you have lived under a rock, you know that cigarette smoking is bad for you, and second hand smoke has been indicated in a host of undesThird-Hand Smoke Debate Reveals Dangerous Lack of Common Sense Fueled by Tainted Studies
What is Third Hand Smoke?
The New York Times is warning parents that cracking a window and aiming a fan to get rid of their cigarette smoke might not be enough to keep kids safe from health hazards associated with cigarette smoking and nicotine. The paper refers to it as a "toxic brew," and while this sounds a lot like the verbiage used by anti smoking groups, there might be something deeper here.
The Difference between Second Hand Smoke and Third Hand Smoke
Secondhand smoke is generally defined as tobacco smoke that is involuntarily inhaled by individuals other than the smoker. Since second hand smoke contains the same carcinogens as the smoke inhaled by the one smoking, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2002 that "second hand smoke ... is carcinogenic to humans."
Once secondhand smoke leaves the area, the venue is thought to reset to a smoke free locale and without any cigarette smoke present, the air is supposed to be healthy again. Although this might be true of the air, it apparently does not hold true of the materials which the cigarette smoke touched.
The Nitti Gritty of Thirdhand Smoke
It stands to reason that the heavy metals -- and other carcinogens which are airborne in the smoke -- at some point will land on terra firma, creating a cancerous patina. This assumption has been proven and reported on as far back as 2004! Tobacco Control published a researcher paper in which it termed third hand smoke as "environmental tobacco smoke;" a term that just never caught on.
The study proved that the dust found in the homes of smokers - just like other household surfaces - contains nicotine. Infants notorious for sticking virtually anything into their mouths or touching surfaces and then placing their hands into their mouths, get a steady diet of nicotine and whatever other carcinogens have attached themselves to the furniture, rugs, and other areas of the home.
Is 3rd Hand Smoke for Real? The American Academy of Pediatrics Says Yes!
It matters little how you "feel" about the issue of smoking in your home, whether or not the government should tell you to quit, or if the latest California smoking ban - when you are driving with minors in the care - is your nanny state at work. It is hard to argue with scientific evidence, and it appears that the American Academy of Pediatrics has the goods.
It is interesting to note that the study sets out with the statement "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke." This creates a common ground that is hard to refute. Moreover, the publication next cites a variety of studies that prove the existence of what it terms "thirdhand smoke."
What Do American Consumers Say?
The study sampled 1,510 households of which 273 self identified as smoking households. 84.1% of the smokers agreed that second hand smoke held dangers for the health of children but only 43.3% felt the same way about third hand smoke, showing a rather glaring disconnect.
What is more, of the nonsmokers, 95.4% agreed with the statement that secondhand smoke was bad for kids' health, but only 65.2% felt the same way about thirdhand smoke. The study concludes with the statement that further education in the matter "may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans."
Consumer Gullibility versus Real Life against the Backdrop of Tainted Studies
Having grown up in a smoke filled home, I can attest first hand to the yellowish patina that forms over time on thewallpaper and household surfaces, even with regular cleaning. Common sense and the laws of gravity dictate that what goes up must come down, and heavy metals in the smoke of tobacco are no exception.
In stark contrast to common sense and the obvious stand medical studies, such as the 2003 one by James Enstrom, which concludes that "results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect." Too bad the bill for this study was footed by tobacco giant Philip Morris, as proven by the University of California, San Francisco.
At the end of the day, you have to make up your own mind with respect to second or third hand cigarette smoke. Suffice to say, living smoke free will be a lot healthier for your children and for yourself.
Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research/03smoke.html?ref=health;http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/1/29?ijkey=7cdc2d9a55d6798eda2ea0214b95ab08cb30ae27&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha;http://www.inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol83/02-involuntary.html;http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/e74;http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057;http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dfk37d00/pdf;jsessionid=5733B05BB6A1FD317D4596889F7936F1
