Thread: third-hand smoke ??

Murderers!!!!
(Next up: Secondhand Drinking)
Whatever would we do without scientists?

When they're not spending millions of our tax dollars to inform us of things we already know, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...health/sexpert they're discovering heretofore unsuspected dangers lurking in the very fibers of our clothing, just waiting to bite us all in the evolutionary behind : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,474451,00.html

Researchers have identified "third-hand smoke," an invisible evil that acts like a deadly Ghost of Cigarettes Past: Polluting the air, killing innocent babies and ottomans — even if they aren't present at the time.
As you can guess, this research is geared toward one end only: The banning of all smoking on private property — including your home.

Never one to eschew intolerant, divisive fear mongering (even as it denounces intolerant, divisive fear mongerers who use fear and... well, fear as an argument for imposing their policy preferences on others), the New York Times doth not hesitate to wield its much renowned flexible urban viewpoint like the jackhammer of the Gods... that is, if there were such a ridiculous thing as a Supreme Being (an idea all open-minded and intelligent people properly reject out of hand): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/he...moke.html?_r=1

Parents who smoke often open a window or turn on a fan to clear the air of second-hand smoke, but experts now have identified another smoking-related threat to children’s health that isn’t as easy to get rid of: third-hand smoke.
That’s the term being used to describe the invisible yet toxic brew of gases and particles clinging to smokers’ hair and clothing, not to mention cushions and carpeting, that lingers long after smoke has cleared from a room. The residue includes heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials that young children can get on their hands and ingest, especially if they’re crawling or playing on the floor.

Doctors from MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston coined the term “third-hand smoke” to describe these chemicals in a new study that focused on the risks they pose to infants and children. The study was published in this month’s issue of the journal Pediatrics.

“Everyone knows that second-hand smoke is bad, but they don’t know about this,” said Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, the lead author of the study and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

“When their kids are out of the house, they might smoke. Or they smoke in the car. Or they strap the kid in the car seat in the back and crack the window and smoke, and they think it’s okay because the second-hand smoke isn’t getting to their kids,” Dr. Winickoff continued. “We needed a term to describe these tobacco toxins that aren’t visible.”

Third-hand smoke is what one smells when a smoker gets in an elevator after going outside for a cigarette, he said, or in a hotel room where people were smoking. “Your nose isn’t lying,” he said. “The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: ’Get away.’”

Run. Run for your lives, people. You may have only moments left to live.

Indeed, the list of things which are slowly killing the human race by inches continues to mount. For instance, we once thought cleanliness was next to Godliness. Now, thanks to Science, we know that Mr. Clean is nothing better than a sociopathic monster out to kill our children: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A9649C8B63

Children from extremely clean homes may be more likely to develop asthma and hay fever than those who grow up on farms or in families that allow a bit of dirt in the house, researchers are reporting.
Dirt and manure may be beneficial because they are swarming with bacteria, which can help an infant's immune system to mature and develop tolerance -- instead of allergies -- to environmental substances like pollen and animal dander.

The new findings, published today in The New England Journal of Medicine, add to a growing collection of evidence for the ''hygiene hypothesis.'' This theory suggests that 20th century advances like indoor plumbing, antibiotics and cleaner homes may have contributed to recent increases in allergy, asthma and eczema by decreasing rates of childhood infection. Some infections early in life, the argument goes, help the immune system develop properly.

And as for saving the planet, well, that too has its dark side: http://www.seventhgeneration.com/lea...n_carcinogenic

The more we learn, the more we learn we’ve really learned nothing at all, at least when compared to all the secrets that still lie hidden.
For example, there’s this absolutely fascinating article in today’s L.A. Times, which reports that some scientists think humanity’s ongoing obsession with hyper-cleanliness and its ever increasing microbiophobia (fear of germs), as evidenced by exploding sales of anti-bacterial products, may be contributing to the increases in some kinds of cancer we’ve been seeing lately.

It's enough to make the Editorial Staff go out into the garden and eat worms... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4215234.stm

"In Africa, for example, the immune system is too busy chasing after worms to bother going after house dust mites," explained Dr Fallon.
"In a developed society, the immune system is looking for things to respond to.

"It's evolved to see worms and suddenly there are no worms there. So suddenly house mites, peanuts - whatever the allergies are - occupy the immune system and it responds and causes disease," he told the British Association's Festival of Science in Dublin.

In a study in Gabon, Africa, schoolchildren that were infected with worms had lower allergic responses to house dust mites than children with no worms.

When the children had their worms removed by drugs they then developed increased allergic responses.

When are people going to accept that there is such a thing as having the path made too smooth?

We humans are made to overcome obstacles and challenges. Muscles only grow stronger by being used. We only grow calluses on our hands by friction (and often, by getting blisters first). Our immune systems grow stronger by being attacked - the mechanism is challenge and response.

If we humans remove every hard thing from our paths, we will weaken and die as a species. This is so simple and obvious it should not require saying.

The princess has heard innumerable "experts" of late lauding the Obama administration for its willingness to listen to the scientific community. Will any of these brainiacs tell him the truth: that human beings need some hardship in order to flourish?

If they did, would he listen? I doubt it.


http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcb...murderers.html

When they're not spending millions of our tax dollars to inform us of things we already know...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...health/sexpert

FOXSexpert: Ridiculously Obvious Sex Studies of 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
By Yvonne Fulbright

You don’t say. We fielded a number of studies this past year that warranted that response. Research findings were published all over the place that didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. But since sex sells, they became some of the year’s biggest headlines.

So, just like in 2007, here’s a rundown of the ridiculously obvious sex findings of 2008 ...


Attractive people probably have more sex.

Researchers at the University of Durham in Britain found that your face says it all. If you’re hot, people make the assumption that you get a lot of action. In looking at photographs of faces, most men and women were able to accurately judge whether the person would be a safe bet for a committed relationship or fling. Men whose faces were more “masculine” and women whose faces were more “attractive” were rated as likelier to have casual sex.

Unplanned pregnancy affects her quality of life.

Pregnancy is a tough adjustment — even when it’s planned. So imagine our lack of surprise when research in the September issue of Contraception found that 94 percent of sexually active women who don’t want to get pregnant wouldn’t feel as healthy if they got pregnant. Researchers concluded that unintended pregnancy has adverse effects on a woman’s quality of life … Really?

Porn as sex educator.

A study conducted by the Austrian Institute for Sexual Education found that over half of Austrian male youth rely on pornography for sex information. Not surprising, given the prevalence of porn. It’s also not a jaw-dropper that using porn as a resource has given both male and female youth a warped idea of what sex is.

She’s good to ride .... horses.

Research conducted by Dr. Shaheen Alanee and colleagues at the University of Minnesota found that horseback riding is not associated with female sexual dysfunction. Good to know, though I would’ve rather seen a study exploring how riding horses can benefit a gal’s sex life...

Methamphetamine use makes for risky sexual behaviors.

Chances are, if someone using drugs is having sex, then it is risky sex to begin with. Substance abuse has long been associated with risky sexual behaviors, so is it any wonder that research in the Journal of School Health found that using methamphetamine is associated with risky sexual behaviors and adolescent pregnancy?

He said/she said.

As if we didn’t know the genders don’t see eye to eye on sex ... Research in the College Student Journal found that men are more likely to think that oral sex is not sex, while women felt that such intimacy was very much sex. On the matter of cybersex, men did not regard it as cheating, while women did. Finally, men thought that the frequency of sex drops in a marriage, while women thought that it stays high.

It’s okay to pressure her.

It’s a sad reality that society has been grappling with forever. But still, it hurts to hear that research out of Sheffield University in England confirmed that teen boys think that it’s acceptable to pressure girls into sex — and to use alcohol in that effort.

Condoms make for less pleasure.

People are always complaining about having to use condoms. Researchers at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University found that women who used condoms, whether solo or with other hormonal methods, reported decreased sexual pleasure. The article in Sexual Health also reported that those who relied upon only a hormonal contraceptive were less likely to attribute any decreased sexual pleasure with their method.

Investigators concluded that a decrease in sexual pleasure would make these women less likely to use condoms consistently. Any sex educator on the front lines could’ve told them that. Duh!

Ugh! It’s Brad and Jen all over again.

An investigation conducted at Queen’s University Belfast found that sexual infidelity was more upsetting for men, whereas emotional unfaithfulness was more distressful for women. It was also found that men think that women have sex when they’re in love. You’re kidding? Hmmm ….

Intra … what?

Survey results published in the September 2008 issue of Contraception found that over 60 percent of 14- to 24-year-old females had never heard of an IUD — intrauterine device. This isn’t mind-blowing given most youth do not receive education on any contraceptives, period. Researchers concluded that women who are sexually active should be educated about IUD use – shocking. Of course, one also has to ask, why we should leave those who aren’t currently sexually active in the dark …

Abstinence-only programs do not delay the onset of intercourse.

In a Sexuality Research and Social Policy review of 56 studies assessing the impact of comprehensive, STD/HIV education, and abstinence-based sex education programs, most of these programs did not delay the initiation of sex.

Comparatively, about two-thirds of the comprehensive sex education programs showed a positive effect on young people’s sexual behavior, including delaying the loss of virginity and increasing condom and contraceptive use. Imagine: people are more likely to use contraceptives when they are taught how to use them.

A study to be published in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics draws a similar conclusion.

Such data wouldn’t have be such a broken record if it weren’t for the many states opting for ideology over scientific findings when it comes to in-school sex education.

It’s all in your head.

Sex is a mind-body-soul experience, with your brain being your biggest sex organ. Sexologists have been saying that for years, especially in helping people to understand sexual disorders. Yet this past year, we actually saw the publication of an article titled “Cognitions, emotions, and sexual response: Analysis of the relationship among automatic thoughts, emotional responses, and sexual arousal.”

Published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, this Portuguese study reported that men’s concern over erection negatively correlated with sexual arousal. For women, lack of erotic thoughts and failure to control intrusive thoughts were found to impact their sexual response.

Parents want comprehensive sex education.

For decades, parents have declared that they want their children to get information that protects them from pregnancy, HIV, and STDs. A study in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health once again found that nine out of 10 parents want their children to be educated on both contraception and abstinence.

Perhaps the only somewhat surprising news is that even parents who were Catholic, born-again Christian, or “politically very conservative” largely wanted their children to receive comprehensive sex ed, according to the study.

Dr. Yvonne K. Fulbright is a sex educator, relationship expert, columnist and founder of Sexuality Source Inc. She is the author of several books including, "Touch Me There! A Hands-On Guide to Your Orgasmic Hot Spots."

it all has to do with your carbon footprint!

:

This is on my local news too. Already we have one kook posting over and over.

From local site:
Health Experts Warn About Dangers Of Third Hand Smoke Save Email Print
Posted: 3:47 PM Jan 2, 2009
Last Updated: 3:47 PM Jan 2, 2009
13 comments



If you've made a New Years Resolution to quit smoking here's another
reason to keep you motivated. The health problems associated with smoking and second hand smoke exposure are well-known but now researchers are concerned about something called third-hand smoke.

Even if you don't smoke around your children, a study finds toxins from
tobacco smoke can linger in the air and on hair and clothing long after a
cigarette is put out -- and can transfer to a baby or small child easily.

Researchers say that even at low levels, tobacco particles have been
associated with cognitive problems in children. However, scientists also found that people who became aware about the dangers of third-hand smoke said they would be more willing to impose smoking restrictions inside their homes.



Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: Lynn Location: New Bern on Jan 3, 2009 at 03:55 PM
Are you kidding me ??? Maybe they can stretch it out to fourth hand smoke next year ! By the way, Mr. Obama smokes also. Don't see anyone calling him or his family mentally or physically damaged. I guess that might be considered racist to pick on THAT smoker too!

Posted by: RYAN Location: GREENVILLE on Jan 3, 2009 at 01:47 PM
THIS IS IDIOTIC--LETS NOT TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL DEBATE!! MY PARENT SMOKED AND NO ONE IN MY FAMILY IS HAVING ANY HEALTH PROBLEMS--THEY DONT SMOKE ANYMORE BUT THIS STUDY IS IDIOTIC AND A WASTE OF TIME--I SMOKE AND CAN STILL RUN 5 MILES A DAY AND AM IN PERFECT HEALTH--IF YOUR GOING TO DIE FROM CANCER YOU WOULD HAVE EVEN IF YOU DIDNT SMOKE--ASK DANA REEVE--OOPS CANT BECAUSE SHE DIED OF LUNG CANCER AND NEVER SMOKED A DAY IN HER LIFE--GET OFF THEHIGH HORSES!!!!

Posted by: VBush Location: MHCY on Jan 3, 2009 at 10:49 AM
To: Anti-Smoking Fanatic; Mr. Dillman doesn't really know anything about Obama except his name. Like most of the flock that voted for him, they really know nothing about the man except that he is black. Even our illustrious press don't know much about him. Of course, they didn't admit that until AFTER they got him elected. That is all they care about. Well, the Dems now have the House, Senate, and the White House. Let's see what happens now.

Posted by: anti-smoking fanatic Location: MHC on Jan 3, 2009 at 09:15 AM
Actualy, Mr. Dillman, Obama smokes cigarettes. I voted for him, but he does smoke. I do wonder if I would have voted for him had I known he smokes.

Posted by: Joseph Dillman on Jan 3, 2009 at 12:38 AM
To: Me ... For your information, Sir or Ma'am, I voted for now President-Elect MR. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, "Give Change A Chance!"I also voted for Ms. BEVERLY PERDUE! Perhaps they will be able to instigate CHANGE that will make TOBACCO USE illegal and the CRIME that it has always been! MR. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA will be the answer for this sick nation, and will remedy many wrongs. He knows that CIGARETTE SMOKING should be ILLEGAL. As for our dear old Tarheel State North Carolina, MS. BEVERLY PERDUE will set us straight in short order, Sir or Ma'am. Why do you ask who I VOTED for in the ELECTION, Sir or Ma'am? I suppose you voted for MR. GEORGE W. BUSH? He smokes big CIGARS, Sir or Ma'am. He is a TOBACCO USER! What an OUTRAGE and CRIME! We must place our hope in the regime of MR. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, who will hopefully OUTLAW TOBACCO cultivation, distribution, sale and usage ... and make them a CRIME TO DO TIME for in the POKEY, where TOBACCO USERS belong forever. USERS ARE VERY BAD!

Posted by: VBush Location: MHCY on Jan 2, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Aren't spelling, grammar, and punctuation part of the requirements for being a history teacher? No wonder we needed the No Child Left Behind Act.

Posted by: VBush Location: MHCY on Jan 2, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Come on guys, I posted to this hours ago. There is nothing wrong with the term fecal matter. I know your computer says there is but....jeesh!

Posted by: History Teacher Location: NC. on Jan 2, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Wake up North Carolina. Your lungs were not ment to inhale any type of tobacco smoke. In the long run. I guess the American Indians got us white people back. Have a peace pipe you will fell good? What we did not tell you smoking can lead to an early death. Thanks for the small pox white people. Have a smoke.

Posted by: Anti-smoking fanatic Location: MHC on Jan 2, 2009 at 10:50 PM
I think parents who smoke around their children should be charged with attempted murder. Hopefully this study can help parents see that cigarettes are DANGEROUS to children, even if the parent goes outside. Cigarette smell lingers and people who smoke stink.

Posted by: Buzz Location: out of the smoke on Jan 2, 2009 at 08:54 PM
Oh boy, if we catch you smokin' we're gonna throw the book at ya!, Un- fortunately as of this typing tobac is legal, stupid, but legal. How-ever if you are a 13 year old girl and get pregnant our society wants to be able to take you to have an abortion with-out your parents consent. you just have to set back and go Hummm. by the way the annointed one, (Barak) smokes so it must be OK, because he know all. By the way I am a confirmed anti-smoker, but what ever you want to do to your body, have at it, just not around me!!! Buzz

Posted by: Jamie Location: Washington on Jan 2, 2009 at 07:37 PM
Joseph let me be the first one to tell you that the wine you have been sipping on a little too much has gone to your head. Therefore, they should make that illegal too. Get real, tobacco was around before you were.

Posted by: Me Location: Washington on Jan 2, 2009 at 07:25 PM
Joseph, are you kidding me! Tell me one thing, please. Who did you vote for in the election, then let's talk.

Posted by: JOE Location: morehead city on Jan 2, 2009 at 06:42 PM
For the love of Christ. What next?? This is just one more way for the government to control what you do inside your own house.

Posted by: Joseph Dillman Location: Snug Harbor on Jan 2, 2009 at 06:23 PM
Tobacco should be ILLEGAL, and smoking should be BANNED! I believe anyone caught smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products should be CHARGED and CONVICTED in a court of law, and should do HARD TIME in a PRISON. I think about FIVE YEARS for the first offense, and LIFE for subsequent offenses. SIX MONTHS to TWO YEARS for chewing tobacco in any form. Anyone who is caught selling tobacco to minors, or selling black market tobacco, should suffer the DEATH PENALTY. Tobacco users are CRIMINALS, and especially CIGARETTE SMOKERS. They should all be SENT UP to DO TIME. I doubt they can be reformed. Give them one chance, I say, and then THAT'S IT. There should be ZERO TOLERANCE for all tobacco users, and especially for SMOKERS. Criminals belong BEHIND BARS, not out on the streets with normal people. We need a special TOBACCO USE POLICE ENFORCEMENT to LOWER THE BOOM on all tobacco users ... especially SMOKERS OF ALL SORTS. People who smoke don't deserve to live normally. SMOKERS are very BAD!!!

Posted by: firstdayonthepatch Location: Greenville on Jan 2, 2009 at 04:20 PM
This is very disturbing. I am working with children soon and I am very glad that I decided to quit!

Schools Implant IUDs in Girls as Young as 6th Grade Without Their Parents Knowing

Steven Ertelt, Rebecca Downs July 2, 2015

Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a high school in Seattle, Washington that is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control and doing so without parental knowledge or permission.







Ad Row 1







Position 9


The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as an abortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.

The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit, Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance. And while it’s lauded that the contraception is confidential, how can it be beneficial for a parent-child relationship when the parents don’t even know the devices or medication their daughter is using?

As it turns out, Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. As CNS News reports, more schools are fitting young girls — as young as 6th grade — with the devices and doing so without their parents knowing.

Middle and high school students can’t get a Coca-Cola or a candy bar at 13 Seattle public schools, but they can get a taxpayer-funded intrauterine device (IUD) implanted without their parents’ consent.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

School-based health clinics in at least 13 Seattle-area public high schools and middle schools offer long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), including IUDs and hormonal implants, to students in sixth-grade and above at no cost, according to Washington State officials.

LARCs are associated with serious side effects, such as uterine perforation and infection. IUDs, specifically, can also act as abortifacients by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.

The state and federally funded contraceptive services are made possible by Take Charge, a Washington State Medicaid program which provides free birth control to adults who are uninsured, lack contraceptive coverage, have an income at or below 260 percent of the Federal Poverty Level — or, in this case, to teens who don’t want their parents to know they’re on birth control.

In an email exchange with the Washington State Health Care Authority and CNSNews.com, a Take Charge spokesperson acknowledged that underage students are eligible for a “full array of covered family planning services” at school-based clinics if their parents meet the program’s requirements.

Take Charge added that “a student who does not want their parents to know they are seeking reproductive health services is allowed to apply for Take Charge using their own income, and if they are insured under their parents’ plan, the insurance would not be billed.”

When asked if a sixth grader could get an IUD implanted without parental consent, Take Charge told CNSNews.com: “We encourage all Take Charge providers to offer long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in their clinics. A young person does not need parental consent to obtain a LARC or any other contraceptive method…If the young person is not choosing abstinence, she would be able to select a LARC and have it inserted without parental consent.”

Parents, if you have children in these schools, you need to investigate and complain immediately. And all parents ought to take a look at the health policies of their young daughters’ schools to find out if a similar program is in place where you live.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/02/s...rents-knowing/


The first time a child gets a life threatening infection, (which is very possible), there is going to be a law suit from hell. I had an IUD that perforated my uterine wall and caused me major grief.. Kids can't get an aspirin but can get an IUD?

...

I wish this one was an urban legend but I googled it.. It is true..

..

It's 'the village' raising a child mentality!!!! 'We' know what's best for your child.

..

And I will bet you that they need parental permission to get their ears pierced