How "second-hand" is second-hand smoke?
June 13, 2008 12:26 AM Subscribe
I live with a roommate who smokes, but does so outside, in our balcony. While he never lights up indoors, I can often smell traces of his smoke when he comes indoors -- mainly on his body/clothes. Is this considered second-hand smoke and can it affect me?
The reason I am asking is because I have recently learned that due to family history and developments in my personal health, I have an elevated risk of contracting certain types of cancer. I am very concerned that his lifestyle will affect me. Am I being paranoid? How far away / potent does someone's second-hand smoke have to be to be able to affect someone else's health?
The reason I am asking is because I have recently learned that due to family history and developments in my personal health, I have an elevated risk of contracting certain types of cancer. I am very concerned that his lifestyle will affect me. Am I being paranoid? How far away / potent does someone's second-hand smoke have to be to be able to affect someone else's health?
IANAD, but I think you are being paranoid. The danger is inhaling smoke.
posted by gnutron at 12:46 AM on June 13, 2008
posted by gnutron at 12:46 AM on June 13, 2008
No, that's the smell of smoking, not second hand smoke.
posted by rokusan at 12:52 AM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by rokusan at 12:52 AM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
By smoking outside, your roommate is eliminating your direct exposure to one source of second hand smoke, which is the by-product smoke coming directly from the burning cigarette, and he's vastly reducing your exposure to his exhaled smoke stream, for the time he's out smoking on the balcony. But most cigarette smokers will continue to exhale trace amounts of smoke particles for the next 2 to 4 breaths after their last inhaled "drag." So, if he's ducking right back inside from the balcony, he could be, unwittingly, bringing back in several lungfuls of diluted smoke from each cigarette. If he'd stay out an extra minute or two, to clear his lungs, you might notice the difference, if he's typically going out for 8 or 10 smokes an evening. 4 residual lungfuls of diluted smoke times 10 cigarettes per evening = 40 lungfuls of diluted second hand smoke. Given that the tidal volume of adult lungs averages about 1/2 a liter, this is 20 liters of diluted secondhand smoke that may be coming into your living room each evening.
That's not a major level of contamination in a typical room volume of several hundred to a few thousand liters, but it's up to you to mention, if you feel strongly about it, I suppose. It might be more effective to run a HEPA filter in the living room, to positively remove smoke particles and other irritants, than to try to further modify the behavior of another adult, who is making a good faith effort to limit your direct exposure to second hand smoke.
posted by paulsc at 1:53 AM on June 13, 2008
That's not a major level of contamination in a typical room volume of several hundred to a few thousand liters, but it's up to you to mention, if you feel strongly about it, I suppose. It might be more effective to run a HEPA filter in the living room, to positively remove smoke particles and other irritants, than to try to further modify the behavior of another adult, who is making a good faith effort to limit your direct exposure to second hand smoke.
posted by paulsc at 1:53 AM on June 13, 2008
Just to qualify paulsc's comment, there are a 1000 litres in 1 cubic metre, so even a broom cupbard contains 1000s of litres of air, even a room that's 2m high by 2x3 is 12,000 litres of air.
posted by biffa at 4:36 AM on June 13, 2008
posted by biffa at 4:36 AM on June 13, 2008
Timory: Bullshit actually came under fire for that episode, for not fact-checking. Evidently, they took the first anti-non-smoking scientists they could find and put them on the show, without making sure how credible they were. (It was one of their first episodes, and they've since become much, much more careful.) Second hand smoke does come with health risks, but smelling smoke on your friend's clothes comes under the category of annoying, not health-threatening.
posted by phunniemee at 4:45 AM on June 13, 2008
posted by phunniemee at 4:45 AM on June 13, 2008
You're probably paranoid but it is certainly considered an increased risk for Sudden Infant Death syndrome in babies.... so it's not completely irrational. That said, I wouldn't worry about my health, but I'd move out because I'm passionately anti-smoking. Can't stand the smell.
posted by taff at 4:46 AM on June 13, 2008
posted by taff at 4:46 AM on June 13, 2008
taff- the smell of smoke on someone who has been smoking elsewhere is considered a risk for SIDS?
posted by gjc at 5:03 AM on June 13, 2008
posted by gjc at 5:03 AM on June 13, 2008
"Smoke sticks to clothing and hair. When your baby nestles on your shoulder with his nose on your smoke-contaminated clothing and near your hair your baby's inhales pollutants."
posted by LakesideOrion at 6:05 AM on June 13, 2008
posted by LakesideOrion at 6:05 AM on June 13, 2008
I think paulsc's answer is clearly the best thought-out so far, but I wish he hadn't focused so much on those last "2 to 4 breaths." Before you complain to your roommate about a few (hypothetical) liters of very dilute smoke, consider: you are probably exposed to more carcinogens in a few minutes outdoors if you live in LA.
While it is certainly reasonable to minimize your exposure to tobacco smoke of all kinds in light of your predisposition to certain cancers, a realistic risk assessment needs to take other environmental factors into account and not focus so intensely on that one aspect. Particularly if, as it sounds like, you plan to modify your living situation or ask others to accommodate you in their behavior.
posted by rkent at 6:32 AM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
While it is certainly reasonable to minimize your exposure to tobacco smoke of all kinds in light of your predisposition to certain cancers, a realistic risk assessment needs to take other environmental factors into account and not focus so intensely on that one aspect. Particularly if, as it sounds like, you plan to modify your living situation or ask others to accommodate you in their behavior.
posted by rkent at 6:32 AM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
"you are probably exposed to more carcinogens in a few minutes outdoors if you live in LA. "
...so if someone will encounter carcinogens elsewhere, they shouldn't try to eliminate them from areas of their life over which they have some measure of control? That's some twisted logic.
That said... like everything else in life, there's a cost-benefit to be done here. He's bringing smoke back inside with him. You're inhaling it. Inhaling smoke is bad for you.
But let's be realistic: this has about the same impact on you as planting a flower in your front yard has on "global warming"... and what is the solution? For your roommate to stop smoking? For you to move out? For him to move out?
Maybe one of those options is easy enough to justify pursuing it to eliminate the minuscule risk his highly-diluted second-hand smoke poses to you... but I really doubt it. Danger from inhaled smoke is not binary -- it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. The danger increases as the exposure increases... these exposure levels are annoying, but tame.
I wouldn't have moved in with him to begin with, but that's because I think smoking is a disgusting and stupid habit... not because I'd be worried about that nasty smell killing me.
posted by toomuchpete at 7:29 AM on June 13, 2008
...so if someone will encounter carcinogens elsewhere, they shouldn't try to eliminate them from areas of their life over which they have some measure of control? That's some twisted logic.
That said... like everything else in life, there's a cost-benefit to be done here. He's bringing smoke back inside with him. You're inhaling it. Inhaling smoke is bad for you.
But let's be realistic: this has about the same impact on you as planting a flower in your front yard has on "global warming"... and what is the solution? For your roommate to stop smoking? For you to move out? For him to move out?
Maybe one of those options is easy enough to justify pursuing it to eliminate the minuscule risk his highly-diluted second-hand smoke poses to you... but I really doubt it. Danger from inhaled smoke is not binary -- it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. The danger increases as the exposure increases... these exposure levels are annoying, but tame.
I wouldn't have moved in with him to begin with, but that's because I think smoking is a disgusting and stupid habit... not because I'd be worried about that nasty smell killing me.
posted by toomuchpete at 7:29 AM on June 13, 2008
You're being paranoid, and very possibly annoying the crap out of your roommate (if you're sharing these misgivings), who is showing you a great deal of courtesy by not smoking inside what is also his home.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:27 AM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:27 AM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
who is showing you a great deal of courtesy by not smoking inside what is also his home
Not smoking in the home you share with a nonsmoker isn't courtesy, it's minimum decency. However, the idea that residual smoke on the smoker's clothes or in their lungs could increase the asker's cancer risk is flat out ridiculous. I'd like to see a shred of evidence that paulsc's statements aren't made-up nonsense. I'll assume she isn't spending a lot of time nuzzling her roommate's shoulder so I'll discount the SIDS issue. Asker, if you're worrying about this you're either a hypochondriac or you're looking for a more scientific reason to justify the your perfectly reasonable aversion to the basic fact of life that smokers stink. You can smell incredibly tiny concentrations of chemicals. If you find it too gross you'll have to seek new living conditions. Otherwise, yes, you are absolutely being paranoid.
posted by nanojath at 11:07 AM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
Not smoking in the home you share with a nonsmoker isn't courtesy, it's minimum decency. However, the idea that residual smoke on the smoker's clothes or in their lungs could increase the asker's cancer risk is flat out ridiculous. I'd like to see a shred of evidence that paulsc's statements aren't made-up nonsense. I'll assume she isn't spending a lot of time nuzzling her roommate's shoulder so I'll discount the SIDS issue. Asker, if you're worrying about this you're either a hypochondriac or you're looking for a more scientific reason to justify the your perfectly reasonable aversion to the basic fact of life that smokers stink. You can smell incredibly tiny concentrations of chemicals. If you find it too gross you'll have to seek new living conditions. Otherwise, yes, you are absolutely being paranoid.
posted by nanojath at 11:07 AM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
So even with the assumption that this is harming you, what are you going to to? Ask him to stop smoking altogether? Change clothes before re-entering? Or sit outside for an unnecessary extra couple of minutes just "airing out"? If he's smoking, he's going to be bringing particles in and out.
Minimizing risk is good, but we have to think of what we exchange for that. A mom may make her child wear a helmet and knee pads, but she can't swaddle him in bubble wrap without taking all the fun out of playing. You may be susceptible to skin cancer, but you wouldn't avoid going out into the sun entirely - you'd use sunscreen, stay under umbrellas, not sunbathe for 6 hours.
If you're susceptible enough that the particulates your roommate exposes you to may affect you, then you also have to fear the combination of particulates in the air of the city you live and incomplete combustion from car exhaust, barbecues, candles, etc. Are you going to avoid campfires? How about certain roasted foods? Have you considered perhaps that cooking might also be bad for your health?
Research your paranoias, and then you'll see that you have to accept reasonable risks in life in the pursuit of happiness, and it would be entirely selfish of you to be so daring and risk-taking when pursuing your own happiness but much more stringent when it comes to someone else's pursuit.
posted by reebear at 11:21 AM on June 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
Minimizing risk is good, but we have to think of what we exchange for that. A mom may make her child wear a helmet and knee pads, but she can't swaddle him in bubble wrap without taking all the fun out of playing. You may be susceptible to skin cancer, but you wouldn't avoid going out into the sun entirely - you'd use sunscreen, stay under umbrellas, not sunbathe for 6 hours.
If you're susceptible enough that the particulates your roommate exposes you to may affect you, then you also have to fear the combination of particulates in the air of the city you live and incomplete combustion from car exhaust, barbecues, candles, etc. Are you going to avoid campfires? How about certain roasted foods? Have you considered perhaps that cooking might also be bad for your health?
Research your paranoias, and then you'll see that you have to accept reasonable risks in life in the pursuit of happiness, and it would be entirely selfish of you to be so daring and risk-taking when pursuing your own happiness but much more stringent when it comes to someone else's pursuit.
posted by reebear at 11:21 AM on June 13, 2008 [2 favorites]
"... I'd like to see a shred of evidence that paulsc's statements aren't made-up nonsense. ..."
posted by nanojath at 2:07 PM on June 13
Well, for sheer visual clarity, there's always the Palmolive bottle demonstration. But any ex-smoker (who isn't blind), such as me, knows from first hand experience that he continues to exhale visible smoke for several breaths after his last drag.
posted by paulsc at 11:56 AM on June 13, 2008
posted by nanojath at 2:07 PM on June 13
Well, for sheer visual clarity, there's always the Palmolive bottle demonstration. But any ex-smoker (who isn't blind), such as me, knows from first hand experience that he continues to exhale visible smoke for several breaths after his last drag.
posted by paulsc at 11:56 AM on June 13, 2008
Not smoking in the home you share with a nonsmoker isn't courtesy, it's minimum decency.
Oh, fuck that. She, I assume, knew he smoked when she moved in with him. If it's gonna be a problem, then don't, you know, move in with the guy. This is not complex.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:07 PM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
Oh, fuck that. She, I assume, knew he smoked when she moved in with him. If it's gonna be a problem, then don't, you know, move in with the guy. This is not complex.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:07 PM on June 13, 2008 [1 favorite]
Your concerns might be misplaced. To put things in perspective, you're in Lalaland AKA Los Angeles.
The American Lung Association says:
Metropolitan Areas Most Polluted by Short-term Particle Pollution (24-Hour PM2.5)
Rank Metropolitan Area
1 LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-RIVERSIDE, CA
Metropolitan Areas Most Polluted by Year-Round Particle Pollution(Annual PM2.5)
Rank Metropolitan Areas
1 LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-RIVERSIDE, CA
Metropolitan Areas with the Worst Ozone Air Pollution
Rank Metropolitan Statistical Areas
1 LOS ANGELES-RIVERSIDE-ORANGE COUNTY, CA
You're inhaling pollutants all day, every day. If this is a serious concern for you, the first step would probably be to live somewhere other than one of the most polluted places in the United States.
Here you go:
Top 25 Cleanest U.S. Counties for Year-Round Particle Pollution (Annual PM2.5)
Rank County
1 ELBERT, CO
2 MAUI, HI
Your health demands that you move to Maui.
posted by mullingitover at 12:30 PM on June 13, 2008
The American Lung Association says:
Metropolitan Areas Most Polluted by Short-term Particle Pollution (24-Hour PM2.5)
Rank Metropolitan Area
1 LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-RIVERSIDE, CA
Metropolitan Areas Most Polluted by Year-Round Particle Pollution(Annual PM2.5)
Rank Metropolitan Areas
1 LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-RIVERSIDE, CA
Metropolitan Areas with the Worst Ozone Air Pollution
Rank Metropolitan Statistical Areas
1 LOS ANGELES-RIVERSIDE-ORANGE COUNTY, CA
You're inhaling pollutants all day, every day. If this is a serious concern for you, the first step would probably be to live somewhere other than one of the most polluted places in the United States.
Here you go:
Top 25 Cleanest U.S. Counties for Year-Round Particle Pollution (Annual PM2.5)
Rank County
1 ELBERT, CO
2 MAUI, HI
Your health demands that you move to Maui.
posted by mullingitover at 12:30 PM on June 13, 2008
But any ex-smoker (who isn't blind)
Yes, I am a sighted ex-smoker as well. I'm not questioning that there is some residual smoke exhaled after the last inhale, but that it could be of any significance to the question at hand, and particularly that google-derived, back-of-the-envelope calculations about the "tidal volumes" of the lungs have any meaning. Only the absolute amount of smoke particles the roommate exhales inside matters, and discussions of lung capacity are irrelevant to that unknown quantity, but barring anything like actual data I'll stick with my belief that it is, from the cancer risk perspective of the tenant, as marginal and negligible as trace particles clinging to the skin, clothes and hair.
She, I assume, knew he smoked when she moved in
And I would assume they negotiated the issue when they agreed to live together, none of which changes the fact that electing not to subject an individual to a serious health risk merely because one has a lamentable addiction does not rate in my book as "a great deal of courtesy." Decency is not the same thing as obligation, anyway, but of course opinions of what rates as decency will vary, I'll stick with mine and you stick with yours.
posted by nanojath at 1:46 PM on June 13, 2008
Yes, I am a sighted ex-smoker as well. I'm not questioning that there is some residual smoke exhaled after the last inhale, but that it could be of any significance to the question at hand, and particularly that google-derived, back-of-the-envelope calculations about the "tidal volumes" of the lungs have any meaning. Only the absolute amount of smoke particles the roommate exhales inside matters, and discussions of lung capacity are irrelevant to that unknown quantity, but barring anything like actual data I'll stick with my belief that it is, from the cancer risk perspective of the tenant, as marginal and negligible as trace particles clinging to the skin, clothes and hair.
She, I assume, knew he smoked when she moved in
And I would assume they negotiated the issue when they agreed to live together, none of which changes the fact that electing not to subject an individual to a serious health risk merely because one has a lamentable addiction does not rate in my book as "a great deal of courtesy." Decency is not the same thing as obligation, anyway, but of course opinions of what rates as decency will vary, I'll stick with mine and you stick with yours.
posted by nanojath at 1:46 PM on June 13, 2008
"... Only the absolute amount of smoke particles the roommate exhales inside matters..."
posted by nanojath at 4:46 PM on June 13
Literature cite, please?
"... discussions of lung capacity are irrelevant to that unknown quantity ..."
Oh, I don't know about that. Taken against an estimate of room volume, they seem a reasonable first order approximation of the likely concentration/dilution of a known source of actual second hand smoke being introduced into the poster's environment. Because, you know, it's actual second hand smoke coming out of her roommate's nostrils, if he's ducking right back inside, as many smokers do. It's hard to get more "second hand" than that, and it's a direct, if small, source of second hand smoke which is easily overlooked.
It's a source of particulate contamination also supported in procedural doctrines for clean room environments [see section on "Personnel Behavior"]
Thanks for clearing up any confusion about the provenance of your contributions to this thread, nanojath.
posted by paulsc at 2:53 PM on June 13, 2008
posted by nanojath at 4:46 PM on June 13
Literature cite, please?
"... discussions of lung capacity are irrelevant to that unknown quantity ..."
Oh, I don't know about that. Taken against an estimate of room volume, they seem a reasonable first order approximation of the likely concentration/dilution of a known source of actual second hand smoke being introduced into the poster's environment. Because, you know, it's actual second hand smoke coming out of her roommate's nostrils, if he's ducking right back inside, as many smokers do. It's hard to get more "second hand" than that, and it's a direct, if small, source of second hand smoke which is easily overlooked.
It's a source of particulate contamination also supported in procedural doctrines for clean room environments [see section on "Personnel Behavior"]
"Do not allow smokers to work inside the cleanroom because the residual tar and nicotine will stain the face-masks and residual smoke particles may redeposit on the product or the process. Smoking is not allowed inside the manufacturing facility including all cleanroom areas. Smokers release particles for at least one-half hour after smoking one cigarette. [emphasis added]""... I'll stick with my belief ..."
Thanks for clearing up any confusion about the provenance of your contributions to this thread, nanojath.
posted by paulsc at 2:53 PM on June 13, 2008
paulsc writes "Because, you know, it's actual second hand smoke coming out of her roommate's nostrils, if he's ducking right back inside, as many smokers do."
Bzzt. Wrong.
Per the CDC, true second hand smoke is "a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke." (Emphasis added.)
The smoke that lingers in the lungs has already been passed through the filter of the cigarette and been further filtered by the lungs (woohoo!). Unless he rolls back into the place with a lit cigarette in hand, this does not meet the definition of second hand smoke. It's a somewhat pedantic distinction, I know, but we're already being painfully pedantic here so I figure why not.
posted by mullingitover at 6:51 PM on June 13, 2008
Bzzt. Wrong.
Per the CDC, true second hand smoke is "a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke." (Emphasis added.)
The smoke that lingers in the lungs has already been passed through the filter of the cigarette and been further filtered by the lungs (woohoo!). Unless he rolls back into the place with a lit cigarette in hand, this does not meet the definition of second hand smoke. It's a somewhat pedantic distinction, I know, but we're already being painfully pedantic here so I figure why not.
posted by mullingitover at 6:51 PM on June 13, 2008
And I would assume they negotiated the issue when they agreed to live together, none of which changes the fact that electing not to subject an individual to a serious health risk merely because one has a lamentable addiction does not rate in my book as "a great deal of courtesy." Decency is not the same thing as obligation, anyway, but of course opinions of what rates as decency will vary, I'll stick with mine and you stick with yours.
Well, look, I'm sorry you used to smoke and are now bitter about it for whatever reason, but my point -- and it is actually germane to the question -- is that (a) living with a person who smokes is not, really, all that serious a health risk, especially when you factor in more obvious health risks related to living in a pollution-redolent environment, (b) the OP herself made the choice to live with this person, so it's not as though he's inflicting something upon her that she wholly failed to anticipate, and (c) your personal feelings aside, which pretty have much absolutely nothing to do with the question anyway, it is actually a pretty big courtesy to leave one's one home to smoke (or do anything!) out of deference to one's roommate. It is, after all, also his home. I know that smoking is bad-bad-really-bad-omigod-so-bad!!!, but that doesn't mean we need to enshrine the neuroses of nonsmokers. Really, living with "If I sniff you, could I get...the cancer?!" is its own kind of burden, and let's keep in mind that this guy also moved into this situation with an understanding of the ground rules, and one that I expect did not include having to talk his roommate down from her hypochondria. So "courteous" and "decent" both seem applicable to me.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:22 PM on June 13, 2008
Well, look, I'm sorry you used to smoke and are now bitter about it for whatever reason, but my point -- and it is actually germane to the question -- is that (a) living with a person who smokes is not, really, all that serious a health risk, especially when you factor in more obvious health risks related to living in a pollution-redolent environment, (b) the OP herself made the choice to live with this person, so it's not as though he's inflicting something upon her that she wholly failed to anticipate, and (c) your personal feelings aside, which pretty have much absolutely nothing to do with the question anyway, it is actually a pretty big courtesy to leave one's one home to smoke (or do anything!) out of deference to one's roommate. It is, after all, also his home. I know that smoking is bad-bad-really-bad-omigod-so-bad!!!, but that doesn't mean we need to enshrine the neuroses of nonsmokers. Really, living with "If I sniff you, could I get...the cancer?!" is its own kind of burden, and let's keep in mind that this guy also moved into this situation with an understanding of the ground rules, and one that I expect did not include having to talk his roommate down from her hypochondria. So "courteous" and "decent" both seem applicable to me.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:22 PM on June 13, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Listener at 12:39 AM on June 13, 2008