Talk:Third-hand smoke

Vocalmusicpa (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

plan to remove "neologism"
According to ngrams, "third-hand smoke" appeared sometime in 2007.

Merge with Passive smoking
"Secondhand smoke" already redirects to Passive smoking - why have a separate article for this? ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Because third-hand smoke is different from second-hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.115.42.26 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though they are different from each other, both fall within the realm of "Passive Smoking"; both involve involuntarily coming into contact with the products of combustion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.143.67 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Third-Hand smoke should stand alone. It is different than 2nd Hand smoke. I refer to this page frequently when attempting to educate others who are unaware that it exists. I believe his page should remain separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.176.253 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently I think third hand Smoke should stand alone. From my understanding 2nd hand smoke requires that you be in an area that has someone actively smoking with smoke floating around in the air, whereas with third hand smoke you can be miles away from where the person actively smokes in a brand new building where no-one is allowed to smoke nor has ever actually smoked, but still be third hand smoking, because it is emanating from items brought into the room. I.E. furniture or somebody's clothing. Also there seems that Passive smoking and second hand smoking are taken to mean the exact same thing as the concept of third hand smoke did not exist until recently. If/when 3rd hand smoking is more generally accepted, I suspect that over time passive smoking definition will change such that it will encompass both 2nd and 3rd hand smoke as it's name currently might imply. However even if that occurs, there should probably be three separate articles, one for the general passive smoking, with links to separate articles on 2nd hand smoke and this article for indirect third hand smoke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkohr (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 April 2013 - "Science" includes "biology," "chemistry," "physics," and tons of other sub-categories, but many of these hold their own pages because they are significant enough to.

It makes more sense for these subjects (second hand smoke, third hand smoke, and passive smoking) to be linked, but not merged. Second hand smoke should be allowed its own page, as should third hand smoke, because there are a publications from peer reviewed articles on it, and the sampling methods are very different for second hand smoke (passive or active air sampler) versus third hand smoke (wet swabbing surfaces or taking dust from less disturbed areas then putting it through a mesh to remove large debris). .192.33.240.95 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I found this excellent treatment of third-hand smoke when I looked up "Thirdhand smoke" I would not have thought to look for passive smoking. At least keep the link so that a search for third hand smokeing will find it. Vocalmusicpa (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Magnitude of risk.
In reference to this assertion in the article; "Currently, however, the actual magnitude of risk, if any, remains unknown." (Bolded for some reason), appears to be a bit cherry-picked from the linked reference Thirdhand Tobacco Smoke: Emerging Evidence and Arguments for a Multidisciplinary Research Agenda, it also seems a bit inappropriate to extrapolate and emphasise this from the reference when it asserts the current "existing evidence on THS provides strong support for pursuing a programmatic research agenda" and especially since it explicitly presents the point as a caveat and addresses the point "Human exposure to constituents of THS has not been well characterized, and it is therefore premature to assess the health risk of THS. Given this caveat, one can consider how some of the known THS components could affect human health. The chemicals that mediate adverse health consequences can be considered in categories such as irritants, carcinogens, and mutagens (e.g., TSNAs, PAHs, heavy metals, nicotine)." And in conclusion discusses the fact that existing evidence provides strong support for the effects of THS and indicates further pursuing of a programmatic research agenda.121.75.149.92 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what any of that is supposed to mean, but thanks for removing the only remark in this article that attempted to put the "risk" of thirdhand smoke into any sort of perspective. --32.97.110.58 (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy in the United States
The figure is way out of date, being from 2010. It shows little to no regulation in states that have essentially banned indoor public smoking (e.g., VA). Since it was uploaded in late 2017, it represents lack of a more current map at best, or bias at worst. Lots of good points being made in this article, but referencing indoor smoking laws from 2010 don't support much of anything in 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.153.142.154 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)