Friday, 12 February 2010

Third Hand Smoke Study Confirms A Menace In Your Home

Third hand smoke appeared in the news again this week and, as is customary, was comprehensively debunked in a matter of hours. Unfortunately, there are always daft idiots who believe such stunningly inept bullshit, examples being the small selection of knuckle-dragging berks highlighted by VGIF.

However, although perhaps not a primary purpose, the study did indeed conclusively prove that every home in the UK contains a dangerous menace. The BBC.

The researchers say third-hand smoke is an unappreciated health hazard and suggest a complete ban on smoking in homes and in vehicles to eliminate any risk.

Toxic particles from cigarette smoke can linger on surfaces long after the cigarette has been put out, and small children are particularly susceptible because they are likely to breathe in close proximity, or even lick and suck them, they say.
In light of the fact that they were taken in quite overwhelmingly, perhaps Comrade Beeb might publish a corrective story soon. After all, it's early days and I'm sure they are very busy, but it's what would be expected of a serious news gatherer, doncha think?

We may have a long wait, though, considering they faithfully followed the anti-smoking agenda on fictional 'third hand smoke' last year in their selective reporting of what was nothing more than a phone poll.

All this doesn't really sit well with the BBC's view of itself as a world renowned impartial news source.

In fact, it's worse than that, as their shoddy reporting goes against the BBC Trust's definition of purpose.

Claims include:

Provide international news broadcasting of the highest quality

Enhance UK audiences' awareness and understanding of international issues.

At home, BBC News aspires to remain the standard-setter for international journalism

[...] the BBC continues to be seen as the most trusted and objective international news provider.

Provide international news broadcasting of the highest quality [...] accuracy, impartiality and independence

The BBC will ensure that it recruits and retains high-calibre journalists ...
Bwahahaha. Err, fail.

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory may well have produced one of the most laughable scientific papers of the decade, but in so doing they have exposed a fairly hefty section of the world's MSM as gullible and lazy fools.

And the BBC falling for the scam so comprehensively merely proves that UK citizens should be more worried about the danger posed by their state news source than any imagined threat from a forced construct of a handful of seriously nutty 'scientists'.


Unknown said...

So, just for example, if I have a couple of bottles of wine and puke on someone then they lick it off themselves, is that third hand drinking?

My apologies to anyone with a weak stomach or who has just eaten....


Witterings from Witney said...

And Mark Wadsworth was googling thirteenth hand smoke - as I said to him, trying to put ideas in Deborah Arnotts head???

Wonder how long it will be before she comes out with it?

Angry Exile said...

I have just come across the concept fourth hand smoke. This is apparently where a child sees an unlit cigarette or a sealed pack of fags and cannot unsee the unspeakable Chthonic evil of the tobacco, or where someone leaves a carton on the floor for people to trip over. There was more along those lines but I can't remember where I found the link.

And yes, it was a humour site.

And yes, no doubt someone somewhere is taking the idea seriously.

banned said...

I too was mildy annoyed to see this story in the Telegraph on page 3, 4 or 5 which are reserved for lazy reprints of any old 'scientific' press releases that come their way.

Anonymous said...

Angry Exile's comment reminds me of a Victoria Wood sketch in which she plays a nervous school leaver at interview for medical school. When asked if there's a link between poverty and health she answers no, because poor people don't have the shag pile carpets that cause accidents in the home (it loses in the translation...).


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I think we know how "impartial" the BBC is from its AGW reporting.

Still, has anyone ever looked for a link between the AGW fraudsters and the anti-smoking liars? In fact, the only reason I got involved in the AGW debate was because so many of their methods (both PR and "scientific") are so similar, and since the anti-tobacco stuff is such obvious fraud it stood to reason that the AGW stuff could be, too.....

Anonymous said...

There are several links between the global warming and the anti-tobacco industry. Exactly like you, I started looking into AGW when I realsied that the science behind passive smoking is fraudulent. Quite at random, I looked up Lindzen and on his WP page, found a section about his scepticism regarding harm caused by passive smoking. This was obviously intended to discredit his views on AGW and was written by one of the half dozen people, all but one anonymous, who control the WP passive smoking page.