Re: 10-17 and 10-18 FBOFW


In the previous article, Peter Trei <treifamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote,
quoting me:
> > I'm glad you said "it's like ..." because people who tell you they
> > are "allergic" to cigarette (or cigar) smoke are full of ***. It's
> > possible to be sensitive to smoke in a way that most of the
> > population isn't, I suppose, but burning material breaks the
> > molecules down too small to provoke a true allergic reaction.
> > Usually, "I'm allergic" is code for "I find that unpleasant, but I
> > want to pretend it's a medical issue instead of me just civilly
> > asking you to respect my wishes."
>
> I disagree on two fronts.
>
> 1. If tobacco products actually burned in the way you described,
> cigarettes, pipes, and cigars would emit only water vapour, carbon
> dioxide, some NO, and no smoke - talk about weak flavour. What
> actually happens is that the heat of the burning portion vaporizes
> many volatile substances in the as-yet-unburned portion near the
> coal, and these enter the smoke (which is the incompletely burnt
> particles of soot, tar, and many other chemicals). This produces the
> aromatic smoke - I'll note that as complex a molecule as nicotine
> enters the smoke intact.
>
> Even if these chemicals are not directly allergenic, there is plenty
> of evidence of increased allergies and asthma in children living
> with smokers. For example, [1] shows that tobacco smoke can increase
> sensitivity to other allergens.

I believe it, but it's not the same thing as "allergic to smoke." A
working allergist (who had just been selected for a research
fellowship at NIH) is the one who told me that claims of allergy to
smoke are bull*** -- and he used that word. I am sure that his
executive summary about molecule complexity was dumbed down for me,
but I still accept his word on the matter.

> There are plenty of people who get sick when exposed to smoke. That
> their illness may not be directly caused by an immune reaction to a
> specific allergen in the smoke, is, as far as I can see, an
> difference without a distinction.

Well, I believe that claiming an allergy where none exists falls into
the category of lying, and furthermore I believe this is a common lie
told with the purpose of exaggerating one's simple dislike of
something into a medical issue where none really exists.

I don't doubt that some people legitimately get ill when they have to
breathe smoke, and I certainly have no problem if they want to raise a
complaint about it, but I think that, of the number of people I have
heard claim an "allergy" to smoke, probably 0.1% have an actual
medical issue and the rest are just whiners. (That's just a guess.)

> 2. Small molecules are prefectly capable of being allergens. Even
> pure elemental compounds, such as nickle, cobalt, chromiumn and
> copper can cause allergic reactions.

Are those true allergic reactions? I thought skin sensitivity to
metal was a completely different mechanism from an actual allergy, in
the strict medical sense.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@xxxxxxxxx|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.

Loading