A New Victim of Second-Hand Smoking: Fish

For smokers, the world has always been one big ashtray, with cigarettes flicked away pretty much anywhere. That’s especially true now, since smokers are increasingly forbidden to light up in restaurants, office buildings and even new no-smoking condos. In the great river of litter human beings create each year, so tiny a thing as a cigarette butt hardly seems to amount to much. But with the world’s smokers burning through a breathtaking  5.6 trillion cigarettes per year — 4.5 trillion of which are simply tossed away outside after they’re smoked —  little things add up fast. That, as it turns out, can be especially dangerous for one type of nonhuman critter: fish.

About a third of all of the trash found on U.S. shorelines consists of cigarette butts. There’s no such thing as good litter, but butts may be among the worst, since they’re impregnated with concentrated quantities of the 4,000 chemicals — many of them highly toxic — that occur naturally in tobacco and are added in the cigarette-manufacturing process. In a new paper published in the journal Tobacco Control, a team of researchers headed by Eli Slaughter of San Diego State University’s Graduate School of Public Health sought to determine the kind of harm those poisons can do.

Slaughter and his team broke cigarette waste down into three categories: smoked filters with some scraps of tobacco left; smoked filters with all of the tobacco burned or washed away; and unsmoked filters, which themselves contain a whole stew of chemicals. They immersed samples of each type of butt in separate 2-liter (.5 gal) containers of water and allowed them to soak. In some of the vessels, 16 butts were added to the water, in some 8, in some 4, 2, 1 or just a half a butt. After 24 hours, the butts were removed and  fish were added. (More on Time.com: See scenes from the tuna trade)

The two types of fish the researchers chose for their study were the topsmelt and fathead minnow, both common in U.S. waterways. All of the fish were 14 days old or younger. What Slaughter and his team were looking for was what’s known as the LC50 — the lethal concentration of cigarette butt leachate in water that would kill 50% of the sample.

Of the three types of cigarette butts used, they found, it was the filter with traces of tobacco still clinging to it that was the deadliest, with an LC50 of just one butt per liter. Smoked filters with no tobacco had an LC50 of 4.3. Unsmoked filters with no tobacco attached were not far behind, at 5.1. That figure surprised the researchers — but only a little. Even the most pristine cigarette filter is still made of 15,000 cellulose acetate fibers surrounded by paper or rayon and treated with glues, salts and other chemicals to hold it all together and help the cigarette burn evenly. Could any of that be good for you? There’s no telling what the deadliest chemicals in the smoked butts were, but high on the list have to be pesticides (sprayed on tobacco crops), acetone, formaldehyde, benzene, hydrogen cyanide and argon.

There are obvious flaws in the study,not the least being that toxins from cigarettes dropped in or near the ocean get diluted a whole lot more than those dropped in a tiny 2-liter vessel. What’s more, topsmelt and fathead minnows are hardly the only kinds of fish in the sea, and plenty of others may be affected by butt toxins differently. But Slaughter and his team did not intend their study to replicate what actually goes on in the real world; rather they simply wanted to establish toxicity thresholds that can be used as a baseline for further research. They acknowledge a 2002 study by the Royal Australian Society Chemical Institute concluding that littered cigarette butts pose a “low to moderate risk to aquatic organisms.” Low to moderate risk, however, is still not good and that doesn’t account for the “bioaccumulation” factor — the way long-term exposure to cigarette residue can cause toxins to collect in individual fish, and the way those poisons can get concentrated as big fish eat little fish and the chemicals move up the food chain. (More on Time.com: See photos of the Redneck Fishing Tournament)

The simplest fix, of course, would be for smokers to stop tossing their butts wherever they jolly well please. The better answer for any organism smart enough to dream up the idea of cigarettes in the first place is to quit smoking the things altogether and give everybody — on the land and in the seas — a break.

More on Time.com:

Special Report: Environmental Toxins

Photos: Your Doctor Wants You to Smoke

Special Report: The World’s Most Polluted Places

Related Topics: cellulose, cigarette butts, fish, hydrogen cyanide, oceans, pesticides, tobacco, Environmentalism, Oceans, Waste, Water, Wildlife
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Don Farrall

    Falldown: Radioactive Fallout From Fukushima Posed Little Threat to the U.S.

    Nearly a year after the Japanese tsunami and subsequent meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant, the good news is that the risk from radiation doesn’t seem to be as high as many initially feared. Take the Pacific Ocean, for example, where most of the radioactive fallout from the plant eventually ended up. Nicholas Fisher, a marine science professor at New York’s Stony Brook University, took samples of the seawater three months after the accident. He found levels of radiation that were elevated, but still just a fraction of the amount of radioactivity sea life is exposed to from naturally occurring potassium in seawater.

    Nick M Do

    Gasbag: Why No President Can Bring Us $2 Gasoline

    It’s Presidents’ Day as I write this, so if you were lucky enough to have the day off, give some thanks to Washington, Lincoln and all the other chief executives — even stinkers like James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson. Of course in modern American politics, every day is really Presidents’ Day — so central is the occupant of the White House to the perceived state of the nation. Good news or bad news, foreign or domestic, the President gets the credit — and he gets the blame, whether he actually deserves either.

    Bloomberg via Getty Images

    Pipeline Politics: Are the Oil Sands “Game Over” for the Climate? One Study Says No

    There are no shortage of reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline has become such a hot button issue for environmentalists. Many worry about the risks the project could pose to the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska, where the pipeline was originally designed to pass. Indeed, when President Obama rejected Keystone XL in January, his stated concern was the potential threat to local water supplies.

  • http://kepikei.wordpress.com kepikei

    So why do you present the study with great big headlines stating “A New Victim of Second-Hand Smoking: Fish.” When in fact you say yourself that, “Slaughter and his team did not intend their study to replicate what actually goes on in the real world.”
    What exactly is your point then? In a land far away, that isn’t really real.. Fish are victims of second hand smoke. Mind you… you said smoke. SMOKE. WTF? This is extremely poor journalism, leaning towards The National Inquirer or other hyped up full of BS reports. Sad state of affairs World Press.

  • pdxuser

    For such a stickler, you sure put a falsehood in all caps, kepikei. She said “second-hand smoking.” That is, someone who didn’t do the smoking but who receives the ill effects second-hand.

    I suppose you will now point out with indignance that fish don’t have hands, first or second.

    Yes, this was a controlled study, not a monitoring of the ocean. Like the article said, this was to establish basic facts — like that cigarette butts are toxic to fish — in order to inform further research.

  • nostraden63

    This is funny,How about the TRILLIONS of BEER CANS,Bottles etc ? naaaaaaaaaaa Right,I bet you their are BILLIONS just in the INTRACOSTAL WATERWAYS…..CIgarette butts,what a crock…….What about all the fuel Jest dump off the coasts Daily ? I have been fishing for many years off the coast,seen many many days OIL SHEENS that spread for miles and miles and it is JET FUEL..SO Take that theory about passive smoke and butts and put it on a HOOK

  • nostraden63

    Just like DRUNKS and DRINKERS toos their BEER CANS,Bottles,Bottle Caps all over the BEACHES and in the WATER ? naaaaaaaa Right

  • nostraden63

    Why don’t i see ALCOHOL in RELATED TOPICS ? AND JET FUEL ?

  • http://kidlamok.wordpress.com kidlamok

    Fails to mention irresponsible deforestation and the massive pollution of air and water caused by the publishing industry, especially magazines. http://printceo.com/2007/10/magazine-environmental-impact/

  • http://icequebes.wordpress.com icequebes

    Hmmm. This study was done by “Tobacco Control” people, huh? Don’t they get money for controlling tobacco, and don’t they lose money if they don’t find NEW ways to control tobacco, like convincing the public that tobacco now needs to be banned from beaches and parks? If they don’t convince the public this needs to be done, they lose their funding, don’t they?

    Per the following news article, the feds will be paying Iowa $2 million over the next 2 years to “do something” to control tobacco. Iowa doesn’t have beaches they can ban tobacco from, so here’s THEIR solution to get the federal money:

    http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/5c46843b5b9f4ce08739e035074233a5/IA–Linn-County-Tobacco-Restrictions/

    What do the Fish and Wildlife people have to say about the deadly effects of tobacco butts? As far as I know, they are the ones with the vested interest in maintaining the health of fish and wildlife and are not rewarded monetarily for expanding smoking bans. I suspect they’d recommend that ashtrays be put back wherever they had been removed by the Tobacco Control people to “discourage” smoking. :)

  • http://icequebes.wordpress.com icequebes

    The tobacco control folks get paid to expand tobacco bans. A few people have noticed that the older generation (like my diabetic 101 year old mother-in-law) have spent 3/4s of their life in smoke-filled rooms and didn’t keel over as expected from the “one whiff kills” statements of the tobacco control people. A few people have noticed that, although California and Puerto Rico have achieved the greatest numbers of “ex-smokers,” their asthma rates are climbing.

    Because a few people have noticed this, it is now necessary for the tobacco control folks to prove that secondhand butts kill fish. It will be MUCH harder for the average person to notice this isn’t true, either.

  • http://icequebes.wordpress.com icequebes

    I looked in your archives and found CFL bulbs touted as energy efficient. I am surprised that I had to find out about the mercury and fire hazards of CFLs, and their less-than-reported energy savings, from American Thinker rather than from an ecology blog such as this:

    “According to EPA and other sources, the safe limit [for mercury] is 300 nanograms per cubic meter. When a broken CFL was reported in Maine, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection did the most extensive testing in the nation to evaluate the health risk. Its 160-page report is shocking.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_cfl_fraud.html

    I wish you guys would start reporting on the environmental hazards the government SPONSORS instead of the environmental hazards the government pays people to invent.

  • http://michaelmcilvena.wordpress.com michaelmcilvena

    Well written kepikei, very poor journalism to say the least.

  • http://forgeworks1.wordpress.com forgeworks1

    There is Crap..more crap and then statistics……

  • http://gofcak.wordpress.com gofcak

    Fact is there are all kinds of groups who look into various pollutants. Quit acting like a victim because a study is done about a habit you take part in. Want to complain about the bottles and cans….do you not use anything that comes in such containers? Jet fuel? Then do not fly ever and you can stop pointing fingers. Every study that is done is funded by a group because the need of money. If the information provided can be backed up then quit screaming bias. Don’t want to be down at by people, stop the nasty habit.

  • http://stjackie.wordpress.com stjackie

    Oh come on.. Second hand smoke? This is getting ridiculous. Isn`t this more of a littering problem? Nice false headlines buddy. I suppose the spill in the gulf has nothing to do with killing fish or any other extra additives polluting our ocean. This is obviously an anti smoking rant, when it should be about littering.

  • http://raymondo292.wordpress.com raymondo292

    Where are the controls? What happens if you put ground-up tofu, or poison ivy, or orange juice in with the fish? Those things are all very natural, yet I find it hard to believe that fish would thrive in those conditions. This is one more example of bad, biased science, and bad, biased reporting. I’m still waiting for the research study that proves second-hand smoke “kills”. All anyone has shown is that it causes asthma, but facts like these are irrelevant to liberal journalists.

  • Nick

    The largest problem with this is ever since the big no smoking push was made 10-15 years ago it has become increasingly difficult to find an ashtray. In a lot of cases for some odd reason in the past 5 years trash cans have become rare as well( of the 25 Bus stops in town here only 4 have ashtrays or trash cans by them or within 100Ft ) I hate throwing them and so do lots of other people I know, and then yeah some people just suck and throw all their trash where ever.

  • http://vizulefllry.wordpress.com vizulefllry

    It doesn’t say “smoke” it says “second hand smoking.” Learn to read. You are a moron.

    It looks like most of the people responding negatively to this story are a bunch of stinky smokers. Your habit is disgusting and thus you are disgusting.

  • carpevis

    There is a revolver in the room. It’s called a .45 Carcinoma. It has three bullets in the cylinder and the cylinder has been spun. No one knows when it will go off, only that it will.
    .
    There are twelve people in the room. Six are smokers, six are not, but work or live with smokers. The six smokers pass the gun around, spinning the cylinder after each click, with each of them taking a try at a non-smoker.
    .
    In the end, two smokers and one non-smoker will be dead. That’s generally the statistic – smoking kills one in three smokers by lung cancer alone, and one in six non-smokers. This is only lung cancer. It does not include the other ways people may be killed by respiratory ailments brought on by smoking. Generally speaking, one out of three smokers will die due to some OTHER ailment (mouth cancer, throat cancer, COPD, stomach cancer, heart failure, heart attack, etc.) which has been linked to smoking. A third (one in three) non-smokers who have long-term exposure to smoke will also die from second-hand smoke. This does not include those who already suffer from a respiratory ailment who are killed much faster due to smoke exposure.
    .
    So your grandmother dodged the bullet. It happens. You have a 66% chance of dying a lingering and horrible death due to smoking. It’s your life, but it’s also the lives of others. Your habit pushes up my medical insurance and makes my hospital more crowded. Your habit litters my beaches and roadways. Your habit kills13,500 people a DAY – and that’s just the smokers. You have the right to go kill yourself howsoever you please, in my opinion. You do not have the right to pollute my world, drive me into bankruptcy due to higher medical bills or kill someone else just because you lack the strength of character to quit.
    .
    And here’s another one for you: No one in the history of the world has ever died due to nicotine withdrawals. So what are you afraid of?

  • carpevis

    Oh, PLEASE… You blame the pollution problem on a lack of ash trays? Google “pocket ash tray”. A responsible human being who smokes will use that if there’s no ash tray available to them for their butts.
    .
    Why smokers think the world should provide them with the means to dispose of THEIR TOXIC TRASH is beyond me.
    .
    Oh, wait… I did use the term “responsible human being who smokes…” That’s a logical impossibility. A responsible human being wouldn’t be smoking in the first place, or would be quitting or have quit if they started smoking in their irresponsible youth. My bad on that. But any decent human being would pick up after themselves, if by doing nothing more than using a baggie to stuff their butts into after they make sure they’re out.

  • merylste

    Thankfully, I’m not a smoker. Smoking & certain drugs have become addictions of the poorer and often less educated for reasons to complex to get into here. People w/ wealth are addicted to shopping, sex, entertainment, alcohol and other substances & behaviors that are more acceptable at most levels. It fills an sad emptiness. Try to have some compassion. You aren’t a moron, I’m fairly sure about that. You are, however, rude and ignorant of how to conduct a civil conversation. We humans have been blessed with an ability to speak and think at very high levels. Ideally, we will use this gift to further our own welfare and the welfare of others. Your comment falls short on both counts.

  • http://james00000001.wordpress.com james00000001

    Different folks see cigarette butts in different ways. Many smokers sit by ash trays in bars and other places they enjoy, and the butts are just part of that familiar environment. So they are not sickened or upset by seeing butts discarded everywhere. In fact they may even be comforted by them.

    A non-smoker finds butts repulsive. When I was a teenager I stayed over at a friend’s place. His mom was a smoker and used ash trays in her home. While helping with the dish washing, I was in total disbelief when we washed the dirty ash trays in the same sink as the food implements. It really shocked me and I felt sick! It wasn’t the germs from her lips sucking on the butts. It was the powerful chemicals I could smell while the ash became wet.

    Butts are far from natural and are a form of pollution. As inhabitants of this planet we should strive to reduce pollution as much as possible. If just a few smokers read this article and change their behavior, or reduce their smoking just a little, then the article has helped make the world a better place. A better place for both smokers and non-smokers.

  • http://ladyraj.wordpress.com ladyraj

    Right…focus on the admittedly diluted risk to aquatic life from butts…but ignore the massive conglomeration of plastic that is contaminating the food chain in the Great Pacific Garbage Dump!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

    I sometimes wonder if individuals have lost the ability to prioritize their endeavors.

  • nostraden63

    Go have another beer and smoke some more dope,or pop a few more pills………

  • http://bodagetjones.wordpress.com alexwrae

    Hey guess what?
    I’m not a smoker and i thought this was terrible journalism! And dont hate the person hate the addition.

  • jsidney

    If you really want to kill your fish, put dishwashing detergent in their water.

    Then imagine the millions of fish killed every night as the housewives of American wash their supper dishes and send millions of gallons of dishwashing detergent flowing down the drains and into the rivers and oceans.

  • jsidney

    Scientific studies prove that cigarette butts, including the cellulose acetate filter, are 100% biodegradable.

    So Go Green! Toss your cigarette butts into the nearest flower bed. They will no more poison the Earth than do the fallen leaves from your oak tree or seaweed washed up on the beach.

  • jsidney

    News of this California Tobacco Control Program funded second hand smoking fish study has reached Great Britain. Here is a scathing critique on it from a fellow scientist, a British bacteriologist. http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2011/04/30/playing-the-game

    ” … I drop the entirely biodegradable cigarette ends all over the garden and some definitely ended up in the pond. Yet, according to what here is laughingly called ‘science’, one cigarette end should have killed all those fish. What am I doing wrong here?”

    “Ah, I have it. I’m forgetting to fake the science. That’s what I’m doing wrong.” and

    “What we are dealing with here is not science. It’s well-paid propaganda designed to make smokers look evil and to make science look as if it is populated entirely by dolts. It’s working well on both counts so far. …”

    Read the entire article. This British bacteriologist is viciously funny.

  • vasumurti

    Fish Can’t Feed the World — Go Vegan Instead!

    According to a national Vegetarian Resource Group Poll conducted by Harris Interactive, nearly 15 percent of Americans say they never eat fish or seafood.

    The pacific sardine lives along the coasts of North America from Alaska to southern California. Sardines, once a major part of the California fishing industry, are now considered to be “commercially extinct.”

    Another species classified as “commercially extinct” is the New England haddock. Ecologists have also been concerned about the significant reduction in finfish, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Lake Erie cisco, and blackfins that inhabit Lakes Huron and Michigan.

    Over 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in the Pacific. Sea turtles are similarly killed in Caribbean shrimp operations.

    Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

    Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution.

    This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

    The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered.

    According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted.

    Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

    It makes sense to eat lower on the food chain!

    Nor can fish provide any help in alleviating global hunger. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas.

    And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world’s inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

    In an online article appearing in the Guardian on 9/14/2010, entitled “Fish: the forgotten victims on our plate,” Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes:

    “Let’s assume that all this fishing is sustainable, though of course it is not. It would then be reassuring to believe that killing on such a vast scale does not matter, because fish do not feel pain.

    “But the nervous systems of fish are sufficiently similar to those of birds and mammals to suggest that they do. When fish experience something that would cause other animals physical pain, they behave in ways suggestive of pain, and the change in behaviour may last several hours. (It is a myth that fish have short memories.) Fish learn to avoid unpleasant experiences, like electric shocks. And painkillers reduce the symptoms of pain that they would otherwise show.

    “Victoria Braithwaite, a professor of fisheries and biology at Pennsylvania State University, has probably spent more time investigating this issue than any other scientist. Her recent book Do Fish Feel Pain? shows that fish are not only capable of feeling pain, but also are a lot smarter than most people believe. Last year, a scientific panel to the European Union concluded that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that fish do feel pain.

    “Why are fish the forgotten victims on our plate? Is it because they are cold-blooded and covered in scales? Is it because they cannot give voice to their pain?

    “Whatever the explanation, the evidence is now accumulating that commercial fishing inflicts an unimaginable amount of pain and suffering. We need to learn…to find…alternatives to eating them.”

    The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, the human race has lived on “vegetarian or near vegetarian diets,” and meat has traditionally been a luxury. Studies show the healthiest human populations on the globe live almost entirely on plant foods–useful data, given our skyrocketing healthcare costs.

    Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients who had already suffered a heart attack.

    In A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), author Keith Akers observes:

    “Much has been made over the virtues of chicken and fish in comparison to red meats such as beef and pork. It has been said that eating chicken and fish will aid in the prevention of heart disease, because these meats are relatively lower in fat and contain more unsaturated than saturated fat, thus helping to lower cholesterol levels.

    “Unfortunately, these claims are not supported by the evidence. Studies in which human volunteers switched from diets including beef and eggs, to one including fish and chicken showed that serum cholesterol levels were not appreciably lowered by switching to chicken and fish.

    “And an examination of the nutritional data suggests an explanation: while it is true that chicken and fish contain less fat than beef, it is also true that chicken and fish contain about twice as much cholesterol per calorie as does beef. Indeed, some seafoods (such as crab, shrimp, and lobster) are exceptionally high in cholesterol content.

    “All of these diverse theories have roughly the same dietary implications. Meat is high in cholesterol, saturated fat, and total fat. Plant foods, by contrast, are usually low in saturated fat and total fat, and contain zero cholesterol.

    “Vegetarians have lower levels of serum cholesterol than do meat-eaters, with total vegetarians (vegans) having the lowest levels of all.”

    Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western diet is quite absurd. But what about satisfying today’s demand for meat–which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet?

    If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

    But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already.

    Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc…modest increases in the world population during the next generation would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption.

    On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans.

    Les Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only ten percent per year, it would free at least twelve million tons of grain for human consumption–or enough to feed sixty million people.

  • http://vellocatus.wordpress.com vellocatus

    If there was any truth in this then surely the researchers have discovered a solution to probably the biggest killer in the world – the malaria mosquito! Half the worlds population (3.3 billion people) are at risk from the mozzie and a child dies of malaria every 30 seconds according to the WHO.

    The mozzie spends the first 10 days of its life in water so all we have to do is supply those affected regions with cigarettes on condition that butts are disposed of in water – mozzie breeding grounds. The malaria problem could be solved in just a few years

    Yet one more benefit of smoking, along with preventing/delaying Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Dementia and asthma (to name but a few of many benefits to nicotine and smoking).

    Cigarettes can save the children!!!! Banning them causes untold damage and injury to individual and public health, the economy and social cohesion etc.

    Flippant remark? – check out the true facts about the anti-smoker deception – from independent sources!!! You might get a surprise!

  • http://vizulefllry.wordpress.com vizulefllry

    I agree entirely. We should make the entire thing a joke. Regardless of the scientific validity of this article, the main point of it is true. Cigarettes, and cigarette butts are not good for any person, animal, or ecosystem.
    It is disgusting that most of the people commenting on the article are doing everything they can to negate the most important point.
    Anyone who thinks cigarette butts are not a scourge should move into a trailer park where they belong.

blog comments powered by Disqus