smoke

Smoke is the collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases^[1] emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis, together with the quantity of air that is entrained or otherwise mixed into the mass. It is commonly an unwanted by-product of fires (including stoves, candles, oil lamps, and fireplaces),but may also be used for pest control (cf. fumigation), communication (smoke signals), defense (smoke-screen) or smoking (tobacco, marijuana, etc.). Smoke is used in rituals, when incense, sage, or resin are burned to produce a smell for spiritual purposes. Smoke is sometimes used as a flavoring agent and preservative for various foodstuffs. Smoke is also sometimes a component of internal combustion engine exhaust gas, particularly diesel exhaust.

Smoke inhalation is the primary cause of death in victims of indoor fires. The smoke kills by a combination of thermal damage, poisoning and pulmonary irritation caused by carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and other combustion products.

Smoke particles are an aerosol (or mist) of solid particles and liquid droplets that are close to the ideal range of sizes for Mie scattering of visible light. This effect has been likened to three-dimensional textured privacy glass^{[citation needed]} — a smoke cloud does not obstruct an image, but thoroughly scrambles it.

Visible and invisible particles of combustion

Depending on particle size, smoke can be visible or invisible to the naked eye. This is best illustrated when toasting bread in a toaster. As the bread heats up, the products of combustion increase in size. The particles produced initially are invisible but become visible if the toast is burned.

Smoke from a typical house fire contains hundreds of different chemicals and fumes. As a result, the damage caused by the smoke can often exceed that caused by the actual heat of the fire. In addition to the physical damage caused by the smoke of a fire – which manifests itself in the form of stains – is the often even harder to eliminate problem of a smoky odor. Just as there are contractors that specialize in rebuilding/repairing homes that have been damaged by fire and smoke, fabric restoration companies specialize in restoring fabrics that have been damaged in a fire.

Dangers of smoke

Smoke from oxygen-deprived fires contains a significant concentration of compounds that are flammable. A cloud of smoke, in contact with atmospheric oxygen, therefore has the potential of being ignited – either by another open flame in the area, or by its own temperature. This leads to effects like backdraft and flashover. Smoke inhalation is also a danger of smoke that can cause serious injury and death.

Many compounds of smoke from fires are highly toxic and/or irritating. The most dangerous is carbon monoxide leading to carbon monoxide poisoning, sometimes with the addative effects of hydrogen cyanide and phosgene. Smoke inhalation can therefore quickly lead to incapacitation and loss of consciousness. Sulfur oxides, hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride in contact with moisture form sulfuric, hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid, which are corrosive to both lungs and materials.

Cigarette smoke is a major modifiable risk factor for lung disease, heart disease, and many cancers.

Smoke can obscure visibility, impeding occupant exiting from fire areas. In fact, the poor visibility due to the smoke that was in the Worcester Cold Storage Warehouse fire in Worcester, Massachusetts was the exact reason why the trapped rescue firefighters couldn't evacuate the building in time. Due to the striking similarity that each floor shared, the dense smoke caused the firefighters to become disoriented

Chemical composition

The composition of smoke depends on the nature of the burning fuel and the conditions of combustion.

Fires with high availability of oxygen burn at high temperature and with small amount of smoke produced; the particles are mostly composed of ash, or with large temperature differences, of condensed aerosol of water. High temperature also leads to production of nitrogen oxides. Sulfur content yields sulfur dioxide. Carbon and hydrogen are almost completely oxidized to carbon dioxide and water. Fires burning with lack of oxygen produce a significantly wider palette of compounds, many of them toxic. Partial oxidation of carbon produces carbon monoxide, nitrogen-containing materials can yield hydrogen cyanide, ammonia, and nitrogen oxides. Content of halogens such as chlorine (e.g. in polyvinyl chloride or brominated flame retardants) may lead to production of e.g. hydrogen chloride, phosgene, dioxin, and chloromethane, bromomethane and other halocarbons. Hydrogen fluoride can be formed from fluorocarbons, whether fluoropolymers subjected to fire or halocarbon fire suppression agents.

Emission of soot from a large diesel truck, obviously without particle filters.

Pyrolysis of burning material also results in production of a large amount of hydrocarbons, both aliphatic (methane, ethane, ethylene, acetylene) and aromatic (benzene and its derivates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; e.g. benzo[a]pyrene, studied as a carcinogen, or retene), terpenes. Heterocyclic compounds may be also present. Heavier hydrocarbons may condense as tar.

Smoke from a bee smoker, used in beekeeping

Presence of sulfur can lead to formation of e.g. hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, sulfur dioxide, carbon disulfide, and thiols; especially thiols tend to get adsorbed on surfaces and produce a lingering odor even long after the fire. Partial oxidation of the released hydrocarbons yields in a wide palette of other compounds: aldehydes (e.g. formaldehyde, acrolein, and furfural), ketones, alcohols (often aromatic, e.g. phenol, guaiacol, syringol, catechol, and cresols), carboxylic acids (formic acid, acetic acid, etc.).

The visible particulate matter in such smokes is most commonly composed of carbon (soot). Other particulates may be composed of drops of condensed tar, or solid particles of ash. The presence of metals in the fuel yields particles of metal oxides. Particles of inorganic salts may also be formed, e.g. ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate. Many organic compounds, typically the aromatic hydrocarbons, may be also adsorbed on the surface of the solid particles. Metal oxides can be present when metal-containing fuels are burned, e.g. solid rocket fuels containing aluminium. Fly ash is composed mainly of silica and calcium oxide. Radioactive particles may be present due to traces of uranium, thorium, or other radioactive isotopes in the fuel.

Smoke emissions may contain characteristic trace elements. Vanadium is present in emissions from oil fired power plants and refineries; oil plants also emit some nickel. Coal combustion produces emissions containing aluminium, arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper, mercury, selenium, and uranium.

Some components of smoke are characteristic of the combustion source. Guaiacol and its derivatives are products of pyrolysis of lignin and are characteristic of wood smoke; other markers are syringol and derivates, and other methoxy phenols. Retene, a product of pyrolysis of conifer trees, is an indicator of forest fires. Levoglucosan is a pyrolysis product of cellulose. Hardwood vs softwood smokes differ in the ratio of guaiacols/syringols. Markers for vehicle exhaust include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, hopanes, steranes, and specific nitroarenes (e.g. 1-nitropyrene). The ratio of hopanes and steranes to elemental carbon can be used to distinguish between emissions of gasoline and diesel engines

It seems as if every day, there is another community, group, organization, or individual complaining about cigarette smoke and those who do smoke. It doesn’t matter how many times the government raises the taxes in the name of “child welfare”, people are still going to smoke. There was a big sigh of relief when the money from the casinos was going to help pay for health care and education. What happened to that? Another when the tobacco companies were ordered to pay the states enormous amounts of money to pay for health care. What happened to that? The taxes on cigarettes is raised about every six years. What happens to that? The same thing that happens to every tax the government tells the people what the money is ear marked for, it goes to special projects or causes other than what it was intended for. Does anyone actually believe this tax money will all go to health care for children? What happened to the money Barack Obama promised the states to help pay for health care? Where is that money?
The government, businesses, self righteous groups who think they are going to save and change the world, and petty individuals who have nothing else to do but worry about what other people are doing with their lives, cigarette smoking or something else, have to stop “depending” on the cigarette smokers to fund their agendas.
You are going to have to look at other “vices” people have in order to manufacture your perfect world. Restaurants and bars want to ban smoking in their establishments, because they don’t sell cigarettes, they sell food, beer, and alcohol. But, if there was an increase in the taxes on beer and alcohol, their customers would stop ordering drinks. If there was a doubling of the fees for their license to sell alcohol, they would be crying or quit serving drinks. Then how many customers would they have? Not too many.
You can get off work, or get ready to go anywhere or any open air event, stop at the gas station and buy a case of beer, for about sixteen dollars. The tax on your gas is not as high as a pack of cigarettes. The tax on beer is not as high as a pack of cigarettes.
One bottle of beer cost a customer, wholesale, about eighty cents. Then they charge you, their loyal and good customers, anywhere from two dollars to seven fifty at a Cardinals game, but you cannot sit at their bar, which was built for customers to sit at and drink, and smoke a cigarette and have a conversation while you wait for a table at their over priced, and over rated restaurant. And god forbid you would smoke in an open air ballpark.
Your money and your business is good enough for them as long as they call the “shots.”
Again, figure the math. Twenty four bottles of beer in a case. Add another fifty cents per bottle to the serving cost, that’s another twelve dollars a case the government would receive in taxes. How many cases of beer are being sold at the Cardinal, Rams, and Blues games? How many cases of beer are being sold at all the bars and restaurants downtown before and after each game? With an additional fifty cents in government taxes added to each bottle, that’s a lot of money and would take care of a lot of medical care “for children”. What ever it ends up to be, it would be more than what is collected on cigarettes. But, does anyone think this would actually happen? The civic leaders would say this would drive tourists away, the bars and restaurants would lose business, and people would lose their jobs. There’s always an excuse or explanation.
So, the cigarette smokers are being ostracized and their habit is the only logical choice, the only viable choice, and the only rational choice to tax.
Many low income people smoke. The first of April, their tax relief was to kick in and they will be allowed to take home an additional fifteen dollars a week in their paychecks. That will just about cover the tax increase they have just received for one of the small pleasures they enjoy in life, smoking. Maybe it’s time for an elected representative of the people to speak up and say something. Maybe it’s time for one of them to come up with someone else to tax other than cigarette smokers, or are the lobbyists spending too much money on capital hill?
These communities and businesses who want to ban smoking, that’s fine. If I come, and believe me with this economy it will not be very often, I will not buy a beer at your bar. I will not buy my friends a drink in your establishment. I will order my food, drink water, leave a tip, and go somewhere I can smoke a cigarette, have a good conversation, and drink my drink. To these civic leaders who want to ban smoking in their communities, If I have to buy gas, beer, or anything else, I will go to those communities who do not have their nose in the air. Cigarette smokers are consumers too. Not all our money is spent on cigarettes, but I’ll be damned if I am going to take responsibility for someone’s children. If I wanted kids, I would have made sure I could provide for and take care of them, not ask other people to do it for me. So, the government can add taxes to one of my little vices, people can complain, and communities, businesses, bars and restaurants can tell us we cannot smoke. But that will just stop me from coming to your community, your restaurants, businesses, and bars and spending my money. I can stay home, not fight the traffic, pay for parking, wait for a table or use the restroom, have my friends over, watch the game on t.v., put something on the grill, and smoke. Just like the Great American Smoke Out, there should be one day across the country when cigarette smokers do not buy cigarettes.

In 2003, the assembly voted for a total smoking ban, even though it did not have the power to implement it.

Following that, a special committee of AMs was set up to look at the issue.

Powers to be devolved to the assembly as a result of the White Paper would allow Wales to press on with whatever is recommended by that committee.

Ms Hutt said: "The committee can now proceed confident in the knowledge that we will have the tools to turn its recommendations into reality."

Mr Hain had earlier said that the White Paper would "help the people of Wales live healthier lives".

"It offers a potential blueprint for managing the impacts of smoking, unhealthy eating and for safeguarding the health of future generations by limiting the impact of food advertising on children," he said.

Mr Hain had said any Bill to introduce restrictions on smoking in England would contain clauses that applied in Wales. The clauses would have to be agreed in Westminster before the UK government changed the law.

Smoking in pubs and restaurants has been banned in the Republic of Ireland since March and last week, it was announced by Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell, that smoking in enclosed public spaces there would be banned by the spring of 2006.

Pro-smoking campaigners said businesses should be allowed to choose the policy that best suited their staff and customers.

Forest director Simon Clark said: "We support further restrictions but we vehemently oppose what has become a systematic attempt to demonise smokers and their perfectly legal habit."

Among other plans in the White Paper are a ban on junk food advertising before 9pm on TV to protect children and a "traffic light" system showing shoppers how healthy the food they are buying is.

Smoking ban debate

Hutchinson bar owner Sheila Martin contends she would lose 85 percent of her business if lawmakers pass a statewide smoking ban. Martin testified last week before the House Health and Human Services Committee.

Martin's assertion mirrors claims made several years ago by Hutchinson restaurant owners when city leaders debated a smoking ban. Opponents believed at the time that Skaets, one of Hutchinson's oldest and popular restaurants, would lose most of its customer base if smoking was banned in restaurants. That proved grossly untrue; business at Skaets and other Hutchinson restaurants remained robust after the ban went into effect.

Ironically, it was Skaets owner Donna Bartholomew who last week countered Martin's testimony before the same House committee. Bartholomew testified in support of her employees and a healthy work environment.

"You have all these people who are working in that environment for long periods of time." Bartholomew said. "They are generally the people who cannot afford the diseases it's creating."

Unquestionably, Martin and Bartholomew serve different clientele. But even non-smoking bars can remain popular and profitable.

Dan Heimerman, owner of Carl's Bar in Hutchinson, bans smoking at his establishment, but continues to grow his customer base. It should be noted, though, the bar's sandwich offerings and recent move to a new location on Main Street contribute to the business' success and popularity.

The point is that bars can survive - even thrive - without the haze of smoke hanging over customers night after night.

But Martin does have a case to make against the state: Lawmakers should stay out of the smoking ban business. Numerous Kansas communities - without legislative intervention - effectively have fashioned smoking ban ordinances that fit residents' needs and desires. In Hutchinson, restaurants are smoke-free, but customers can light up in Martin's bar and others.

Martin likely has little to fear this year from the state. The smoking ban bill currently being debated in Topeka probably won't make it out of committee, though supporters say they'll continue the fight.

And if Martin wants to continue her fight, she should move to a different soapbox because her theory about financial losses has been debunked.

She can argue, though - and likely gain support - that smoking bans should remain a local issue. Because on that point, Martin is unquestionably right.