I never really thought about this subject until a recent journal article prompted me toward evaluation. The question is, "Do you have a smoking ban at home?" Well, if both parents are nonsmokers, the answer seems pretty obvious, yes. But what about children who smoke in a household where the parents don't? Do the parents maintain the ban or give into the whim of the child. Perhaps they place rules on smoking like 'only do it outside'.
I think nonsmoking parents are in a great position to legislate the household toward a smoking ban. Not because you want to keep your kid from getting nicotine poisoning or anything. But after all, it is the parent's house. They make the payments and the kid just kind of lives there rent free. It seems like the parents could really make a stand on this issue. In the long run, they'd be improving the health of their kids and themselves by limiting the amount of direct and indirect smoke inhaled by the family. A win-win for everyone, whether they realize it at the time or not.
Who knows, perhaps the kid will quit as the cycle of addiction gets interrupted in the house. Then they can see what happens when you quit smoking.
Showing posts with label secondhand smoke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secondhand smoke. Show all posts
Second Hand Smoke and Children
I've told this story before as an example of second hand smoke and children, but when I was a kid, my dad smoked. He used to smoke while driving the car, but he would at least crack open the window. I guess he knew back then that second hand smoke and children in the back seat don't mix very well. He probably wasn't looking out for our health, instead he was just trying to be polite. I admire him for that. Back then though, very little was known about the dangers of second hand smoke and children, or just second hand smoke in general.
Today, we live in a different era of science and health. However, despite this knowledge, people continue to smoke at astonishing rates. Roughly 20% of all Americans smoke, which means lots of us are still exposed to second hand smoke. As you'd expect, the researchers have done exhaustive studies detailing the hazards associated with second hand smoke and children. Here is one recent example.
This study looked at parental smoking and rate of ear infections (or what they called middle ear disease) in their children. They evaluated the effects that maternal postnatal smoking had and the effect that smoking of any household member had on ear infections. They found that living with a smoker increased the risk of ear infections significantly. Interestingly, prenatal smoking of either parent also increased the risk, but not significantly.
The strongest effect second hand smoking had on children was discovered as the risk of surgery for ear infections. The parent's postnatal smoking habit almost doubled the odds that their child would require a surgery. The researchers estimate that almost 300,000 ear infections in the US are attributable to second hand smoke.
Thankfully, my mom didn't smoke or our risk of having ear infections would have been much higher. Also, thankfully, my dad tried rather hard to keep the smoke out of our face. So by reducing our exposure to his exhaled smoke, we didn't have to become one of those second hand smoke and children statistics.
Today, we live in a different era of science and health. However, despite this knowledge, people continue to smoke at astonishing rates. Roughly 20% of all Americans smoke, which means lots of us are still exposed to second hand smoke. As you'd expect, the researchers have done exhaustive studies detailing the hazards associated with second hand smoke and children. Here is one recent example.
This study looked at parental smoking and rate of ear infections (or what they called middle ear disease) in their children. They evaluated the effects that maternal postnatal smoking had and the effect that smoking of any household member had on ear infections. They found that living with a smoker increased the risk of ear infections significantly. Interestingly, prenatal smoking of either parent also increased the risk, but not significantly.
The strongest effect second hand smoking had on children was discovered as the risk of surgery for ear infections. The parent's postnatal smoking habit almost doubled the odds that their child would require a surgery. The researchers estimate that almost 300,000 ear infections in the US are attributable to second hand smoke.
Thankfully, my mom didn't smoke or our risk of having ear infections would have been much higher. Also, thankfully, my dad tried rather hard to keep the smoke out of our face. So by reducing our exposure to his exhaled smoke, we didn't have to become one of those second hand smoke and children statistics.
Secondhand Smoke Exposure in School Age Children
I find it surprising to find continued studies on secondhand smoke (SHS), sometimes referred to as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). It seems like every study that comes out says the exact same thing. But perhaps there are still people out there who feel SHS is just a tool used to infringe on the rights of smokers in public places. It truly baffles the mind.
Okay, with that said...a recent study in the Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia [Jan;17(1):20-26] looked at ETS exposure on school age kids. They wanted to see if they had higher prevalency rates for respiratory diseases and symptoms (aka: respiratory morbidity). They looked at pre-natal maternal smoking and post-natal ETS exposure. They also observed the socioeconomic indicators to see what they might find. The study enrolled 313 kids from 4 public schools in Lisbon. The researchers stayed with the first and fourth grade classes. Okay, any guesses what they found?
"Well I'll be!" (to quote Gomer Pyle). Constant and others found that smoking exposure was bad for the kids. Wow, isn't this an amazing discovery? Okay, maybe not so much.
Roughly 41% of the homes had ETS exposure. This broke down as follows:
Maternal pre-natal smoking 18%
Maternal post-natal smoking 32%
Paternal smoking 38%
Children whose mothers smoked during their pregnancy and had both parents continue to smoke afterwards, had a higher incidence of wheezing. Children with a smoking Mom had a more frequent cough. All these results were significant.
Now, the researchers were not able to find any greater incidence of respiratory infections or asthma in children as a direct result of the child's parent's smoking status.
Interestingly, the smoking Dads had a lower education level and were in a less qualified occupation than the non-smoking fathers. This has also been born out in the literature, that smoking is a syndrome of the lesser educated. No offense intended, but rather just a well studied, no bones about it, scientific fact.
So how does this affect the everyday smoker? Well, don't smoke if you're pregnant and don't smoke around your kids, your nephews/nieces, or anyone else's kids for that matter. A better option though, would be to use this as a primary motivator to help you quit. There you go, if you were looking for one more reason to stop smoking, we just gave you one.
Okay, with that said...a recent study in the Revista Portuguesa de Pneumologia [Jan;17(1):20-26] looked at ETS exposure on school age kids. They wanted to see if they had higher prevalency rates for respiratory diseases and symptoms (aka: respiratory morbidity). They looked at pre-natal maternal smoking and post-natal ETS exposure. They also observed the socioeconomic indicators to see what they might find. The study enrolled 313 kids from 4 public schools in Lisbon. The researchers stayed with the first and fourth grade classes. Okay, any guesses what they found?
"Well I'll be!" (to quote Gomer Pyle). Constant and others found that smoking exposure was bad for the kids. Wow, isn't this an amazing discovery? Okay, maybe not so much.
Roughly 41% of the homes had ETS exposure. This broke down as follows:
Maternal pre-natal smoking 18%
Maternal post-natal smoking 32%
Paternal smoking 38%
Children whose mothers smoked during their pregnancy and had both parents continue to smoke afterwards, had a higher incidence of wheezing. Children with a smoking Mom had a more frequent cough. All these results were significant.
Now, the researchers were not able to find any greater incidence of respiratory infections or asthma in children as a direct result of the child's parent's smoking status.
Interestingly, the smoking Dads had a lower education level and were in a less qualified occupation than the non-smoking fathers. This has also been born out in the literature, that smoking is a syndrome of the lesser educated. No offense intended, but rather just a well studied, no bones about it, scientific fact.
So how does this affect the everyday smoker? Well, don't smoke if you're pregnant and don't smoke around your kids, your nephews/nieces, or anyone else's kids for that matter. A better option though, would be to use this as a primary motivator to help you quit. There you go, if you were looking for one more reason to stop smoking, we just gave you one.
Secondhand Smoke Effects on Pregnancy Outcomes
We've looked at studies that researched the effects of smoking on pregnant women and their babies. We all agree the results were less than desirable - low birth weights, high risk for bleeding during delivery, physical/physiological complications to the unborn child, learning and developmental difficulties, SIDS and the list goes on and on. What about secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure to pregnant women. Do their unborn children face the same hurdles?
A new study in the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecological and Neonatal Nursing (JOGNN) looked at this relationship. They evaluated nicotine in the maternal hair as a biomarker for SHS exposure of women who were either 1) nonsmoking, but exposed to SHS, 2) passive smokers, or 3) regular smokers. This study enrolled 210 pregnant women.
There results showed that women exposed to prenatal SHS had a much greater risk for delivering their baby preterm (early) and they were more likely to have immediate newborn complications when compared to nonexposed women. Now passive smoking mothers had children who were at a greater risk for developing respiratory distress complications and being admitted to the neonatal ICU. Interestingly, these were greater risks than were seen in children delivered from regular smoking mothers.
They concluded that passive smoking women and SHS exposed women with hair nicotine levels greater than .35 ng/ml were more likely to lower birth weight babies, shorter babies and preterm babies (1 week).
So if you're pregnant, don't feel bad about avoiding the smoke filled restaurants or any other venue that has cigarette smoke floating in the air. Let those protective instincts loose and get out of there. And if you are only a passive smoker and think that a couple of cigarettes here or there won't hurt your unborn child, think again. The evidence is there.
That's what we try to do here at this blog. We want to bring you the evidence so you're excuses will be taken away. They say ignorance is bliss. But in this case, ignorance could be disastrous for you and your child if you don't take the steps needed to bring about a healthy environment into your life.
Yet more proof that smoking is just flat out bad for you. So if there was ever a time to stop smoking, now would be the time. Here are some stop smoking tips to help you quit.
A new study in the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecological and Neonatal Nursing (JOGNN) looked at this relationship. They evaluated nicotine in the maternal hair as a biomarker for SHS exposure of women who were either 1) nonsmoking, but exposed to SHS, 2) passive smokers, or 3) regular smokers. This study enrolled 210 pregnant women.
There results showed that women exposed to prenatal SHS had a much greater risk for delivering their baby preterm (early) and they were more likely to have immediate newborn complications when compared to nonexposed women. Now passive smoking mothers had children who were at a greater risk for developing respiratory distress complications and being admitted to the neonatal ICU. Interestingly, these were greater risks than were seen in children delivered from regular smoking mothers.
They concluded that passive smoking women and SHS exposed women with hair nicotine levels greater than .35 ng/ml were more likely to lower birth weight babies, shorter babies and preterm babies (1 week).
So if you're pregnant, don't feel bad about avoiding the smoke filled restaurants or any other venue that has cigarette smoke floating in the air. Let those protective instincts loose and get out of there. And if you are only a passive smoker and think that a couple of cigarettes here or there won't hurt your unborn child, think again. The evidence is there.
That's what we try to do here at this blog. We want to bring you the evidence so you're excuses will be taken away. They say ignorance is bliss. But in this case, ignorance could be disastrous for you and your child if you don't take the steps needed to bring about a healthy environment into your life.
Yet more proof that smoking is just flat out bad for you. So if there was ever a time to stop smoking, now would be the time. Here are some stop smoking tips to help you quit.
Secondhand Smoke and Your Unborn Child
The topic of secondhand smoke (SHS) continues to receive much controversy. Smoking proponents (yes, there are some out there), actually deny the possibility that smoking may be dangerous to someone else. They say the studies detailing the dangers of SHS are flawed, bogus, or just bad science.
The scientific community would choose to differ in that opinion. Most studies are designed with a great attention to detail in hopes of deriving an outcome of scientific or medical merit. Either way, researchers hope to learn something from the experiment or study, even if it does not prove their supposition.
The smoking community does not bother to produce any study that may produce the outcome that smoking is safe for a particular subgroup of the population. Rather, they choose to deny the results brought to publication that say smoking is bad for just about everyone who gets exposed to it.
Given that background, enter in today's study which looked for a link between SHS and low birth weight (LBW) babies and preterm deliveries of babies. This is not breaking news, of course. This link has been known for quite some time and in fact, many resources report smoking as a primary risk factor for these two conditions. So it's not surprising to find a 6.5% higher incidence in the number of preterm deliveries for women who were exposed to SHS. There was also a 5% greater prevalence for LBW babies in women exposed to SHS. Both these results were statistically significant, meaning the difference between the control group and exposed group was not brought about by chance, but rather by something unique to the one group versus the other.
What does this mean for the child? Basically, it means the child will have a harder time of it. Many of the child's organ systems may not be fully developed, depending on when it was delivered. The lungs are the last organ to develop, so the baby may find itself on a respirator as it begins its fragile life. Once on the ventilator, the baby is exposed to infectious organisms and potentially dangerous intrathoracic pressures that can cause damage to their lungs and heart. Add bleeding and development of scar tissue to the equation, as these are always risk factors when being placed on a respirator. LBW babies also are at risk for many bad outcomes. Just imagine giving birth to a 3 pound child who should weigh 6 pounds. They will be markedly weaker and have greater difficulty overcoming infection and feeding challenges. Many of these babies may be born with physical deficits and abnormalities not easily outgrown.
So before you smoke around your pregnant wife, remember that your cigarette, cigar or pipe may be hurting your unborn child. Ask yourself if it is worth the risk. If you're not a real "touchy-feely" person then ask yourself if it's worth the expense. Trust me, you don't want to see the neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) bill when you leave, even with insurance. Not to mention, not everyone has a neonatal ICU in their local hospital. Many have to travel to the nearest metropolitan area for care. As we all know, hotel and restaurant bills are not covered by insurance.
The old saying goes, "Nobody is denying your right to smoke, just don't deny my right to breathe clean air". In this case, give your kid a hand and take the smokes outside. Better yet, get stop smoking help and finally kick the habit. Enjoy the added benefits of improved health in your older age and you'll have a better lifestyle when you get older; no inhalers or portable oxygen to carry around. Finally, you're setting a great example for your children to follow. It's a win-win for everybody.
The scientific community would choose to differ in that opinion. Most studies are designed with a great attention to detail in hopes of deriving an outcome of scientific or medical merit. Either way, researchers hope to learn something from the experiment or study, even if it does not prove their supposition.
The smoking community does not bother to produce any study that may produce the outcome that smoking is safe for a particular subgroup of the population. Rather, they choose to deny the results brought to publication that say smoking is bad for just about everyone who gets exposed to it.
Given that background, enter in today's study which looked for a link between SHS and low birth weight (LBW) babies and preterm deliveries of babies. This is not breaking news, of course. This link has been known for quite some time and in fact, many resources report smoking as a primary risk factor for these two conditions. So it's not surprising to find a 6.5% higher incidence in the number of preterm deliveries for women who were exposed to SHS. There was also a 5% greater prevalence for LBW babies in women exposed to SHS. Both these results were statistically significant, meaning the difference between the control group and exposed group was not brought about by chance, but rather by something unique to the one group versus the other.
What does this mean for the child? Basically, it means the child will have a harder time of it. Many of the child's organ systems may not be fully developed, depending on when it was delivered. The lungs are the last organ to develop, so the baby may find itself on a respirator as it begins its fragile life. Once on the ventilator, the baby is exposed to infectious organisms and potentially dangerous intrathoracic pressures that can cause damage to their lungs and heart. Add bleeding and development of scar tissue to the equation, as these are always risk factors when being placed on a respirator. LBW babies also are at risk for many bad outcomes. Just imagine giving birth to a 3 pound child who should weigh 6 pounds. They will be markedly weaker and have greater difficulty overcoming infection and feeding challenges. Many of these babies may be born with physical deficits and abnormalities not easily outgrown.
So before you smoke around your pregnant wife, remember that your cigarette, cigar or pipe may be hurting your unborn child. Ask yourself if it is worth the risk. If you're not a real "touchy-feely" person then ask yourself if it's worth the expense. Trust me, you don't want to see the neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) bill when you leave, even with insurance. Not to mention, not everyone has a neonatal ICU in their local hospital. Many have to travel to the nearest metropolitan area for care. As we all know, hotel and restaurant bills are not covered by insurance.
The old saying goes, "Nobody is denying your right to smoke, just don't deny my right to breathe clean air". In this case, give your kid a hand and take the smokes outside. Better yet, get stop smoking help and finally kick the habit. Enjoy the added benefits of improved health in your older age and you'll have a better lifestyle when you get older; no inhalers or portable oxygen to carry around. Finally, you're setting a great example for your children to follow. It's a win-win for everybody.
A Night Out with your Cigarette
Okay, is secondhand smoke (SHS) bad for you or is it just a political hand grenade used to bully restaurant and bar owners into bankruptcy? We've had a smoking ban in place in my home town for a couple of years now and I have to say, restaurants haven't closed down. If anything, more people go out to eat because they know there won't be any smoking present. It's kind of nice to take my family out without having to worry about what I might or might not be exposing their lungs to, let alone my own.
As it turns out, "YES", SHS is bad for you. Let's look at just one disease that smoking is a risk factor for, ischemic heart disease. Nine studies, have confirmed the statistically significant reduction of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalizations after smoking bans were put into place in various cities nationwide. That's a heart attack for those not in the medical community. And these just weren't modest or slow-moving reductions, but rather, "sizeable and rapid".
The Pueblo Heart Study looked at the effect of a city smoke ban that took place in July of 2003 in their city. They found a 27% decrease in the hospitalizations due to heart attack (AMI). They continued the study until 2006 to see if the reductions continued or spiked back upwards. They found another 19% drop in hospitalizations due to AMIs.
Now does this mean, smokers just don't handle the sticker shock of a night out as well as non-smokers? Perhaps all the smokers left town for a more smoker friendly domicile. I'm guessing those weren't the case. In fact, the researchers went on to say there were no other significant changes to the population or city. They even researched AMI hospital admissions 18 months prior to the beginning of the smoking ban and found no trend in the data. The evidence does seem to support the assertion that SHS does, in fact, increase mortality and morbidity. It also suggests that the reduced smoking likely held some positive impact on the smoker's own health, as one cannot assume only nonsmokers are admitted to hospitals for AMIs.
There you have it. A pretty well designed study, with powerful results. So what holds a smoker back from quitting? It's real simple, they are either not educated about the dangers of smoking or they just can't stop. Several studies report that most smokers do want to quit at some point, but fail to do so. There are many stop smoking aids available and many smart people who want to help them quit. What would your reason be to quit, what would motivate you to finally make the decision? Think about it and then follow this advice:
1) Find out if you're addicted to nicotine (85% of smokers are)
2) Match up a quit method with your personality, habits, addiction and current health situation
3) Visit with your doctor or other smoking cessation professional
4) Get stop smoking help from someone who really wants to see you succeed
5) Make a plan and set a quit date
As it turns out, "YES", SHS is bad for you. Let's look at just one disease that smoking is a risk factor for, ischemic heart disease. Nine studies, have confirmed the statistically significant reduction of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) hospitalizations after smoking bans were put into place in various cities nationwide. That's a heart attack for those not in the medical community. And these just weren't modest or slow-moving reductions, but rather, "sizeable and rapid".
The Pueblo Heart Study looked at the effect of a city smoke ban that took place in July of 2003 in their city. They found a 27% decrease in the hospitalizations due to heart attack (AMI). They continued the study until 2006 to see if the reductions continued or spiked back upwards. They found another 19% drop in hospitalizations due to AMIs.
Now does this mean, smokers just don't handle the sticker shock of a night out as well as non-smokers? Perhaps all the smokers left town for a more smoker friendly domicile. I'm guessing those weren't the case. In fact, the researchers went on to say there were no other significant changes to the population or city. They even researched AMI hospital admissions 18 months prior to the beginning of the smoking ban and found no trend in the data. The evidence does seem to support the assertion that SHS does, in fact, increase mortality and morbidity. It also suggests that the reduced smoking likely held some positive impact on the smoker's own health, as one cannot assume only nonsmokers are admitted to hospitals for AMIs.
There you have it. A pretty well designed study, with powerful results. So what holds a smoker back from quitting? It's real simple, they are either not educated about the dangers of smoking or they just can't stop. Several studies report that most smokers do want to quit at some point, but fail to do so. There are many stop smoking aids available and many smart people who want to help them quit. What would your reason be to quit, what would motivate you to finally make the decision? Think about it and then follow this advice:
1) Find out if you're addicted to nicotine (85% of smokers are)
2) Match up a quit method with your personality, habits, addiction and current health situation
3) Visit with your doctor or other smoking cessation professional
4) Get stop smoking help from someone who really wants to see you succeed
5) Make a plan and set a quit date
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)