More ill informed smoker bashing. I do not think the authors would argue with me that smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.
“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.
The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”
They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156
In conclusion let’s have a balanced debate and not characterise smokers as race akin to the devil.
Chris - 15 years ago
You are proposing restrictions on the use of a legal product in my own private space? This is insane.
There are no rules on what comes out of the tailpipe from the diesel pickup in front of me driven by some guy who’s more concerned about his status symbol than anything else. Therefore public airspace in this instance is irrelevant. This is simply very interventionist policing by the politically correct folk.
Tobacco is an organic substance, you burn it and it creates smoke. Short of nicotine, there is nothing in it that you won’t also get from burning leaves in your yard. You inhale significant enough concentrations of it over an extended period of time and it can have adverse health effects. This is not rocket science. Smoking is an adult custom, with adult consequences. Treating me like a child is not the answer to your paranoia about the fact that my lifestyle choice may not be the same as yours.
The W.H.O. has determined that there is a statistically significant risk factor for disease in regular daily smokers. Not news. For lung cancer, the major studies report that relative risk associated with prolonged non-smoker exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke is 1.3. A relative risk of 1 means no risk, and prolonged active smoking is typically associated with a relative risk of lung cancer of the order of 20 or higher.
For heart disease, the major studies also report a relative risk for ETS exposure of around 1.3. The relative risk for active smoking and heart disease is typically of the order of 3 to 5.
Many epidemiologists say that relative risks below 2 are weak associations and are more difficult to quantify than stronger associations. Perhaps because the relative risks reported in individual studies tend to be below 2, many studies do not reach statistical significance.
There has been no epidemiological evidence presented to show that casual exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is harmful at all. For those of you who want to dictate what I can or can’t do in my space, the ball is in your court. Pony up with the proof or butt out of my life.
While you’re at it, what of the SO2 from school busses?
More ill informed smoker bashing. I do not think the authors would argue with me that smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.
“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.
The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”
They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
http://www.medwire-news.md/…/…gic_sensitization_.html
This is a Swedish study.
“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156
In conclusion let’s have a balanced debate and not characterise smokers as race akin to the devil.
You are proposing restrictions on the use of a legal product in my own private space? This is insane.
There are no rules on what comes out of the tailpipe from the diesel pickup in front of me driven by some guy who’s more concerned about his status symbol than anything else. Therefore public airspace in this instance is irrelevant. This is simply very interventionist policing by the politically correct folk.
Tobacco is an organic substance, you burn it and it creates smoke. Short of nicotine, there is nothing in it that you won’t also get from burning leaves in your yard. You inhale significant enough concentrations of it over an extended period of time and it can have adverse health effects. This is not rocket science. Smoking is an adult custom, with adult consequences. Treating me like a child is not the answer to your paranoia about the fact that my lifestyle choice may not be the same as yours.
The W.H.O. has determined that there is a statistically significant risk factor for disease in regular daily smokers. Not news. For lung cancer, the major studies report that relative risk associated with prolonged non-smoker exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke is 1.3. A relative risk of 1 means no risk, and prolonged active smoking is typically associated with a relative risk of lung cancer of the order of 20 or higher.
For heart disease, the major studies also report a relative risk for ETS exposure of around 1.3. The relative risk for active smoking and heart disease is typically of the order of 3 to 5.
Many epidemiologists say that relative risks below 2 are weak associations and are more difficult to quantify than stronger associations. Perhaps because the relative risks reported in individual studies tend to be below 2, many studies do not reach statistical significance.
There has been no epidemiological evidence presented to show that casual exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is harmful at all. For those of you who want to dictate what I can or can’t do in my space, the ball is in your court. Pony up with the proof or butt out of my life.
While you’re at it, what of the SO2 from school busses?