Secondhand smoke raises risk of hardened arteries among 13-year-olds

[DavidDvorkin]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/aha-ssr022610.php

Frequent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among 13-year-olds is associated with an increased risk of future blood vessel hardening and greater risks of other heart disease factors, according to new research published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, a journal of the American Heart Association.

[DavidDvorkin]

1. An unrec!

I guess someone approves of damaging the arterial and coronary health of children.

[The Straight Story]

2. And pot makes people schizo :) (nt)

[Maru Kitteh]

71. Do you deny that cig smoking contributes to arteriosclerosis?

I just hate to see an offhand comment like that about kids health - and not know where it's coming from.

Cig smoke contributes to asthma and asthma death among children. That's established fact.
Cig smoke contributes to other chronic lung ailments among children. That's established fact.

Cig smoke contributes to arteriosclerosis. That's a fact. So why wouldn't it be true in the delicate, developing tissues of children?

Most parents would not choose to take a razor and nick their kids skin every time they're in the same room with them, but some of the same think nothing of lighting up a Marlboro with that kid on their lap. The truth is, long term, the kid would be better off with the razor cuts than the second hand smoke.

[frazzled]

3. But alcohol could kill them immediately, at age 13

I'm not disputing this study (which, frankly, I didn't read). However, it's a bit of sensationalism to worry so much about an "increased risk" of hardening of the arteries much later in life when there are so many immediate risks to children that affect them in much more direct and sudden ways.

French fries will certainly cause their arteries to harden even faster. And a weekend binge at a friend's house with alcohol could kill them in one night. Then there are drugs.

Let's just be equal opportunity when assessing health risks to children.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. My parents both smoked when I was young.

Dad quit when I was six, mom quit when I was ten years old.

I have scar tissue in my lungs. It looks like little black and white specks lining the tubules.

I have never smoked a single cigarette in my entire life of 55 years.

[sabrina 1]

6. Every adult I knew smoked when I was a kid and neither I, nor my

brother or sister have any problems at all related to 'second hand smoke'. They smoked also and we all are among the healthiest people I know. I have been to the doctor about four times in my adult life and rarely get sick while all my paranoid, anti-smoking friends are forever in the doctor's office. My dance teacher used to laugh at all the huffing and puffing anti-smokers in his class, as well as my figure skating coach. Neither revealed they smoked for fear of giving the poor, deluded huffers and puffers apoplexy. And both teachers were incredible specimens of health and physical strength.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever that second hand smoke has ever effected anyone. It was a last ditch effort to remove the claim that smokers only harm themselves. AND, it was predicted that someone would come up with it long before they did.

People are amazingly gullible and susceptible to propaganda even to the point of believing something like this. :eyes:

[Zoeisright]

8. How unbelievably stupid. Anecdotal 'evidence' means JACK SHIT.

Do you know anything at ALL about science or research? ANYTHING?

There is PLENTY of scientific studies (look it up, since you obviously don't understand the words) that secondhand smoke KILLS.

Smokers are amazingly gullible and susceptible to propaganda even to the point of believing stupid anecdotal evidence.

Do a little bit of thinking and research before you spout off about something you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

Just. Plain. DUMB.

[Blue-Jay]

10. You could say the same about post #4, no?

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", no matter which side you choose agree with.

[anigbrowl]

56. Not really, because an x-ray is an objective measurement

Post #4 is a data point, and doesn't claim to be anything more. The poster makes no claims current or future health, just observes the existence of lung scarring (characteristic of tobacco) despite never having smoked. It'd be a mistake to draw any conclusions from a single data point, but with an anecdote you are invited to draw a conclusion based on the outcome.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

57. Let me add more evidence of my health. Or lack thereof.

I grew up with tons of allergies, a runny nose, in a very filthy and dusty household. One or two totally inadequate window ACs. At night I could not sleep because it was 100% humidity and 90 degrees, many summers.

I had a lot of sinus infections that occasionally drained into the lungs into bacterial bronchitis.
I have taken decongestants for decades. Starting in the late 1960s.

Now that I am grown, I can tell you more. In Spring 1985 I was outside for several hours at a family funeral. That afternoon I had a severe sinus headache and started vomiting. I continued vomiting every single day for months. I was pregnant. I vomited twice a day for SIX MONTHS, and my ob/gyn kept saying it was morning sickness. I told him, "I'm slimy inside, this is a sinus infection". So finally, after I had gained a total of six pounds, at 24 weeks of pregnancy, he tossed me in the hospital. One day of antibiotic IVs and I stopped vomiting. The child's growth was retarded in utero but she caught up, before delivery.

He released me from the hospital, the next week I gained ten pounds, and had to stop working because I could not sit up -- it hurt too much because of the pressure on my ribs from my uterus.

Later, in 1988 I came down with bacterial pneumonia, bronchitis, and my immune system collapsed. When they cultured my gunk, it came back as "non-pathogenic flora" and "normal flora".

That baffled the respiratory techs. They kept asking me, "Do you smoke?" and I said, "No, I am not that stupid". They could not understand how I could be that close to death without being a smoker.

I was in and out of the hospital constantly from 1988 until 1993 or so, and my doctor had to vacuum my lungs out four times in five years. This was so I would not die drowning in my own poison. Not to be too gross, but my lungs were COMPLETELY FULL of pus, and the doc said my bronchi were bright red and inflamed all the way up to my voice box. FOUR TIMES HE SAVED MY LIFE!!!

I usually got a sinus infection and started vomiting uncontrollably on weekends or holidays and had to get to the emergency room for pain medication and an anti-emetic shot so I would not become dangerously dehydrated. My life was pure hell from 1988 until about 1994, and I eventually got to where I only get a sinus infection twice a year, in the spring and fall, when the plants bloom. March and September-October are the worst. I think in 2009 I only had one, in the spring.

In 1988 I was diagnosed with exercise induced asthma, and allergic asthma, and I still use daily prescription meds that are quite expensive, and occasionally have to take corticosteroids.

In 1990 I was diagnosed with idiopathic hypertension (which I believe was caused by life stresses) and have taken three medications every day ever since then.

I have no pets. I am allergic to cats and dogs and wool (which is animal hair). If a friendly dog licks my arm, I immediately break out into a red pimply rash from the doggie slobber. I once put some lotion on my face and turned bright red, and my face hurt. I looked at the label. It said it contained lanolin, which is the oil from sheeps' wool. So I figured out I was allergic to lanolin.

When I garden, I wear gardening gloves, and generally any plant branches I brush against on my uncovered arms will get inflamed. I run inside and wash them. When I work in the yard in the summer, I can only do it for about ten minutes. Then I start attempting to vomit and have to run inside in the air conditioning.
This is from Texas heat and humidity.

So I apparently have somme sort of a constitutional weakness with my respiratory system. As far as causation, I don't know, but all the pollution and dust and dirt I was exposed to as a child was not good. I did not live in a house with central air conditioning and filtered air until I was about 25.

I was exposed to all kinds of germs and crud and it did NOT build up my immunity, it seems.

I suspect that the only reason I can talk or sing, that I am alive, after all the wear and tear,is that I have a really big ribcage, square shoulders, and very big lung capacity for a person as small as I am. I am a pretty loud singer.

I'm five foot three, very small boned, small framed, and have a 42 inch ribcage!!

[Confusious]

59. I have a friend who has the same problems

Not as bad as yours, by any means, but he's allergic to everything, even dogs.

Parents never smoked.

[Blue-Jay]

73. That's not how science works.

"It'd be a mistake to draw any conclusions from a single data point" - TRUE

"with an anecdote you are invited to draw a conclusion based on the outcome." - Yeah, but the conclusion is not based on data. You're saying "I believe the story, therefore I must conclude that this story is representative of others in similar situations."

Not. Science.

[DavidDvorkin]

11. Quoting anecdotal evidence is a remarkably common reaction

on DU. I'd expect more understanding of the difference between anecdotes and data.

[Dorian Gray]

52. Of course it is

because people share their experiences that have shaped who they are.

Regardless, anecdotal stories aren't evidence at all, but they can be interesting. And sometimes they offer ideas that are worth pondering.

But science and hard evidence? Or course not.

[sabrina 1]

13. Since you asked, and didn't wait for an answer, I have done

extensive research on this, as I always do on any subject I choose to comment on.

Anecdotal evidence was given in the post I responded to, or do you consider 'anecdotal evidence' you agree with to be 'scientific'?

I responded with contradictory anecdotal evidence, a point you appear to have missed.

As far as scientific evidence directly connecting second-hand smoke to all the ailments attributed to it, I have seen not one convincing piece of research that has proved the claims. I have seen very credible articles debunking most of it.

Believe what you want, this is a discussion board btw, and I see nothing in the rules that forbid 'conversation' where people can offer their own experiences to explain their reasons for backing or not backing particular claims. That is the reason I did not attack, as you seem compelled to do, the comment giving opposite anecdotal evidence in an attempt to prove their own point.

[CreekDog]

54. well your threshold for being convinced known carcinogens don't hurt you is lower

than your threshold for believing known carcinogens do hurt you.

i think i'll stick with the doctors and scientists.

[Redbear]

12. The Surgeon General of the United States says :

"The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html

[seabeyond]

17. and masturbation makes you blind

i jest

[Blue-Jay]

27. What did you just post?

[sabrina 1]

30. I've read that. I've also read counter studies showing

opposite results from what the Surgeon General is quoting. Personally I have no fear of second hand smoke, don't know anyone who has ever been adversely affected by it, except maybe for people with asthmatic or other respiratory conditions who are affected by many environmental conditions, many of which are natural.

Even that study does not provide actual evidence of anything other than a 'higher risk' which could be said of many things such as French Fires, eg.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

15. "There is no credible evidence whatsoever that second hand smoke has ever effected anyone."

Are you fucking serious??? :wow:

[sabrina 1]

19. Yes!

Provide it if you have it ~ scientific, credible evidence. I have yet to see it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. "The scientific evidence is now indisputable:

Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."

Surgeon General: No Safe Level for Secondhand Smoke
Report Bolsters Clean Indoor Air Efforts
Article date: 2006/06/27


Secondhand smoke is dangerous in any amount, and the only way to protect people from that danger is to eliminate indoor smoking. So says a new report by US Surgeon General Richard Carmona. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke was released Tuesday.

Other major conclusions:
- Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in adults and children who do not smoke.
- Exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate negative effects on the heart, and causes heart disease and lung cancer.
- Secondhand smoke can worsen asthma in children, and puts them at risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory infections, and ear problems.


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Surgeon_General_No_Safe_Level_for_Secondhand_Smoke.asp


One sister devloped asthma, one sister developed chronic bronchitis, and I suffered from years of ear infections and rhinitis. And we grew up in a household of three smoking adults.

[laughingliberal]

33. I have several grandchildren who have asthma, asthmatic bronchitis, and regular ear infections

Their parents don't smoke. We don't smoke around them. As far as I know no one smokes around them. I was one of 4 kids with 2 parents that smoked and I had asthma but the other 3 never did. My asthma attacks stopped when I started smoking at 12.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

37. With us three it is really simple -

get us around cigarette or cigar smoke and we are triggered. Get us away from it, we are OK.

Can't get any clearer then that as to cause.

[laughingliberal]

39. Likely, but not the only cause of these conditions in general

If it were there would be none of those among people not exposed to smoke. Worst airway reaction I ever saw was a nurse I was working with who walked into a room where a patient just sprayed on their cologne. I almost did not get her to the ER in time. Two shots of epinephrine to open her airway. It was frightening. Have only had 2 asthma attacks since I was 12. One when I walked into a bathroom where someone had just used bleach to clean. The other in the presence of an air freshener my husband sprayed in the living room. We threw that out.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

60. Your asthma stopped when you started smoking?

Guess you know why you cough all the time?
You've killed your cilia. The tiny little hairs that constantly brush the mucus up out of your lungs. And your alveoli are stiff.

I'd rather wheeze and take medicine than have carbon deposits in my lungs.

But hey, that's just me. :shrug: :sarcasm:

[sabrina 1]

38. See my post above in response to the previous posting of

that article. As I said, much of what is in the study being quoted by the Surgeon General has been debunked by other studies and even that article makes no direct link between second hand smoke and the dire consequences we are supposed to believe it 'may be linked to'. Too many factors in the studies that make them not scientifically dependable as many opposing studies have demonstrated.

[laughingliberal]

41. I actually was in a seminar in the 90's with one of the chief researchers on the 1st 2nd hand smoke

studies. He told me he was shocked when he saw the statements the government was making, that his numbers in no way supported what they were saying. He flat out said the numbers were cooked. Has always baffled me why they perpetrated this. It has called the credibility of all the subsequent research into question in my mind.

[seabeyond]

16. didnt open windows, smoke outside, ventalate excessively. the kids should have been dropping like

flies.....

the whole generation of kids raised in 50's and 60's and 70's should all be dead of second hand smoke....

[Hell Hath No Fury]

32. Your children are incredibly lucky.

The girls in my family were not so lucky. We all have respiratory issues related to growing up in a household of smokers.

[sabrina 1]

34. How do you know that their problems are due to

growing up in a household of smokers? Lots of people have respiratory problems without being exposed to smoke. The environment we live in, the food we eat all can cause problems for some people while others are not affected at all. There are people who cannot drink milk eg. Should we ban it for everyone? How about perfume or deodorant which is known to cause problems for some people also.

What about all those other people who grew up in homes filled with smokers and are perfectly fine?

The truth is we just don't know why some people are susceptible to certain environmental factors while others are not. It's all guesswork at this point much of it, on both sides, coming from people with an agenda. So, we are left to make our own decisions about what way we want to live, but we cannot tell others how to live their lives and that's the problem I have with the anti-smoking crowd.

[laughingliberal]

44. People just ignore that

I said in another reply here that I have several grandchildren with asthma and other respiratory problems and, as far as I know, no one has ever smoked around them. OTOH, there are 4 of us who grew up with parents who smoke and I am the only one who ever had respiratory problems which cleared up when I was 12 which was, coincidentally, the age at which I started smoking.

There are many irritants out there that no one is suggesting we outlaw. Cleaning solutions, perfumes, colognes...All of these can trigger airway reactions in some people.

In the future, it's all going to come down to genetics. Wait til we start going after people due to their genes. Then, no one will be safe. People are bashing on others (smokers, overweight people) feeling smug and superior and safe. They kid themselves there will never be a good reason to come after them.

[sabrina 1]

62. Excellent post. Thank you. The very fact, as you pointed out

that there is no consistency in the reaction of people to any of these products makes it clear that no one can claim a consistent result from the use of any of them. And that is where the flaw in all their so-called science lies. As for your comment about 'going after people for their genes', I agree. People need to be very careful about their prejudices because one day they may find themselves on the receiving end of what they are attempting to do to others.

[Maru Kitteh]

72. MANY OF THEM ARE. Shit. Fucking, fucking, fuckingfucking HELL.

I WONDER WHERE ALL THE IDIOPATHIC SPIKES IN CANCER ARE COMING FROM???????


DUH!

[laughingliberal]

20. Yeah, my parents smoked and I started at 12

Guess I might have had hardened arteries at 13 but I don't at 55. Maybe they softened up since then?

[CreekDog]

51. i guess we don't need science then, you've done your studies

shut down the universities people, shut up the doctors.

her family is fine!!!

[ixion]

5. blah blah blah I don't have enough to worry about

so I want to tell everyone else how to live blah blah. :eyes:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blue-Jay]

9. Unrec, due to whining about unrecs.

It's a rule.

[seabeyond]

22. "grow up"? turds, stupid, dipshits.... name calling is the height of maturity

you are funny

[HillbillyBob]

14. I guess that the coal smoke, car exhaust etc with its

arsenic, uranium, mercury etc is good for you too?!.

Why do we see all this anti smoking shit but not a damn thing about the other pollutants? Bleach, and other household cleaners are just as poisonous ask and asthmatic what happens.

I would stick to MJ if I could get it or grow it instead of the organic tobacco which i can grow legally and not get a life sentence for. Any sentence would be a life term for hiv person like me.

[harkadog]

18. It's because non smokers use the things you mention.

So they are ok or they "are necessary to function" or some BS like that. Non smokers love to preach thinking they will never die because they are so pure. They never tell what their habits are. Cowards.

[LanternWaste]

24. Wasn't a habit for me, it was an addiction

Wasn't a habit for me, it was an addiction. I myself think that using the word habit rather than addiction is at best self-validating, and at worst cowardly-- as you yourself mentioned.

[harkadog]

43. Projecting your weakness on to others

So you won't look as weak.

[LanternWaste]

74. That's one possible, although highly unlikely explanation.

That's one possible, although highly unlikely explanation. But not one the Vegas bookies would accept if they're aware of nicotine's addictive qualities.

However, I imagine we all justify both our addictions in one way or another-- even it includes using tired, hand-me-down Freudian terminologies.

[sabrina 1]

36. Exactly!

I am always amused by that. I bet every one of them drives a car, eg.

[LanternWaste]

23. I think we do see quite a bit about other pollutants

I think we do see quite a bit about other pollutants. As far as I know, there's book after book, periodical after periodical, study after study re: man's impact on climate change due to pollutants. Entire grass root organizations dedicated to stemming pollutants, governments of many nations meeting together to discuss ways to minimize pollution. The EPA has the Division of Land Pollutants dedicated to that very thing.

I think in the end, we see what better validates our opinions, and dismiss those that don't.

[laughingliberal]

21. Odd this is an issue when smoking in public is now a thing of the past

Why are we still talking about 2nd hand smoke?

[johnnie]

25. You're right

There is no smoking in public and now they will be out to outlaw it in your house. You watch..it's coming.

[laughingliberal]

26. Huh, I guess they'd best hire a lot more LEO's

Gonna take a lot of resources to find me and my husband here in our house smoking by ourselves. Only way I see it is if they ban cigarettes. Then, where will they collect all that revenue from?

[johnnie]

28. With the way some non-smokers are..

They won't need LEO's to turn you in there will be plenty of do-gooders to do that for them.

[laughingliberal]

31. Non smokers are not allowed in my home

In fact, I rarely spend any time in their presence. I did have a few, when I was still working, who would follow me outside to the secluded area where I smoked to spend their breaks with me. But I absolutely made it clear I was on my way to smoke cigarettes and advised them to turn back if they had a problem with that.

[RagAss]

35. My whole genration would be dead if this was true....

Our parents smoked in cars in the 60's....with the fucking windows up in the winter !!!!!...

Sick of this shit...get your lawyer and sue the smokers...then you can sit all day and post shit like this.

[sabrina 1]

40. So true, and until the mid-nineties people smoked on airplanes.

Yet, a 37 year study of airline workers showed no difference in their risk of lung cancer than the rest of the population.

Gullible people, especially the authoritarian type who feel a need to adjust the behavior of others, are always only too delighted to find something to use against others.

That is how we got the draconian and liberty/civil rights destroying Drug Laws. I personally would rather risk whatever the risk is purported to be than live in their kind of oppressive society.

[DavidDvorkin]

42. I've learned from this that wackadoodle denialism doesn't apply only to global warming.

[laughingliberal]

45. And I've learned that people love to beat dead horses. Where is it legal to smoke in any

establishments where children are present?

[DavidDvorkin]

46. Homes

This is the kind of research result that parents should be aware of. It could change their behavior, for the sake of their children's health.

Well, except for those given to wackadoodle denialism, of course.

[laughingliberal]

47. If there are any parents who have not been inundated with information on the harm of smoking around

children, I'd like to know where you think they are? This is nuts to keep beating the dead horse.

[DavidDvorkin]

55. Juding by the hysterical reaction here on DU

I suspect there must be quite a few parents who engage in denialism about second-hand smoke. Perhaps studies of this sort will change a few of those minds.

It's a dead horse in the sense that the science is well established. But just as with global warming, there are many otherwise intelligent people who keep pretending to themselves that it is not well established. So more evidence is required, I think, in hopes that a few of them will finally stop deluding themselves.

[laughingliberal]

64. It's a dead horse in the sense that laws everywhere now prohibit smoking in places where children

are present. Unless you're prepared to advocate for jailing parents who may smoke around their children (and I don't know any who do) then we, as a society, have done about all we can about it. How many more laws would you like related to smoking. The subject has been mined for about all the righteous indignation it can be.

[taterguy]

53. Honestly, I don't think indoor smoking bans are nationwide yet

But I'm too lazy to Google it and be sure.

Up until 62 days ago you could smoke next to a toddler in my state.

That is, any toddler whose parents were inconsiderate enough to sit in the smoking section of a restaurant.

[laughingliberal]

65. Okay, so work on your state. There is no smoking allowed in any public places where children are

allowed in my state. Unless we're prepared to start arresting parents for smoking at home, I think we've mined the anti-smoking crusade for about all we can. If they want to start criminalizing parents for this, I advocate genetic testing for all potential parents and criminalizing procreating with any predispositions to respiratory illness. A genetic predisposition to asthma and any other chronic illnesses should make child bearing a crime.

[aungsungsuchi2]

48. ok to kill as long as you are making a buck...

...

[laughingliberal]

49. I do believe smoking has now been outlawed everywhere it might possibly ever affect any other human

So, who's being killed?

[Dorian Gray]

50. What I want to know

is what 13 year old's parents allowed them to be used for this study!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. If I am around a person who smokes, I get sick.

Invariably. Two days later I have a full blown sinus infection and have to go to the doctor.

[Quantess]

61. And, smokers seem to get sick a whole lot more often than nonsmokers.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

63. I have had to cut off friendships with smokers.

My medical problems are anecdotal, but this is the body that I have to live in. I can't trade it in for a better set of lungs.

[laughingliberal]

70. Better for all of you if you do

I pretty much cut off non-smokers. Sure, a lot of them tell me it doesn't bother them but I don't trust it and don't want anyone harboring any little nagging suspicions that I'm bad for their health. Less nerve wracking for me to avoid them.

[laughingliberal]

68. Funny, I kept hearing that statistic the whole time I worked

Yet, I had better attendance than any other nurse I worked with and most of them were non-smokers. Colds, sore throats, sinus infections, migraines. Jeez, these people would call in for anything. Bunches with sick kids (funny, their kids got sick without ever being exposed to a cigarette). My record was 5 years without a missed day of work and I rarely missed a day in a year. Think the last year I worked was my worst attendance. I missed a week due to carpal tunnel surgery but scheduled that off ahead of time. Based on the hospitals I worked in, maybe more people would have shown up if more of them had smoked.

[laughingliberal]

66. If I'm around strong colognes or cleaning fluids I get sick

And I'm not alone. I had to rush a nurse I was working with to the ER after she walked into a patient's room who had just applied cologne. They damned near didn't save her.

So? Do we outlaw cologne and cleaning fluids in public places?

[Tx4obama]

67. The propaganda against smokers is paid for by industries that pollute & car manufacturers

in my opinion.

My whole family smoked when I was growing up. I've worked in places filled with smoke, etc.
I am over 50 years old and I am a smoker.

I read an article that says if you sit in traffic 20 minutes a day going to and from work it is like smoking 2 cartons of cigarettes a week. I believe no one really knows squat!

I worked in nursing homes years ago and we had very old folks there in their 80s and 90s that smoked the majority of their lives and had NO effects whatsoever from smoking.

[laughingliberal]

69. There's no doubt smoking is bad for people but the propaganda is so thick, now

I do question who it's protecting. Keep people focused on smokers and fat people and they will fight among themselves and ignore those doing worse damage to them. It's always the same old divide and conquer crap. Day in, day out. Gets old.