Outdoor smoking affects children indoors
ABC Science/Pravda ^ | June 16, 2008 | Grant Junkie



Parents who smoke outside their house are still exposing their children to the harmful effects of passive smoking, an Australian study suggests.

The study found that the levels of respirable suspended particles, including nicotine, were significantly higher in houses where smokers lived than in smoke-free homes - even if they only smoked outside.

The findings appear in the latest issue of Indoor Air.

Lead author of the study, Dr Krassi Rumchev of Curtin University of Technology, says the findings indicate that the level of passive smoking by children at home may be underestimated, as those whose parents smoked outside were exposed to levels of environmental tobacco smoke high enough to cause harm.

"According to the study, smoking outdoors seems inadequate to protect children," Rumchev says.

"[The] results demonstrate clearly that if parents want a smoke-free environment for children, they need to stop smoking."

She adds that children were more likely to have respiratory illnesses including asthma, coughs and colds than those in tobacco-free households.

Clinging on The researchers urge doctors to advise parents to quit and make their homes completely smoke-free.

Rumchev says smoke-free public places have worked well and the next step is smoke-free homes for children.

Researchers measured nicotine and respirable particles over 24 hours in the living rooms of 92 Perth households with children aged between four and nine years old.

Although 39 houses (42%) had smokers, only 4% said smoking occurred inside.

Levels were low in homes without smokers and considerably higher in houses where smoking was reported.

"[The] findings are concerning, and it's a clear message that more education programs are required and we need to concentrate on making residential settings smoke-free," she says.


(Excerpt) Read more at abc.net.au ...

quote:

She adds that children were more likely to have respiratory illnesses including asthma, coughs and colds than those in tobacco-free households.

The reduction in SHS has worked quite well so far, especially for the sales of the asthma medications. No wonder Big Pharma spends billions on antismoking.

Of course.
Gary K.

http://www.americansmokersparty-illinois.org/

Smoke and the Asthma Epidemic:
A Reality Check

Date of original release: 7/17/00

We've all heard that smoking and second-hand smoke cause asthma, but a growing body of evidence is challenging the veracity of this old saw.

The most recent study to exonerate smoking and tobacco smoke as a cause of asthma was published in the British Medical Journal July 8, 2000. [1]

In this 20-year, inter generational study, researchers found that the rate of asthma had doubled between l976 and l996, even as the smoking rate dropped by half during that same period. Asthma and hay fever increased for both smokers and non-smokers, but the increase was higher for non-smokers.

The steep rise in asthma was dramatically underscored by the fact that prescriptions for steroid inhalants for treatment of the disease rose more than six-fold between l980 and l990 alone.

This pattern of precipitous increases in asthma coupled with significantly diminishing smoking rates is not unique to the population described by the Scottish researchers in their BMJ article.

Asthma and allergy rates are sky rocketing among adults and children in all developed countries, though not in less-developed, poorer countries.

Experts are baffled by the asthma epidemic. In most countries it strikes hardest at the children of middle-class and wealthy parents, and no one knows why.

These good, European middle-class parents have stopped smoking, banished it from their homes, and yet their kids are getting allergies and asthma far more often than children in more smoking-tolerant times ever did.

In the United States, too, the incidence of adult and childhood asthma has climbed to an unprecedented high during the past twenty years, while smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] have decreased significantly during the same period.

"...Between 1980 and l995, the number of people reporting asthma in the U.S. more than doubled (from 6.7 million to 13.7 million) [3], a 75% increase in the rate per 100,000 population. [4] And, after a sharp increase beginning in the early l990s, the rate is still climbing.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates the l998 rate at 17.3 million, a 150% increase since 1980. [5]

"...Between l980 and l995, the adult smoking rate decreased from 33.2 to 24.7, a drop of 25%. [6] In the late l990s the overall smoking rate has remained steady at between 24 and 25 percent of the adult population, far less than its peak of 42.6% in l966.

The inverse relationship between asthma rates and smoking and between asthma rates and exposure to ETS can be seen quite clearly.

If we are reared in poorly maintained plastic bubbles away from the natural world during the period when our immune systems are developing we are bound to have problems later.

Children who have never been in water have a tendency to drown.

quote:

Parents who smoke outside their house are still exposing their children to the harmful effects of passive smoking, an Australian study suggests.

When you see this kind of garabage, you can believe it's a sign that someone is far outside the realm of sanity, way, way out into left field.

What a pantload.

2006 Surgeon General's Report

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke

Introduction
Chapter 6. Respiratory Effects
in Children from Exposure
to Secondhand Smoke

page 14 Chapter 1
Childhood Asthma Onset
9. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:
9. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient

As with quite a few things related to smoking, it's suggestive, but not sufficient. One reason why its not sufficient is because of other studies not showing a risk or even more, a protective effect.

So, when is the last time anybody saw one of THOSE no risk smoking-related studies on the front page of a newspaper?

More and more people report breathing problems because more and more people are living most of their lives within the confines of conditioned air. Most report problems only when outside those conditioned spaces, in other words when they venture outside into the natural air.

quote:

Parents who smoke outside their house are still exposing their children to the harmful effects of passive smoking, an Australian study suggests.

The study found that the levels of respirable suspended particles, including nicotine, were significantly higher in houses where smokers lived than in smoke-free homes - even if they only smoked outside.

The findings appear in the latest issue of Indoor Air.

Lead author of the study, Dr Krassi Rumchev of Curtin University of Technology, says the findings indicate that the level of passive smoking by children at home may be underestimated, as those whose parents smoked outside were exposed to levels of environmental tobacco smoke high enough to cause harm.

"According to the study, smoking outdoors seems inadequate to protect children," Rumchev says.

Was already suggested.

Sounds something like this:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/200.../20060112?hub=Canada

a little exerpt:

quote:

Smoke from tobacco doesn't just magically disappear into thin air, said Ferrence, who is also director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit at the University of Toronto. Indoors, tar and chemicals stick to walls, furniture and clothes -- and can outgas dangerous molecules from weeks to months afterwards.

Those who smoke outside can carry the residue inside on their clothing, transferring it to children, other adults and pets, said Ferrence, who advises smokers to wash their hands and change outer clothing before picking up a baby, for instance.

LOL "weeks to months afterwards"???

Outgas???

And I bet this "outgassing" causes lung CANCER.
Sounds to me like they are repeating the lies. Like all propaganda, repeat it long enough, it becomes "the truth".

Too many gullible people out there. Wouldn't suprise me to learn that people ACTUALLY would fear a cigarette that has been put out weeks to months prior. LOL

If we look at all the "third hand smoke" that was around in the 60s - 70s, according to these self proclaimed "experts", we should all be half dead by now yes?

Harmed by all these "dangerous molecules"?

quote:

"[The] results demonstrate clearly that if parents want a smoke-free environment for children, they need to stop smoking."

Well, yes.

Isn't it an approved strategy among smokercontrol advocates to attempt to SHAME people into quitting smoking, if they cannot physically force them to?

Horse$h*t is a good word for all this. I can think of many others.

Just waiting for a big horse$h*t metastudy of a bunch of smaller horse$h*t studies...

Where's their warning when Dad's been out grilling?

Why aren't parents told to change clothes after driving home from work? Is it for real that car and truck exhaust is now totally harmless?

Anybody who takes these goons seriously actually does need nannies looking after them.

My God, the upcoming 4th of July fireworks then will kill millions! Oh, the humanity!

[QUOTE]Smoke from tobacco doesn't just magically disappear into thin air, said Ferrence, who is also director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit at the University of Toronto.QUOTE]


Umm...Yes, as a matter of fact, if you are outside, it does, you brainless moron.