Fresh evidence of perils of smoking while pregnant

Women who smoke while pregnant may cause permanent cardiovascular damage to their children that could heighten the offspring's risk for a stroke and heart attack, researchers said on Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070302/hl_nm/smoking_pregn...EmOvJfFkDUmVRtnMWM0F


Is it fresh evidence or some differnt spin the anti's are cooking up..

Never heard that one before. Could well be a new one.

"Uiterwaal's team examined 732 people who were born from 1970 to 1973.

They found that the children of the 215 women who had smoked while pregnant had thicker walls of the carotid arteries than children whose mothers did not smoke during pregnancy."

All of them? Sounds like it, but I doubt it. And if not, so what?

Btw, Uiterwaal was involved with a study which found this:

"Left-Handedness Tied to Higher Breast Cancer Risk"

notice all those key words that the tobacco control ban-addicts like using

"may cause" "sugjesting" 'leading" ect ect

get the impression when I read all these studies that they don't have any facts to back up their claims they just want to sound the alarm bells.. it just pisses me off with all the far fetched banter

My favorite word there is "permanent".

I'm so tired of these "studies".

I notice that the conservative media has finally woken up and is in a two fisted, bareknuckle fight lately over global warming.

Maybe they'll wake up and start fighting this stuff too. Well, one can hope, I guess.

When my mother was carrying me in 1959, her doctor told her to keep smoking because it would make the stress of pregnancy easier. It would be an understatement to say that times have changed.

quote:

Posted Fri March 02 2007 07:51 PM
notice all those key words that the tobacco control ban-addicts like using

"may cause" "sugjesting" 'leading" ect ect

get the impression when I read all these studies that they don't have any facts to back up their claims they just want to sound the alarm bells.. it just pisses me off with all the far fetched banter

What pisses ME off is that the media have parroted it verbatim for over 20 years now and have NEVER ONCE questioned it-just reported every thing as fact, no matter how outrageous.

quote:

the media have parroted it verbatim for over 20 years now

now days the media is worthless all they want to do is sell papers and get there artical featured on the front page which in turn makes them money.. its all sensationalism and it dosen't matter if its the truth or not

I read in another head line that "fear is whats drives the world economic system" quoted it from Muammar Gaddifi from sebha, libya and the way things look comming from all these antis politicians ect I am agreeing that he is correct in his assumptions

I saw on the front page of USA TODAY when I was getting gas last night-weekend edition. In HUGE letters-"Smoking Being Banned On More College Campuses"

Although it was not the main article-it was actually the one that was vertically on the right=hand side-it was obvious which one you were supposed to notice first, as no other one was in huge bold type.

The rat-media is nothing but the fifth colunm, now.

I suspect that this purported study falls in the same category as its predecessors. My favorite example is the low birth weight baby study. My smoking mother was all of 4' 10" and not quite 100 pounds and she smoked. Her three children weighed 9 pounds, 11 ounces; 10 pounds 1 ounce and 9 pounds, 14 ounces. My first wife smoked, stood under five feet one inch and weighed 125 pounds just before delivering our 9 pound, 13 ounce daughter.

A few years ago I did a little informal research while teaching in Ohio looking at birth certificates in Hamilton County. To make a long series of eye straining sessions short, I called the mothers of 1100 children born between 1965 and 1985 to ascertain whether or not they smoked while pregnant, and, if so, how much. The result? A positive correlation, that's right positive, between smoking and high birth weight.

I didn't alert the media. I'm a masochist or I wouldn't have spent the time researching but, I'm not that much of one. One doesn't argue with a lunatic--or a newspaper editor.