World Health Organization study on second hand smoke

mark · Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 38

When the World Health Organization did their study on second hand smoke, the only statistically significant result was that children who grew up in homes with parents who smoked had a 22% LESS chance of getting lung cancer during their lives.

That's a fact.

Mark

Segep · Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 222

That makes a sort of sense, actually. Builds up a tolerance. Smile

I think people that constantly sanitize their hands and everything around them are more likely to get sick. That's just my personal opinion, of course, with no science to back it up.

Howdy, Mark. Cool

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:26 pm Post subject:

That's an interesting study. I'd not read that before. I want to look more into that.

mark · Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 38

Here is the pertinent info from the study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409?dopt=Abstract

ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96).

Any relative risk UNDER 1 is a health benefit. The RR of .78 shows a decrease in cancer to kids exposed to SHS as a 22% decrease.

MARK

mark · Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 38

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject:

You're definitely right about that. There have been a number fo studies recently about immune systems and children. Even ones that reference things like cat allergies--people who grew up around cats have a much better chance of not developing any serious allergies to cat dander/hair.

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject:

It almost makes me wonder whether the same thing might be able to apply to chemicals--or whether that's a totally different animal....

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

Yes, over-cleanliness can cause problems, but you don't want to expose people deliberately to filth and chemicals. That's why you shouldn't overuse anti-bacterial solutions and instead just use soap. Sanitation has been responsible for saving lives and increasing health quality of life. If you over-do it, that's bad. However, not exposing children to known irritants and pathogens because of the off chance it might build a slight tolerance is irresponsible as well as unethical.

Moreover, when you read medical studies, multiple studies might contradict one another. You need to go by the general data trend, not one-off studies. Other studies indicate that SHS is bad for children in far more areas unrelated to lung cancer. The problem is what SHS does to you and children WHILE you are consuming it. If you don't have much, long term exposure, it will not have the problem of cancer development likely. That usually takes longer. Other things do not. For instance:

It can trigger and make worse asthma that's already present, create eye and throat irritation, and make throat and nasal infections more prevalent in childhood. It also is miserable to sit around as a child with no choice. There are myriad other afflictions long and short term SHS facilitate unrelated to cancer, which has one of the lowest RRs of them all (and which is the only one Mark focuses on intentionally).

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject:

True about the other aspects that are negative to general smoke inhalation. To me, smoking in a house is akin to having a fire in the fireplace when the chimney isn't working quite right. You probably won't get cancer, but there are all the other aspects to that.

I think it's wrong to smoke in a house with children--but it's primarily for the reasons of sending your kids off to get picked on for stinking really bad! Those parents obviously don't give a shit about their kids and how well they're able to relate with others.

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

This is one such example that entirely contradicts Mark's interpretation of statistics. They claim that ALL individuals with second hand smoke exposure are subject to higher risks of lung cancer, including children, and it obviously doesn't interpret statistics that are identical the way Mark does.

Quote:

"All individuals exposed to SHS have a higher risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, this study suggests that subjects first exposed before age 25 have a higher lung cancer risk compared to those for whom first exposure occurred after age 25 years."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191495?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This medical organization also disagrees with Mark's brilliant medical assessment.

" Exposure to ETS decreases lung efficiency and impairs lung function in children of all ages. It increases both the frequency and severity of childhood asthma. Secondhand smoke can aggravate sinusitis, rhinitis, cystic fibrosis, and chronic respiratory problems such as cough and postnasal drip. It also increases the number of children's colds and sore throats. In children under two years of age, ETS exposure increases the likelihood of bronchitis and pneumonia. "

Moreover: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_59185.html (Second Hand Smoke for Children increases risk of allergies).

The consequence is over "15,000 hospitalizations" and "[c]hildren of parents who smoke half a pack a day or more are at nearly double the risk of hospitalization for a respiratory illness."

According to the studies of the National Institute of Healths National Cancer Institution: second hand smoking causes 430 SIDS cases yearly. Moreover, in children, it causes "acute respiratory infections, middle ear disease, more severe asthma, respiratory symptoms, and slowed lung growth."

But according to Mark MD, it's harmless and even GOOD for children! We should expose you to it to "build up tolerance." Gee Golly Mark MD. Thanks!

I Very Happy

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject:

I wouldn't say he's saying it's GOOD for children, I think he's just trying to disspell some of the myths about how serious SHS is in causing cancer, but I could be wrong--maybe he really IS trying to say otherwise, but until I see him say it, I'm going to assume what I already have about his statement.

I think the big thing is this: Smokers GENERALLY don't think smoking is a problem--they see people that don't like cigarettes as just a bunch of whiny little complainy people who want to remove their rights.

I smoke weed, I don't think weed is a problem, but I'm certainly not going to argue that it's "good for you", or that there shouldn't be a problem with children being around it, or most of the things that I see stereotypical smokers trying to argue. I wish it was legal, but I'm certainly not going to ask for the same rights to smoke it in all the places where cigarettes used to be able to be smoked.

Kizzume · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:53 pm Post subject:

Mark--are you trying to say it's "healthy" for kids to be around SHS?

technocrat · Joined: 04 Dec 2007 Posts: 216

He's emphasizing that being "too clean" leads to problems and that it actually benefits children, reducing their risk of cancer. The logical implication of his argument is that he thinks since it's not harmful, but helpful, you should expose them to some and it's ok. Not exposing them is the REAL bad thing! He does this all the time. He just found a new forum to do it on.

mark · Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 38

mark · Joined: 06 Dec 2007 Posts: 38

TU posted: This is one such example that entirely contradicts Mark's interpretation of statistics. They claim that ALL individuals with second hand smoke exposure are subject to higher risks of lung cancer, including children, and it obviously doesn't interpret statistics that are identical the way Mark does.

Quote:

"All individuals exposed to SHS have a higher risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, this study suggests that subjects first exposed before age 25 have a higher lung cancer risk compared to those for whom first exposure occurred after age 25 years."

Hey TU: Interesting. But, I will point out, MOST STUDIES OF CHILDHOOD EXPOSURE show a pro-active affect. I would like to see the study you cited in it's entirety, because I think one of the statements in the synopsis is hard to interpert.

Mark