SMOKING IN PUBLIC

Are you saying then Angus that you feel that niccotine has no effect what so ever on the smokers and other people (or pets!)

Can you prove that this is the case?

Lunah_c wrote:

Are you saying then Angus that you feel that niccotine has no effect what so ever on the smokers and other people (or pets!)

Can you prove that this is the case?

Oh hold on, let me think.

where the f*** did I say that?

If you want to argue with me then quote me or cross-examine me but don't ask me to prove your theory of your theory.

The top guy researching into SIDS at the big hospital in LA:

Quote :

A number of people have asked for some commentary on the "British Smoking Study" performed by Professor Peter Fleming in the United Kingdom. It is with some trepidation that I do so, because this is obviously a touchy subject. However, let me try to put this into perspective.

First, as to Professor Fleming's credentials as a researcher, he is outstanding. He and I trained together at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto many years ago. Therefore, I have known him for quite some time. He has had excellent research training, and continues to perform the highest quality of research in his own right. For the past several years, he has established probably the best controlled and most accurate study of infant mortality (including SIDS) in the world. Some of the initial work on the effect of prone sleeping and SIDS, as well as the possibility of overheating being a factor, came from his initial work. He told me that he originally did not believe that sleeping position would have an effect on SIDS, but he included questions on this in his initial study "to end discussion on this issue". As we all know, his studies, and others, have suggested that prone sleeping is associated with a higher risk.

I believe it was this work which prompted Professor Fleming to look for other "potentially modifiable risk factors". From a classical medical point of view, this is the strategy which is likely to have the greatest benefit. If one researches potential causes which can not be removed or altered, then it is less likely that the study will have an impact. Thus, Professor Fleming specifically has chosen to look at factors which one could potentially eliminate, such as changing sleeping position or stopping smoking.

In Avon, England, where Professor Fleming performs his studies, prone sleeping has nearly been eliminated. In the absence of prone sleeping, parental cigarette smoking has emerged as the next greatest risk factor for SIDS. His data, which were also presented at the Fourth SIDS International Conference, show a highly significant relationship. Therefore, I believe we must conclude that his findings are real.

What does this mean? Clearly, Professor Fleming is not saying that cigarette smoking is the cause of SIDS. Like with prone sleeping, babies of families where there has been no cigarette smoking continue to die from SIDS, and most babies born into families where one or both parents smoke will not die. So, cigarette smoking is not the cause of SIDS. However, there are two implications of this work:

1) If families can eliminate cigarette smoking during and after pregnancy, the SIDS RISK for that baby is decreased. Therefore, it does give rise to something parents might want to do to try and optimize their chances.

2) Perhaps more important, SIDS risk factors are not CAUSES of SIDS, but they are scientific CLUES to the cause of SIDS. As researchers, we need to think about why cigarette smoking is associated with an increased risk. This line of investigation may lead us to a better understanding of the mechanism of SIDS, and ultimately to learning its cause.

Having personally spoken with Peter Fleming at the Fourth SIDS International Conference about this issue, I know that he also believes that an important implication of this work is that it might lead to an understanding of SIDS. In fact, the "Developmental Physiology Working Party" of the Global Strategy Task Force (which met for 2-days right after the International Conference), set an understanding of the physiologic basis of these risk factors as its highest research priority. Peter Fleming and I were both members of that group.

I think that much of the reaction on this Listserver was due to the media coverage of this research study. I can only say, in my experience of being interviewed by several reporters about SIDS over the years, that reporters are always looking for a "sensational" angle for a story on SIDS. They are not very enthusiastic about printing that SIDS occurs and nothing can be done about it. Therefore, they tend to sensationalize research results, making them sound more significant than they might be. While it would be desirable to change this practice, I don't think we will have much luck at it.

I am not sure where this discussion leaves most of you SIDS parents. I hope it has been a helpful clarification. I would be happy to address additional issues or answer questions (If I can).

Thank you very much.

Tom Keens
Children's Hospital Los Angeles

Wikipedia's list of risk factors for SIDS:

Quote :

Very little is known about the possible causes of SIDS; there is no method for absolute prevention. However, several risk factors are associated with increased probability of the syndrome.
[edit]

Prenatal risks

* inadequate prenatal care
* inadequate prenatal nutrition
* tobacco smoking
* use of heroin
* teenage pregnancy
* less than a one year interval between subsequent births

[edit]

Post-natal risks

* low birth weight (especially less than 1.5 kg (~3.3 lbs)
* exposure to tobacco smoke
* laying an infant to sleep on his or her stomach (see positional plagiocephaly)
* failure to breastfeed
* excess clothing and overheating
* excess bedding, soft sleep surface and stuffed animals
* gender (61% of SIDS occur in males)
* age (incidence rises from zero at birth, is highest between 2-4 months and goes towards zero at one year)

Thanks Jill. There's the proof you wanted Angus.

Yes, but I do think we need to take on board what the guy says - there's a big difference between a risk factor and a cause. More than big, huge. Having said that, I think as an expectant parent or parent of a new baby, you'd have to be mad to smoke around them and really, smoke at all.

I agree there. Personally I have never taken up smoking. I was lucky that my friends (when you are most likely to give in to peer pressure) did not either.

Knowing the dangers people must be crazy to take it up these days.

I am anti smoking.
My sister died of cot death
neither of my parents smoked.
I agree that smoking around kids is bad.

Where is the proof that people who smoke are 9 times more likely to have a child die of cot death?

It is not the proof I asked CERBERUS to provide so you are wrong AGAIN!

if you want to argue and make yourself look stupid becuase you are asking me to prove YOUR point, not mine, carry on.

Find one post where I said smoking does not harm people/kids/pets or anyone but don't hang on to other peoples posts thinking you are right when you are so not.

As a yoof with no responsibities, I smoked zillions of cigarettes, drank far too much alcohol and took as many illegal drugs as I could get my naughty little hands on.

But life moves on. I decided to have children and so basically all that had to stop. I never really saw it as a sacrifice, though, and that's what I don't understand about people who choose to have families and don't eliminate risk factors from their lifestyles. My priorities changed as I grew up and I thought having children would be far more of a satisfying way to spend my life than carousing would. So I basically cut out the risk factors.

Good for you Jill.

Seems some people don't grow up though.

Lunah_c wrote:

Good for you Jill.

Seems some people don't grow up though.

Just show me once where said anything you said I did, that is all I have asked you to do and so far you are as bad as Phil for putting words into peoples mouths.

Quote and use fact but don't make up shit and try and get others behind you to back up your argument.

I can't be arsed to look back through the thread to see where this argument started, but I must say that I agree with Angus in that the out-of-context quoting of headline-grabbing statistics is at best misleading. And Phil is a past master of the art, aren't you Phil?!

I saw the row, went to look at the stats for myself, and the best piece on the subject I could find was the guy I quoted from the LA Hospital who seems to think...

* Prone sleeping is the biggest risk factor for SIDS.
* Second to prone sleeping is tobacco smoke.
* Neither are causes but both are risk factors.
* There are a number of other risk factors, but smoking is the one parents can easily do something about.

Quite how this relates to the subject under discussion - whether a smoking ban in a commercial establishment for over 18s is appropriate or not - I don't know!

Jill Murphy wrote:

As a yoof with no responsibities, I smoked zillions of cigarettes, drank far too much alcohol and took as many illegal drugs as I could get my naughty little hands on.

I knew there was a reason why I like you...

I have not claimed anyone has said anything nor did I mention statistics. I don't blame you for not wanting to read back Jill, but I think if anyone did they would see it wasn't me that mentioned them.

Angus you implied by your answer earlier that you wanted proof of the statistics. If that is not what you meant then you should have been clearer. Your posts tend to come across as quite argumentative and agressive. You may think not but since you answer back to everyone this is the impression you give.

All I have ever said is that I don't think it is right to smoke around young babies or children and that anyone with any sense would not take it up these days.

So.... ON topic,

I don't support the smoking ban. I think smoking in pubs and clubs - despite the health & safety of employees issue - is a commercial decision, not a legislative one. I think the government's place in this debate is in education, not legislation.

I also think the economics are a significant factor which needs discussion. (I can't remember where I got these stats from, Angus, and I can't be arsed to go looking twice in one day, but I'm pretty sure they're fairly accurate)...

Smoking tax revenue is something like £9bn.
Cost to the NHS of smoking related disease is something like £2.5bn.
Net difference is thus £6.5bn.

Where will that money come from? Additionally, we're not just talking about the difference of £6.5bn, are we? Smoking is a ticking time bomb, healthwise. If everybody gave up smoking tomorrow and the tax revenue ceased tomorrow, people would still be dying of smoking-related diseases in 20 years time. There is a financial black hole in a smokers-free future nirvana. And it's a scary one.

I'm not suggesting it's a great idea if people carry on smoking and carry on dying from it - of course it's not. But still... y'know... think on.

I will save you having to go through Jill.

Here is my post asking Phil to provide evidence to his claim.

Angus wrote:

Cerberus wrote:

To be honest the finite statistics on parents that lose kids to cotdeath babies narrow the bug down to a small chunk of parents.We cant really go there.Bliss website is good for the smokers stat.I dont think its the smoke that kills the babies though,if you look at the trends.

Once more you quote statistics and when asked for the source, fail to provide it.

where does it say that people who smoke are 9 times more likely to have a cot death of their child, where?

Here is Lunah_c’s accusation and sensation post.

Lunah_c wrote:

Are you saying then Angus that you feel that niccotine has no effect what so ever on the smokers and other people (or pets!)

Can you prove that this is the case?

I mean, how?

Quote :

All I have ever said is that I don't think it is right to smoke around young babies or children and that anyone with any sense would not take it up these days.

I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I'm sure Angoose does too, don't you, Angoose?

Of course I do and have never said anything which would even give the impression otherwise.

I think you're both at angry dolphins. Angry dolphins = cross porpoises = cross purposes!

Let's move on, or Phil will be laughing for the next three weeks, having successfully caused other people to have a row!

yeh I'll have a smoke on that !

Maybe I did get the wrong idea, but this question,

.........where does it say that people who smoke are 9 times more likely to have a cot death of their child, where?..........


It gives the impression that you are arguing, saying you won't believe it until it is proved to you.


As Gill says....let's move on.

Is this area a smoking or non smoking one Rachel? Lol

Lunah_c wrote:

Maybe I did get the wrong idea, but this question,

.........where does it say that people who smoke are 9 times more likely to have a cot death of their child, where?..........


It gives the impression that you are arguing, saying you won't believe it until it is proved to you.


As Gill says....let's move on.

And here we have a classic example of sensationalism.

and someone who with their head up their bum.

Lunah_c wrote:

and someone who with their head up their bum.

Sadly I sometimes have to stoop to that level to make myself understood by some people.