Chain Smoking Around Baby 9 Hours A Day
Discussion
jdw100 said:
Do a bit of research - unless you are changing your clothes and showering before coming back in the house you are still impacting your child's health.
Children and babies who live in a home where there is a smoker:
Are more prone to asthma and ear, nose and chest infections. About 17,000 children under 5 years old in England and Wales are admitted to hospital each year due to illnesses caused by their parents' smoking.
Have an increased risk of dying from cot death (sudden infant death syndrome).
Are more likely than average to become smokers themselves when older.
On average, do less well at reading and reasoning skills compared with children in smoke-free homes, even at low levels of smoke exposure.
Are at increased risk of developing COPD and cancer as adults.
Surely not serious? Have a word with yourself. I'm not smoking around my children or picking them up after a cigarette and even if I was picking them up there is a gulf of a difference between that and filling the room with smoke for 9 9hours a day. Turning the oven on and cooking some sausages is worse for them than daddy smelling of a cigarette once a week.Children and babies who live in a home where there is a smoker:
Are more prone to asthma and ear, nose and chest infections. About 17,000 children under 5 years old in England and Wales are admitted to hospital each year due to illnesses caused by their parents' smoking.
Have an increased risk of dying from cot death (sudden infant death syndrome).
Are more likely than average to become smokers themselves when older.
On average, do less well at reading and reasoning skills compared with children in smoke-free homes, even at low levels of smoke exposure.
Are at increased risk of developing COPD and cancer as adults.
Edited by jdw100 on Monday 25th April 04:29
Indeed, do some research yourself, none of your post is anything to do with someones clothes smelling of cigarettes on a rare occasion. You think that causes chest infections and them doing bad at school?
Now if your post was directed at the OP I may well agree having heard the circumstances but you have no idea how little or often I smoke.rb5er said:
Surely not serious? Have a word with yourself. I'm not smoking around my children or picking them up after a cigarette and even if I was picking them up there is a gulf of a difference between that and filling the room with smoke for 9 9hours a day. Turning the oven on and cooking some sausages is worse for them than daddy smelling of a cigarette once a week.
Indeed, do some research yourself, none of your post is anything to do with someones clothes smelling of cigarettes on a rare occasion. You think that causes chest infections and them doing bad at school? Now if your post was directed at the OP I may well agree having heard the circumstances but you have no idea how little or often I smoke.
I suspect you also have little idea of the frequency/likelihood of a mutagenic event. However I agree that once a week probably has less effect than the odd burnt sausage.Indeed, do some research yourself, none of your post is anything to do with someones clothes smelling of cigarettes on a rare occasion. You think that causes chest infections and them doing bad at school?
Now if your post was directed at the OP I may well agree having heard the circumstances but you have no idea how little or often I smoke.You must remember about this whole research business that often, despite balanced work of the researchers. That sometimes a well but slightly biased person will draw conclusions from the evidence which are not in line with the authors.
For example, I would bet my left testicle, that children of smokers tend to have less developed verbal/reasoning skills because their parents are more likely to be the Wayne and Waynetta Slob types. Not as a result of the typical effects of second hand smoke.
Having done a bit of undergraduate respiratory toxicology however, I would maintain it is horrendous insult on a developing set of lungs. To a developing immune system it really can bias the immune system to an inappropriate inflammatory response, this seems to result in the increasingly common life long allergies we see today.
But that's the theory. Whilst it might exist, in practice I can't even begin to imagine how you'd demonstrate it in smokers' offspring, some very clever epidemiological studies would be required. But that doesn't matter. The NHS will stick it in pamphlet regardless. The ends always justify the means when it comes to public health matters.
For example, I would bet my left testicle, that children of smokers tend to have less developed verbal/reasoning skills because their parents are more likely to be the Wayne and Waynetta Slob types. Not as a result of the typical effects of second hand smoke.
Having done a bit of undergraduate respiratory toxicology however, I would maintain it is horrendous insult on a developing set of lungs. To a developing immune system it really can bias the immune system to an inappropriate inflammatory response, this seems to result in the increasingly common life long allergies we see today.
But that's the theory. Whilst it might exist, in practice I can't even begin to imagine how you'd demonstrate it in smokers' offspring, some very clever epidemiological studies would be required. But that doesn't matter. The NHS will stick it in pamphlet regardless. The ends always justify the means when it comes to public health matters.
Prof Prolapse said:
You must remember about this whole research business that often, despite balanced work of the researchers. That sometimes a well but slightly biased person will draw conclusions from the evidence which are not in line with the authors.
For example, I would bet my left testicle, that children of smokers tend to have less developed verbal/reasoning skills because their parents are more likely to be the Wayne and Waynetta Slob types. Not as a result of the typical effects of second hand smoke.
Having done a bit of undergraduate respiratory toxicology however, I would maintain it is horrendous insult on a developing set of lungs. To a developing immune system it really can bias the immune system to an inappropriate inflammatory response, this seems to result in the increasingly common life long allergies we see today.
But that's the theory. Whilst it might exist, in practice I can't even begin to imagine how you'd demonstrate it in smokers' offspring, some very clever epidemiological studies would be required. But that doesn't matter. The NHS will stick it in pamphlet regardless. The ends always justify the means when it comes to public health matters.
It is understandable, though. It's the same reasoning that has people eating burgers and chips knowing full well that they are not good for you because you don't keel over 5 minutes after putting the last chip into your mouth.For example, I would bet my left testicle, that children of smokers tend to have less developed verbal/reasoning skills because their parents are more likely to be the Wayne and Waynetta Slob types. Not as a result of the typical effects of second hand smoke.
Having done a bit of undergraduate respiratory toxicology however, I would maintain it is horrendous insult on a developing set of lungs. To a developing immune system it really can bias the immune system to an inappropriate inflammatory response, this seems to result in the increasingly common life long allergies we see today.
But that's the theory. Whilst it might exist, in practice I can't even begin to imagine how you'd demonstrate it in smokers' offspring, some very clever epidemiological studies would be required. But that doesn't matter. The NHS will stick it in pamphlet regardless. The ends always justify the means when it comes to public health matters.
Hoofy said:
It is understandable, though. It's the same reasoning that has people eating burgers and chips knowing full well that they are not good for you because you don't keel over 5 minutes after putting the last chip into your mouth.
Yep. I just think it represents another failure to convey genuine health issues to people accurately. This whole 5 a day campaign for example, whilst no one would say that it's not a good thing to eat more fruit and veg, the "5" bit is essentially misleading b
ks. It is also the subject of endless marketing, and millions in advertising, but the core idea of eating healthier is there so we ignore it.The process of educating the public is hugely unsuccessful in my opinion. We go with propaganda long before we even try and educate people, so most of us have no real idea of why things are good and bad for us.
jdw100 said:
I suspect you also have little idea of the frequency/likelihood of a mutagenic event. However I agree that once a week probably has less effect than the odd burnt sausage.
I suspect you have misread my post.If you turn on a poorly cleaned oven what happens in your house? It fills with smoke from the poorly maintained oven. Now this oven is owned by a none smoker but goes on for over an hour a day every single day with no ventilation.
Is it worse that I have a cigarette outside once a day in the fresh air? I think you know the answer to that.
Another example: say I live in the countryside...very rural, fresh air all day every day and have my cigarette outside every evening. Mr Doesn't smoke lives on the a40 or similar with 3 lanes of traffic going past his house 24/7, windows open most of the time. His curtains and window nets are black with the filth from the constant traffic, but hey he doesn't smoke.
Where would you rather your child stay for a year?
Not all breathing problems and cancers etc are to do with smoking tobacco. Hundreds if not thousands of other things cause problems to.
rb5er said:
Mr Doesn't smoke lives on the a40 or similar with 3 lanes of traffic going past his house 24/7, windows open most of the time. His curtains and window nets are black with the filth from the constant traffic, but hey he doesn't smoke.
The nets act like air filters and stop the soot 
Its a disgrace how you have subjected your child to the environment that your mum and sister live in.
If it were me it would be a big two fingers to them, they clearly dont care about their grandchild if they think a bathroom fan is good enough to remove all that smoke and crap out of the air.
For the sake of your childs health get them into a nursery ASAP, even if it requires another job or a shyte load of overtime.
If it were me it would be a big two fingers to them, they clearly dont care about their grandchild if they think a bathroom fan is good enough to remove all that smoke and crap out of the air.
For the sake of your childs health get them into a nursery ASAP, even if it requires another job or a shyte load of overtime.
Edited by dazwalsh on Saturday 30th April 23:15
My Wife looks after our first grandson 2 days per week.
My daughter is normally also there as she is unemployed and both my wife and my daughter smoke quite a lot.
If one of them wants a cigarette, they go outside leaving the other in charge.
Its very easy and a simple consideration.
They need to put their brains in gear.
My daughter is normally also there as she is unemployed and both my wife and my daughter smoke quite a lot.
If one of them wants a cigarette, they go outside leaving the other in charge.
Its very easy and a simple consideration.
They need to put their brains in gear.
so called said:
My Wife looks after our first grandson 2 days per week.
My daughter is normally also there as she is unemployed and both my wife and my daughter smoke quite a lot.
If one of them wants a cigarette, they go outside leaving the other in charge.
Its very easy and a simple consideration.
They need to put their brains in gear.
Please don't take this as a personal dig at your daughter, but how on earth can she afford to smoke even a little bit if she's unemployed?My daughter is normally also there as she is unemployed and both my wife and my daughter smoke quite a lot.
If one of them wants a cigarette, they go outside leaving the other in charge.
Its very easy and a simple consideration.
They need to put their brains in gear.
I gave up smoking when they abolished Duty Free in the EU (I was in a job for which I traveled most weeks at the time) because it meant I could no longer afford my pack a day habit, despite earning over the average wage and having no dependents.
Given how much cigarettes and rolling tobacco have gone up since then, I really don't understand how anyone without a significant income can afford to smoke these days?
Kermit power said:
so called said:
My Wife looks after our first grandson 2 days per week.
My daughter is normally also there as she is unemployed and both my wife and my daughter smoke quite a lot.
If one of them wants a cigarette, they go outside leaving the other in charge.
Its very easy and a simple consideration.
They need to put their brains in gear.
Please don't take this as a personal dig at your daughter, but how on earth can she afford to smoke even a little bit if she's unemployed?My daughter is normally also there as she is unemployed and both my wife and my daughter smoke quite a lot.
If one of them wants a cigarette, they go outside leaving the other in charge.
Its very easy and a simple consideration.
They need to put their brains in gear.
I gave up smoking when they abolished Duty Free in the EU (I was in a job for which I traveled most weeks at the time) because it meant I could no longer afford my pack a day habit, despite earning over the average wage and having no dependents.
Given how much cigarettes and rolling tobacco have gone up since then, I really don't understand how anyone without a significant income can afford to smoke these days?
I travel a lot internationally so am always bringing them duty free. ₤17:00 for 200 in India.(UK Brands)
I quit back on Dec 26th 1981 when they reached a quid a pack.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff