Smoking with your kids in the car?
Discussion
It's discussed in the last 11 minutes of this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03sb5y6
There's a cracker at 37 minutes in. I know that Dianne Abbott MP has a bit of a following here on PH, so some may see her and Baroness Jenny Jones in one programme as a bit of a BOGOF.
Baroness Jenny Jones says that traffic cops have a 17% better detection rate than non traffic police as they invariably find lots of other stuff to do the people that trigger an ANPR 'ping' for. So I am wondering then if having more traffic cops would mean catching even more criminals, I assume if they're ANPR equipped, and also make for safer roads as they'd be more traffic cops out there, the effect of 'presence'?
It seems banning smoking in cars may be in the Labour manifesto. It's good to know they're reverting to their legislation creation addicted ways before they've even got in. I'm more interested in seeing the HS2 sums.
I'm sure it's been suggested already in the thread, but surely having the kids in the front driving while having the parents strapped safely in the back smoking cigarettes would be healthier for the children?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03sb5y6
There's a cracker at 37 minutes in. I know that Dianne Abbott MP has a bit of a following here on PH, so some may see her and Baroness Jenny Jones in one programme as a bit of a BOGOF.
Baroness Jenny Jones says that traffic cops have a 17% better detection rate than non traffic police as they invariably find lots of other stuff to do the people that trigger an ANPR 'ping' for. So I am wondering then if having more traffic cops would mean catching even more criminals, I assume if they're ANPR equipped, and also make for safer roads as they'd be more traffic cops out there, the effect of 'presence'?
It seems banning smoking in cars may be in the Labour manifesto. It's good to know they're reverting to their legislation creation addicted ways before they've even got in. I'm more interested in seeing the HS2 sums.
I'm sure it's been suggested already in the thread, but surely having the kids in the front driving while having the parents strapped safely in the back smoking cigarettes would be healthier for the children?
Probably already been pointed out but there is absolutely no evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer. My mother smoked when I was a kid, as did about half of all adults. I am not a smoker, nor do I have cancer.
Anyone saying its child abuse needs to explain their reasoning based on scientific evidence - the cancer thing is null.
Anyone saying its child abuse needs to explain their reasoning based on scientific evidence - the cancer thing is null.
robsa said:
Probably already been pointed out but there is absolutely no evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer. My mother smoked when I was a kid, as did about half of all adults. I am not a smoker, nor do I have cancer.
Anyone saying its child abuse needs to explain their reasoning based on scientific evidence - the cancer thing is null.
It's like speed kills, or if you use a mobile phone whilst driving, the sheep have been led, labour will eventually return to power sadly, and laws will follow !Anyone saying its child abuse needs to explain their reasoning based on scientific evidence - the cancer thing is null.
Load of crap. I used to smoke, so did my dad. My grown up children smoke. We all smoked in front of babies in cars. Sometimes the babies were not even in baby seats. No one died yet, except my father, who was of dying age anyway.
The state cannot and should not legislate on minutiae, that way leads to totalitarianism.
The state cannot and should not legislate on minutiae, that way leads to totalitarianism.
Always easy to spot a smoker though, baggy around the eyes, manky complexion, the jowelly look with woman and the deep hoarse voice, closer up its always the bad smelling clothes and worst of all the bad breath all smokers have. Not good around kids at all, in a confined space like a car its literally being forced upon them. Ruins car interiors and devalues as fag stench will always remain no matter how well its cleaned, farts/ fart spray, B.O,p1ss and jizz are relatively easy to suck out with a puzzi and even one with a combination of all the aforementioned detritus will always smell better than a nicotine infected one..
robsa said:
Probably already been pointed out but there is absolutely no evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer. My mother smoked when I was a kid, as did about half of all adults. I am not a smoker, nor do I have cancer.
Anyone saying its child abuse needs to explain their reasoning based on scientific evidence - the cancer thing is null.
Yes, because cancer is the only health issue related to breathing in smoke! Anyone saying its child abuse needs to explain their reasoning based on scientific evidence - the cancer thing is null.
Surely it's bloody obvious that it isn't good for a child or baby to be in a confined space like a car with a smoker. What are the benefits? The rights of the child should come before that of crap parents. Therefore it should be banned. Most smokers I know would never smoke in the car with their kids anyway, so it only effects a small minority. Those too stupid to know or care.
Stuartggray said:
Load of crap. I used to smoke, so did my dad. My grown up children smoke. We all smoked in front of babies in cars. Sometimes the babies were not even in baby seats. No one died yet, except my father, who was of dying age anyway.
Wow! Years of evidence and expensive studies showing smoking is bad for you can now be ignored following this extensive and scientific study of your family. Even the cigarette makers acknowledge the potential harm. Have you written to them to advise them they are wrong? I'm sure they'd be very grateful. Get them out of all liabilities in court etc.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Wow! Years of evidence and expensive studies showing smoking is bad for you can now be ignored following this extensive and scientific study of your family. Even the cigarette makers acknowledge the potential harm. Have you written to them to advise them they are wrong? I'm sure they'd be very grateful. Get them out of all liabilities in court etc.
Yep, & "Years of evidence and expensive studies show" that CO2 is making the arctic is the new tropics, it is never going to snow again, & the whole earth is going to flood, if it doesn't turn into a desert first.Believing so called "scientists" is the route to madness.
I absolutely hate the smell of cigarette smoke and I struggle to empathise with those who smoke.
But as far as I am concerned the Government is there to run the country, not people's personal lives. Unnecessary interference. It would be far better to look at how we can provide an education system that actually teaches people how to use their brains properly, rather than regurgitate a syllabus.
Then they might make more intelligent decisions as adults and mitigate the perceived need for state interference.
But as far as I am concerned the Government is there to run the country, not people's personal lives. Unnecessary interference. It would be far better to look at how we can provide an education system that actually teaches people how to use their brains properly, rather than regurgitate a syllabus.
Then they might make more intelligent decisions as adults and mitigate the perceived need for state interference.
Hasbeen said:
Believing so called "scientists" is the route to madness.
Yes, because science has given us nothing of value over the years!I assume you're one of these twerps who believe the Earth is 6000 yrs old and was made in 6 days by God. Just because the science tells us otherwise, that's no reason to believe them!
Stuartggray said:
Load of crap. I used to smoke, so did my dad. My grown up children smoke. We all smoked in front of babies in cars. Sometimes the babies were not even in baby seats.
Nice. You are clearly an awesome parent, and it's great to hear your offspring have followed the excellent example you set them.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yes, because science has given us nothing of value over the years!I assume you're one of these twerps who believe the Earth is 6000 yrs old and was made in 6 days by God. Just because the science tells us otherwise, that's no reason to believe them!
Mr2Mike said:
Stuartggray said:
Load of crap. I used to smoke, so did my dad. My grown up children smoke. We all smoked in front of babies in cars. Sometimes the babies were not even in baby seats.
Nice. You are clearly an awesome parent, and it's great to hear your offspring have followed the excellent example you set them.Kenny Powers said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yes, because science has given us nothing of value over the years!I assume you're one of these twerps who believe the Earth is 6000 yrs old and was made in 6 days by God. Just because the science tells us otherwise, that's no reason to believe them!
robsa said:
Probably already been pointed out but there is absolutely no evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer.
Anyone saying its child abuse needs to explain their reasoning based on scientific evidence - the cancer thing is null.
Do you have access to google?Anyone saying its child abuse needs to explain their reasoning based on scientific evidence - the cancer thing is null.
'absolutely no evidence' you say?
General: overall increased risk;[9] reviewing the evidence accumulated on a worldwide basis, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that "Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans."[3]
Lung cancer: the effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. A series of studies from the USA from 1986–2003,[10][11][12][13] the UK in 1998,[14][15] Australia in 1997[16] and internationally in 2004[17] have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.[18]
Breast cancer: The California Environmental Protection Agency concluded in 2005 that passive smoking increases the risk of breast cancer in younger, primarily premenopausal women by 70%[8] and the US Surgeon General has concluded that the evidence is "suggestive," but still insufficient to assert such a causal relationship.[2] In contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2004 that there was "no support for a causal relation between involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and breast cancer in never-smokers."[3]
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC): A recent study shows an increased RCC risk among never smokers with combined home/work exposure to passive smoking.[19]
Passive smoking does not appear to be associated with pancreatic cancer.[20]
Brain tumor: The risk in children increases significantly with higher amount of passive smoking, even if the mother doesn't smoke,[21] thus not restricting risk to prenatal exposure during pregnancy.
Ear, nose, and throat: risk of ear infections.[22]
Second-hand smoke exposure is associated with hearing loss in non-smoking adults.[23]
Circulatory system: risk of heart disease,[24] reduced heart rate variability, higher heart rate.[25]
Epidemiological studies have shown that both active and passive cigarette smoking increase the risk of atherosclerosis.[26]
Lung problems:
Risk of asthma.[27]
Cognitive impairment and dementia: Exposure to secondhand smoke may increase the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia in adults 50 and over.[28]
During pregnancy:
Low birth weight[8], part B, ch. 3.[29]
Premature birth[8], part B, ch. 3 (Note that evidence of the causal link is only described as "suggestive" by the US Surgeon General in his 2006 report.[30])
Damage to children's carotid arteries at birth and at age 5[31]
Recent studies comparing women exposed to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and non-exposed women, demonstrate that women exposed while pregnant have higher risks of delivering a child with congenital abnormalities, longer lengths, smaller head circumferences, and low birth weight.[32]
General:
Worsening of asthma, allergies, and other conditions.[33]
Skin Disorder
Childhood exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke is associated with an increased risk of the development of adult-onset Atopic dermatitis.[34]
Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.[35][36] and in children.[37] Another research financed by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and Bloomberg Philanthropies found that passive smoking causes about 603,000 death a year, which represents 1% of the world's death.[38]
Risk to children
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).[39][40] In his 2006 report, the US Surgeon General concludes: "The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and sudden infant death syndrome."[41] Secondhand smoking has been estimated to be associated with 430 SIDS deaths in the United States annually.[42]
Asthma[43][44]
Lung infections,[45][46][47][48] also including more severe illness with bronchiolitis[49] and bronchitis,[50] and worse outcome,[49] as well as increased risk of developing tuberculosis if exposed to a carrier[51] In the United States, it is estimated that second hand smoke has been associated with between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.[42]
Impaired respiratory function and slowed lung growth[50]
Allergies
Crohn's disease.[52]
Learning difficulties, developmental delays, and neurobehavioral effects.[53][54] Animal models suggest a role for nicotine and carbon monoxide in neurocognitive problems.[48]
An increase in tooth decay (as well as related salivary biomarkers) has been associated with passive smoking in children.[55]
Increased risk of middle ear infections.[56][57]
Evidence
Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. Most of the research has come from studies of nonsmokers who are married to a smoker. Those conclusions are also backed up by further studies of workplace exposure to smoke.[58]
In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of available evidence on the relationship between second-hand smoke and heart disease, and estimated that second-hand smoke exposure was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s.[59] The absolute risk increase of heart disease due to ETS was 2.2%, while the attributable risk percent was 23%.
Research using more exact measures of second-hand smoke exposure suggests that risks to non-smokers may be even greater than this estimate. A British study reported that exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60%, similar to light smoking.[60] Evidence also shows that inhaled sidestream smoke, the main component of second-hand smoke, is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke. This fact has been known to the tobacco industry since the 1980s, though it kept its findings secret.[61][62][63][64] Some scientists believe that the risk of passive smoking, in particular the risk of developing coronary heart diseases, may have been substantially underestimated.[65]
A minority of epidemiologists have found it hard to understand how second-hand smoke, which is more diluted than actively inhaled smoke, could have an effect that is such a large fraction of the added risk of coronary heart disease among active smokers.[66][67] One proposed explanation is that second-hand smoke is not simply a diluted version of "mainstream" smoke, but has a different composition with more toxic substances per gram of total particulate matter.[66] Passive smoking appears to be capable of precipitating the acute manifestations of cardio-vascular diseases (atherothrombosis) and may also have a negative impact on the outcome of patients who suffer acute coronary syndromes.[68]
In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:
These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.[3]
Subsequent meta-analyses have confirmed these findings,[69][70] and additional studies have found that high overall exposure to passive smoke even among people with non-smoking partners is associated with greater risks than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers.[60]
The National Asthma Council of Australia cites studies showing that second-hand smoke is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:[71]
Smoking by either parent, particularly by the mother, increases the risk of asthma in children.
The outlook for early childhood asthma is less favourable in smoking households.
Children with asthma who are exposed to smoking in the home generally have more severe disease.
Many adults with asthma identify ETS as a trigger for their symptoms.
Doctor-diagnosed asthma is more common among non-smoking adults exposed to ETS than those not exposed. Among people with asthma, higher ETS exposure is associated with a greater risk of severe attacks.
In France, exposure to second-hand smoke has been estimated to cause between 3,000[72] and 5,000 premature deaths per year, with the larger figure cited by Prime minister Dominique de Villepin during his announcement of a nationwide smoke-free law: "That makes more than 13 deaths a day. It is an unacceptable reality in our country in terms of public health."[73]
There is good observational evidence that smoke-free legislation reduces the number of hospital admissions for heart disease.[74] In 2009 two studies in the United States confirmed the effectiveness of public smoking bans in preventing heart attacks. The first study, carried out at the University of California, San Francisco and funded by the National Cancer Institute, found a 15 percent decline in heart-attack hospitalisations in the first year after smoke-free legislation was passed, and 36 percent after three years.[75] The second study, carried out at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, showed similar results.[76] Overall, women, non-smokers, and people under age 60 had the most heart attack risk reduction. Many of those benefiting were hospitality and entertainment industry workers.[77]
Risk level
The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2004 that there was sufficient evidence that second-hand smoke caused cancer in humans.[3] Most experts conclude that moderate, occasional exposure to second-hand smoke presents a modest but measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The overall risk depends on the effective dose received over time. The risk level is higher if non-smokers spend many hours in an environment where cigarette smoke is widespread, such as a business where many employees or patrons are smoking throughout the day, or a residential care facility where residents smoke freely.[78] The US Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30%.
Biomarkers
Breath CO monitor displaying carbon monoxide concentration of an exhaled breath sample (in ppm) with corresponding percent concentration of carboxyhemoglobin displayed below.
Environmental tobacco smoke can be evaluated either by directly measuring tobacco smoke pollutants found in the air or by using biomarkers, an indirect measure of exposure. Carbon monoxide monitored through breath, nicotine, cotinine, thiocyanates, and proteins are the most specific biological markers of tobacco smoke exposure.[79][80] Biochemical tests are a much more reliable biomarker of second-hand smoke exposure than surveys. Certain groups of people are reluctant to disclose their smoking status and exposure to tobacco smoke, especially pregnant women and parents of young children. This is due to their smoking being socially unacceptable. Also, it may be difficult for individuals to recall their exposure to tobacco smoke.[81]
A 2007 study in the Addictive Behaviors Journal found a positive correlation between second-hand tobacco smoke exposure and concentrations of nicotine and/or biomarkers of nicotine in the body. Significant biological levels of nicotine from second-hand smoke exposure were equivalent to nicotine levels from active smoking and levels that are associated with behaviour changes due to nicotine consumption.[82]
Cotinine
Cotinine, the metabolite of nicotine, is a biomarker of second-hand smoke exposure. Typically, cotinine is measured in the blood, saliva, and urine. Hair analysis has recently become a new, noninvasive measurement technique. Cotinine accumulates in hair during hair growth, which results in a measure of long-term, cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke.[83] Urinary cotinine levels have been a reliable biomarker of tobacco exposure and have been used as a reference in many epidemiological studies. However, cotinine levels found in the urine only reflect exposure over the preceding 48 hours. Cotinine levels of the skin, such as the hair and nails, reflect tobacco exposure over the previous three months and are a more reliable biomarker.[79]
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide monitored via breath is also a reliable biomarker of second-hand smoke exposure as well as tobacco use. With high sensitivity and specificity, it not only provides an accurate measure, but the test is also non-invasive, highly reproducible, and low in cost. Breath CO monitoring measures the concentration of CO in an exhalation in parts per million, and this can be directly correlated to the blood CO concentration (carboxyhemoglobin).[84] Breath CO monitors can also be used by emergency services to identify patients who are suspected of having CO poisoning.
Pathophysiology
A 2004 study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, including 69 known carcinogens. Of special concern are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines, and aromatic amines, such as 4-aminobiphenyl, all known to be highly carcinogenic. Mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke, and second-hand smoke contain largely the same components, however the concentration varies depending on type of smoke.[3] Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke.[85]
Second-hand smoke has been shown to produce more particulate-matter (PM) pollution than an idling low-emission diesel engine. In an experiment conducted by the Italian National Cancer Institute, three cigarettes were left smoldering, one after the other, in a 60 m³ garage with a limited air exchange. The cigarettes produced PM pollution exceeding outdoor limits, as well as PM concentrations up to 10-fold that of the idling engine.[86]
Tobacco smoke exposure has immediate and substantial effects on blood and blood vessels in a way that increases the risk of a heart attack, particularly in people already at risk.[87] Exposure to tobacco smoke for 30 minutes significantly reduces coronary flow velocity reserve in healthy nonsmokers.[88]
Pulmonary emphysema can be induced in rats through acute exposure to sidestream tobacco smoke (30 cigarettes per day) over a period of 45 days.[89] Degranulation of mast cells contributing to lung damage has also been observed.[90]
The term "third-hand smoke" was recently coined to identify the residual tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette is extinguished and second-hand smoke has cleared from the air.[91][92][93] Preliminary research suggests that by-products of third-hand smoke may pose a health risk,[94] though the magnitude of risk, if any, remains unknown. In October 2011, it was reported that Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital in Alexandria, Louisiana would seek to eliminate third-hand smoke beginning in July 2012, and that employees whose clothing smelled of smoke would not be allowed to work. This prohibition was enacted because third-hand smoke poses a special danger for the developing brains of infants and small children.[95]
In 2008, there were more than 161,000 deaths attributed to lung cancer in the United States. Of these deaths, an estimated 10% to 15% were caused by factors other than first-hand smoking; equivalent to 16,000 to 24,000 deaths annually. Slightly more than half of the lung cancer deaths caused by factors other than first-hand smoking were found in nonsmokers. Lung cancer in non-smokers may well be considered one of the most common cancer mortalities in the United States. Clinical epidemiology of lung cancer has linked the primary factors closely tied to lung cancer in non-smokers as exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke, carcinogens including radon, and other indoor air pollutants.[96]
Opinion of public health authorities
There is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to second-hand smoke is harmful.[4] The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organisation, including:
The World Health Organization:[3] The governments of 168 nations have signed and currently 174 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."[1]
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff