Reuters Photojournalism
Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography. See more | Photo caption
The SpaceX mission
A privately owned unmanned rocket blasts off on a mission to be the first commercial flight to the International Space Station. Slideshow
Smoking around kids exacts a high toll: studies
NEW YORK |
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - American kids can breathe a sigh of relief, according to a study out today in the journal Pediatrics that finds their exposure to second-hand smoke at home has dropped significantly since the mid-1990s.
But two other reports in the journal show that early-life exposure could lead to behavioral and health problems later in life.
Exposure to second-hand smoke is known to cause lung problems, asthma, ear infections and contribute to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Smoking during pregnancy has also been linked to a host of psychological problems in children, such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and antisocial behavior. But scientists have had a hard time teasing out the direct effects of tobacco versus lifestyle factors and mental health in the home.
In one of the three studies in the journal Pediatrics, Dr. Marie-Jo Brion of the University of Bristol, U.K., and colleagues tried to disentangle those factors by analyzing two long-term studies from Britain and Brazil.
Both studies had started in the early 1990s. Among British mothers, 16 percent reported smoking during pregnancy, compared with 29 percent in Brazil.
The researchers initially found that at age four, the kids whose mothers smoked had higher levels of hyperactivity, peer problems and bad behavior, such as bullying, cheating and lying. The kids didn't have more emotional problems, however.
After accounting for the parents' psychological health, economic position and whether the father smoked, only the bad behavior remained highly associated with having a mother who smoked, with odds increased up to 82 percent.
Brion said her results weren't bulletproof evidence that exposure to tobacco in the womb causes behavior problems directly, but that it was likely to do so.
Even if a prospective mother doesn't smoke, being around others who do could still affect her unborn child, according to the second study in Pediatrics.
Researchers from the University of Hong Kong studied 6,800 school-aged children whose mothers weren't smokers. If their dads smoked daily, however, they tended to weigh more compared to those kids who weren't exposed to second-hand smoke in the womb or after birth. On average, they packed on an extra pound or so.
The third study in Pediatrics shows that fewer kids are being exposed to smoke in the home. Dr. Gopal K. Singh of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Rockville, Maryland, and colleagues report that overall, about 5.5 million American children, or 7.6 percent, were exposed to second-hand smoke in the home in 2007. By contrast, that number was 35 percent in 1994.
"That was a fairly dramatic drop," Singh said. "It is a positive message in the sense that exposure rates have declined." However, he and colleagues note that the 7.6 percent figure falls short of the 2010 revised national target for reducing childhood exposure to tobacco smoke at home, which is set at 6 percent.
Almost 8 in 10 households have smoking bans now, according to Singh, which is nearly twice the number seen in the early 1990s. "That's a big difference in attitude," he said.
In their study, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander children had the lowest exposure rates, while Black children had the highest. Children from poorer households and with less-educated parents were at highest risk. Singh said the decline in second-hand smoke had been much slower in these groups.
Some states stuck out. For instance, less than 2 percent of kids in California and Utah lived with smokers, while more than 17 percent did so in Kentucky and West Virginia.
While the study did not test smoking during pregnancy, national data show that around 1 in 10 pregnant women light up at some point, according to Gary A. Giovino of the School of Public Health and Health Professions at the University at Buffalo, New York.
"The problems of smoking and pregnancy have come down substantially over the years," said Giovino, who was not involved in any of the new studies. "But we still have a long way to go."
SOURCE: here Pediatrics, online June 28, 2010.
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
That is a an opposite correlation. It look to me like the two art not really related at all.
It seems that the causes are more related to socia-economic conditions and parenting. I mention a few other reasons at:
http://www.adhdaction.com/causes-of-adhd.html.
I tend to focus more on my energy on how I treat my ADHD rather than investigating why I have it. I already know its there so it feel more useful to treat than look for blame.
Nathaniel
I got my mother to try an electronic cigarette. They produce a smoke-like, water based, nicotine containing vapor that completely reproduces the satisfaction of smoking, without any smoke. They allow her to avoid the tar, carbon monoxide, and thousands of chemicals.
She had smoked for over 50-years, yet, she has not touched a regular cigarette since she got the kit I bought her from www.CleanGreenNicotine.com. She says she lost her morning smoker’s cough within days.
Also, the refill cartridges that you buy for the electronic cigarettes are about 1/2 the cost of regular cigarettes. Avoid the cheaper electronic cigarette brands that are made in China. They have a poor history of quality control. They can’t keep contaminants out of their food supply or the toys made in China. For my peace of mind, the brand I selected for my mom is Made in the USA and provides a 30-day money-back guarantee.
Kids in Cars. The real Story
Comments to the article and to the CBC Ombudsman;
“In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health organization
presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing
social attitudes.
“..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that
active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and
any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST..”
http://lieberaldictators.blogspot.com/
I am extremely disappointed with the obvious decline of credibility and journalistic integrity at the CBC of late. The obvious promotion of the new bandwagon craze to stick it to anyone who smokes, whenever and where ever we can, will permanently place the CBC at the level of the National Inquirer and the infamous reputation of the British scandal rags we love to laugh at.
BTW the smokers being stigmatized and stereotyped here, and in a host of stories you produce, are most significantly; the elderly, Racial minorities and always the poorest in our communities. That I consider a shameful and reprehensible act on your part.
My comments and observations are in respect to the all too often seen tendency of publishing, whatever comes off the news wires, without even a precursory investigation of the source or validity of what you will report.
Today I read an article which reported Doctors are supporting a ban in cars where children are present. The backup to the piece at first glance seemed to indicate a child would be in dire need of protection from hazards of tobacco smoke in high levels inside a vehicle.
The research cited was a name I had never heard of so I thought I would check them out. The group is actually a subset of the American CDC who are responsible for a number of major blunders over the years in connection with fear mongering and exaggerations to a large degree embarrassing themselves and the American government in a number of damage controlled fiascoes.
I took another look at what was being reported in your article and noticed some finely crafted authorship; the 35 ug/m3 was actually particulate not cigarette smoke at all, but of total particulate. The report cited demonstrated no effort to separate the particulate and identify what originated from a cigarette and what was pre-existing in the ambient air. Further the implied health risk did not mention the norm or the allowable levels so I had to help you out again, a quick search demonstrates from more reliable sources the average air quality annual measurements in outdoor air in 1997 was 36.5 ug/m3 and the strictest control regulations are now at 60ug/m3 annual average.
Further there was no discussion of the volumes children actually inhale, of the total volume available. A child’s lung capacity @ 6 inhalations a minute of 1/2 liter inhalations, would take 5.6 hours in the car at the stated levels to inhale only 35ug of the total particulate reported, which hardly increases the health risk of that child to any degree. [ug = one Millionth of a gram; One gram = approximately 1 cubic millimeter of water]
What is being proposed by “protecting children” in cars, is an air quality standard inside a car which is far lower than the unavoidable average particulate levels measured outside the vehicle.
Which makes the CBC and anyone else promoting this legislation appear to be; as the CDC has done on many occasions, the dupes who listened to them once again and the scapegoats who will carry the embarrassment when the truth comes to light.
This article amounts to no less than emotional blackmail, utilizing the “protection of children” to sell smoking patches and higher taxation of an addiction incredibly.
The CBC is promoting the punishment of a medical dependency, and lists beside every incident other promotions of that lack of good judgment, as though it were something to be proud of?
I guess it just goes to prove you can’t believe anything you hear today and the CBC is no different from the rest. Propaganda and irresponsible fear mongering, will take it’s toll. I for one will never again speak in favor of preserving a national broadcaster. We are just paying to subsidize another big business mouthpiece protecting them, by “protecting” us from ourselves.
Just to educate the Editors and their staff;
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/02/15/smoking-ban.html#skip300×250
http://oldfraser.lexi.net/media/media_releases/2000/20000414.html
http://www.nature.com/jes/index.html
http://www.smokershistory.com/
Follow Reuters