Annoying to many — but not a health risk to any — secondhand smoke is archetypal junk science. Continue reading
Category Archives: Tobacco
Drexel University reports: Continue reading
Epigenetics is a major new front in junk science. Imagine — smoking irreversibly changes gene expression in existing eggs so as to effect health three generations later! Continue reading
As if that’s the main or even a significant problem with homelessness. No pleasure is too small for the nannies to ignore. Continue reading
Questions: What’s worse — stress or smoking? Continue reading
This is junk science because…
… behavior is a multifactorial phenomenon that was not adequately studied in the least by these knuckleheads.
The media release is below.
Aggressive behavior linked specifically to secondhand smoke exposure in childhood
Groundbreaking study controls for smoking during pregnancy and antisocial parents
This news release is available in French.
Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke in early childhood are more likely to grow up to physically aggressive and antisocial, regardless of whether they were exposed during pregnancy or their parents have a history of being antisocial, according to Linda Pagani and Caroline Fitzpatrick of the University of Montreal and its affiliated CHU Sainte-Justine hospital. No study to date has controlled for these factors. “Secondhand smoke is in fact more dangerous that inhaled smoke, and 40% of children worldwide are exposed to it. Moreover, exposure to this smoke at early childhood is particularly dangerous, as the child’s brain is still developing,” Pagani said. “I looked at data that was collected about 2,055 kids from their birth until ten years of age, including parent reports about secondhand smoke exposure and from teachers and children themselves about classroom behaviour. Those having been exposed to secondhand smoke, even temporarily, were much more likely to report themselves as being more aggressive by time they finished fourth grade.” The study was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health on May 21, 2013.
Given that it would be unethical to exposure children to secondhand smoke, Pagani relied on longitudinal data collected by Quebec health authorities from birth onward on an annual basis. Because parents went about raising their children while participating in the study, the data provided a natural experiment of variations in the child population of household smoke exposure throughout early childhood. Although no direct causal link can be determined, the statistical correlation suggests that secondhand smoke exposure does forecast deviant behavior in later childhood. The very detailed information collated for the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development enabled her to do something no other researcher has done to date: distinguish the unique contribution of secondhand smoke exposure on children’s later deviant behavior. “Previous studies looking at groups of children have generally asked mothers whether they smoked or not, and how much at each follow-up, rather than asking whether someone smoked in the home where young children live and play,” Dr. Pagani said. “Furthermore, few studies have looked at antisocial behaviour in the parents and even fewer have investigated the subsequent influence of prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke over the long term. None have taken into account the fact that disadvantaged families are less likely to participate in a long study like this one, which of course skews the statistics.”
The statistics are backed by other biological studies into the effects of smoke on the brain. Secondhand smoke comprises 85% sidestream smoke emanated from a burning cigarette and 15% inhaled and then exhaled mainstream smoke. Sidestream smoke is considered more toxic than mainstream smoke because it contains a higher concentration of many dispersed respirable pollutants over a longer exposure period. “We know that the starvation of oxygen caused by smoke exposure in the developing central nervous system can cause low birth weight and slowed fetal brain growth,” Dr. Pagani said. “Environmental sources of tobacco smoke represent the most passive and preventable cause of disease and disability. This study suggests that the postnatal period is important for the prevention of impaired neurobehavioral development and makes the case for the promotion of an unpolluted domestic environment for children.”
Nonsense. Places like California and Colorado are more plausible “gateways” to marijuana. Continue reading
Regardless of the validity of the researchers dubious HDL claims, unfortunately for these researchers, cholesterol levels have nothing to do with risk of heart disease. Continue reading
Consumer demand outsmarts the nannies. Continue reading
So… not at all? Continue reading
“The researchers expect to soon convert the prototype, which is smaller and lighter than a cellphone, into a wearable, affordable and reusable device that helps to enforce no smoking regulations and sheds light on the pervasiveness of secondhand smoke. The sensor can also detect thirdhand smoke, or nicotine off-gassing from clothing, furniture, car seats and other material.” Continue reading
Yet Bloomberg happily accepts $1.50 per pack of cigarettes sold in NYC. Continue reading
When a third party covers health insurance, they feel they can call the shots. They are also easily corrupted by special interests and under no obligation to base decisions on sound science. Continue reading
But not too many people die from smoking in their child-bearing years. Continue reading
Show us a single baby born prematurely because of secondhand smoke. Continue reading
Will smokers will be barred from buying guns? Continue reading
Prison for possession of cigarettes without a prescription? And how would you get one of those from a physician? Continue reading
The new study shows that thousands of years of ambient PM2.5 exposure has no effect on life expectancy. Continue reading
So where was all the childhood asthma in, say, the 1950s and 1960s? Continue reading
Poorly conducted research has never stopped prohibitionists before. Why stop now? Tobacco companies don’t even oppose bad science. Continue reading