• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

I think I've just about had it!

CoventryCat86 said:
It's the New York Times, are you really that surprised? :laugh:

Sitting in rush hour traffic is more hazardous to your health than a stinky couch. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Problem is that a lot of numb-nuts will use misinformation like this as an excuse to grab the pitchforks and torches again.
 
Chemical plus worst case example equals sensational closing.

Too bad a lot of stupid people will read and believe this trash.
 
If I recall correctly, I heard about this phenomenon some time back. At least one scientific study indicated that such residue might contribute to the development of ADD in children. Alas, I need more evidence.

The author of this article, in particular, clearly has an agenda.

-Mark
 
"Third-hand smoke" - catchy new name. Stoopid sensationalist article, but not something new. In the late '70's/early '80's, settled smoke was a component of "sick building syndrome" - if you remember that ...

If you smoke inside - then 3M makes great filters to trap smoke before the smoke settles.
 
I may be in the minority here, but I believe any parent who is caught smoking in an automobile with a child present should be brought up on charges.... or at the very least given a hefty fine. Likewise any parent with small children who smokes indoors should also be fined, maybe even beaten! Smoke is a health hazard..... period! This is one of many reasons why children are sicker today than they have ever been. Increased sensitivities and unexplainable allergies, asthma.... it's crazy! I'm one year cigarette free, but I smoked a pack to a pack and a half a day for almost 15 years and have never smoked in my home or anywhere indoors where my children were or in an automobile where they were present. I smoke in my car but my children never ride in that vehicle, only in the family car where smoking is strictly prohibited whether they are present or not.
 
amateuraficionado said:
I may be in the minority here, but I believe any parent who is caught smoking in an automobile with a child present should be brought up on charges.... or at the very least given a hefty fine. Likewise any parent with small children who smokes indoors should also be fined, maybe even beaten! Smoke is a health hazard..... period! This is one of many reasons why children are sicker today than they have ever been. Increased sensitivities and unexplainable allergies, asthma.... it's crazy! I'm one year cigarette free, but I smoked a pack to a pack and a half a day for almost 15 years and have never smoked in my home or anywhere indoors where my children were or in an automobile where they were present. I smoke in my car but my children never ride in that vehicle, only in the family car where smoking is strictly prohibited whether they are present or not.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone should drive and smoke considering it the same as talking on a handy. I disagree with you as far as the indoor smoking goes. and here is why.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002421.html

Hygiene Hypothesis: Are We Too "Clean" for Our Own Good?

Increased hygiene and a lack of exposure to various microorganisms may be affecting the immune systems of many populations - particularly in highly developed countries like the US - to the degree that individuals are losing their bodily ability to fight off certain diseases.

That's the essence of the "hygiene hypothesis," a fairly new school of thought that argues that rising incidence of asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis and perhaps several other diseases may be, at least in part, the result of lifestyle and environmental changes that have made us too "clean" for our own good.

"Medicine has a lot of history behind it related to why certain diseases are so widespread and certain diseases are not widespread," said Subra Kugathasan, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin Associate Professor of Pediatrics (Gastroenterology), who has made a study of developments in hygiene hypothesis research.

"The immune system is there for a reason, said Dr. Kugathasan. "It's there to recognize 'the bad guys.' The immune system allows your body to kill those bad guys and allows you to survive. In order to harden the immune system, the immune system requests some kind of stimuli all the time."

"The hygiene hypothesis suggests that the more hygienic one becomes, the more susceptible one is to various autoimmune diseases. The autoimmune diseases, the diseases that result from all the activation of your immune system, are increasing. The hygiene hypothesis - and we don't yet have a proof of it - acknowledges that the maturation of the immune system needs some kind of hardening, some kind of resistance. Put another way, you cannot really build up good muscles without doing exercise."

From Pet Dander to Pig Worms
The common belief that has driven medicine, as well as public perception and hygiene practices, is that when we get sick it is because of something we ate, or inhaled, or were exposed to in other ways. The hygiene hypothesis points in a different direction, proposing that in many diseases it is a lack of exposure to the "bad guys" that causes harm.

While the evidence was by no means clear-cut, one study indicated that in some cases contact with certain pet dander in the home actually decreases a child's risk of wheezing from asthma later in life. Other studies show that children who lived on farms when they were very young have reduced incidence of asthma, which has led several researchers to conclude that organisms in cattle dust and manure may be the stimuli that their immune systems needed to fight off asthma.

In another study, conducted by University of Iowa Division of Gastroenterology director Dr. Joel Weinstock, intestinal worms were shown to have a very dramatic effect on mice in offering protection from inflammatory bowel disease. This was followed up using whipworms from pigs, Trichura suis, in a small number of humans. The worms were selected because they are "safe," as many pig farmers come in contact with them every day, they do not enter the human bloodstream, and they cannot live in the human intestine for more than a week.

All of the six patients who were given the worm treatment for their bowel disease eventually went from chronic illness to complete remission with no diarrhea, no abdominal pain and no joint problems. In very general terms, this small-scale test of the hygiene hypothesis worked because microorganisms from the worms positively affect the body's immune response to bacteria and viruses.

"Think about countries in Africa like Gambia, a country that has been studied very well," said Dr. Kugathasan. "Ninety to ninety-nine percent of people in Gambia have intestinal worms at some point in their lives. But the chronic immune diseases like asthma, Crohn's disease, or multiple sclerosis are not heard of, never even mentioned in their life. They don't know anything about such diseases in those countries. While one may argue that maybe their population is genetically not predisposed to these diseases, other factors appear to be in play."

"What has happened now, with globalization and human migration, people move to areas that are very, very clean. Within one generation we have moved into a different environment. What we have been finding out is that in the second generation of Asian, Latin American and African children, where the first generation had been exposed to those kinds of parasites and early childhood infections, the second generation that has moved to 'cleaner' countries has not been exposed. The incidence of Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, and chronic asthma is as common in the second generation from the third world as in those with European or North American backgrounds, and in some cases even higher."

Playing in the Dirt
Dr. Kugathasan and others interested in hygiene hypothesis have not proposed that "playing in the dirt," or making society less hygienic in general, are useful goals in medicine. But they do propose that taking the impact of reduced immunological strength into account for certain diseases could be beneficial.

For example, researchers who are looking into the impact of microorganisms produced by cattle on asthma in children maintain that the more they learn about how cattle exposure relates to asthma, the closer they will come to developing an effective preventive treatment.

"Over the years, what's happened with modern medicine is that we have become more aware of the disease process, so we are avoiding diseases by learning more about how they spread," said Dr. Kugathasan. "We are becoming much cleaner and learning how to prevent many diseases by immunization. And we are isolating ourselves by not going into epidemic areas. Now we don't even allow kids to play in the yard barefoot. Children playing in the dirt barefoot are exposed to a lot of microorganisms and worms and everything else, and that's not happening the way it used to."

"So the hygiene hypothesis doesn't only apply to Crohn's disease and inflammatory bowel disease," Dr. Kugathasan says. "It applies to many other conditions. This doesn't mean children should roll around in the dirt or necessarily change medical practice in the US. But to keep the immune system working properly, you need controlled stimulus or else it doesn't know how to recognize the bad guys. Treatment is meant to suppress the system, while the hygiene hypothesis suggests that it doesn't always hurt in the long run to give stimulus the other way around."

It's important that a child go through normal childhood illness, for example, notes Dr. Kugathasan. "When we visit the doctor to suppress a lot of things like colds, rather than, in effect, letting nature run its course, we're making immediate treatment the priority rather than long-term prevention, using the analogy of immunological 'muscle-building.' We know that antibiotics wipe out normal cells, too, but you don't want to destroy what medical science has accomplished. Maybe there's no going back, but it's important that we take what the hygiene hypothesis is telling us into account when treating our children."

Dan Ullrich
HealthLink Contributing Writer
Click to expand...
 
Wurm said:
I don't think anyone should drive and smoke considering it the same as talking on a handy. I disagree with you as far as the indoor smoking goes. and here is why.

They are not at all the same..... talking on a wireless phone and carrying on a conversation require a great deal more concentration than simply smoking a cigarette.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002421.html

Hygiene Hypothesis: Are We Too "Clean" for Our Own Good?

Increased hygiene and a lack of exposure to various microorganisms may be affecting the immune systems of many populations - particularly in highly developed countries like the US - to the degree that individuals are losing their bodily ability to fight off certain diseases.

That's the essence of the "hygiene hypothesis," a fairly new school of thought that argues that rising incidence of asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis and perhaps several other diseases may be, at least in part, the result of lifestyle and environmental changes that have made us too "clean" for our own good.

"Medicine has a lot of history behind it related to why certain diseases are so widespread and certain diseases are not widespread," said Subra Kugathasan, MD, Medical College of Wisconsin Associate Professor of Pediatrics (Gastroenterology), who has made a study of developments in hygiene hypothesis research.

"The immune system is there for a reason, said Dr. Kugathasan. "It's there to recognize 'the bad guys.' The immune system allows your body to kill those bad guys and allows you to survive. In order to harden the immune system, the immune system requests some kind of stimuli all the time."

"The hygiene hypothesis suggests that the more hygienic one becomes, the more susceptible one is to various autoimmune diseases. The autoimmune diseases, the diseases that result from all the activation of your immune system, are increasing. The hygiene hypothesis - and we don't yet have a proof of it - acknowledges that the maturation of the immune system needs some kind of hardening, some kind of resistance. Put another way, you cannot really build up good muscles without doing exercise."

From Pet Dander to Pig Worms
The common belief that has driven medicine, as well as public perception and hygiene practices, is that when we get sick it is because of something we ate, or inhaled, or were exposed to in other ways. The hygiene hypothesis points in a different direction, proposing that in many diseases it is a lack of exposure to the "bad guys" that causes harm.

While the evidence was by no means clear-cut, one study indicated that in some cases contact with certain pet dander in the home actually decreases a child's risk of wheezing from asthma later in life. Other studies show that children who lived on farms when they were very young have reduced incidence of asthma, which has led several researchers to conclude that organisms in cattle dust and manure may be the stimuli that their immune systems needed to fight off asthma.

In another study, conducted by University of Iowa Division of Gastroenterology director Dr. Joel Weinstock, intestinal worms were shown to have a very dramatic effect on mice in offering protection from inflammatory bowel disease. This was followed up using whipworms from pigs, Trichura suis, in a small number of humans. The worms were selected because they are "safe," as many pig farmers come in contact with them every day, they do not enter the human bloodstream, and they cannot live in the human intestine for more than a week.

All of the six patients who were given the worm treatment for their bowel disease eventually went from chronic illness to complete remission with no diarrhea, no abdominal pain and no joint problems. In very general terms, this small-scale test of the hygiene hypothesis worked because microorganisms from the worms positively affect the body's immune response to bacteria and viruses.

"Think about countries in Africa like Gambia, a country that has been studied very well," said Dr. Kugathasan. "Ninety to ninety-nine percent of people in Gambia have intestinal worms at some point in their lives. But the chronic immune diseases like asthma, Crohn's disease, or multiple sclerosis are not heard of, never even mentioned in their life. They don't know anything about such diseases in those countries. While one may argue that maybe their population is genetically not predisposed to these diseases, other factors appear to be in play."

"What has happened now, with globalization and human migration, people move to areas that are very, very clean. Within one generation we have moved into a different environment. What we have been finding out is that in the second generation of Asian, Latin American and African children, where the first generation had been exposed to those kinds of parasites and early childhood infections, the second generation that has moved to 'cleaner' countries has not been exposed. The incidence of Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, and chronic asthma is as common in the second generation from the third world as in those with European or North American backgrounds, and in some cases even higher."

Playing in the Dirt
Dr. Kugathasan and others interested in hygiene hypothesis have not proposed that "playing in the dirt," or making society less hygienic in general, are useful goals in medicine. But they do propose that taking the impact of reduced immunological strength into account for certain diseases could be beneficial.

For example, researchers who are looking into the impact of microorganisms produced by cattle on asthma in children maintain that the more they learn about how cattle exposure relates to asthma, the closer they will come to developing an effective preventive treatment.

"Over the years, what's happened with modern medicine is that we have become more aware of the disease process, so we are avoiding diseases by learning more about how they spread," said Dr. Kugathasan. "We are becoming much cleaner and learning how to prevent many diseases by immunization. And we are isolating ourselves by not going into epidemic areas. Now we don't even allow kids to play in the yard barefoot. Children playing in the dirt barefoot are exposed to a lot of microorganisms and worms and everything else, and that's not happening the way it used to."

"So the hygiene hypothesis doesn't only apply to Crohn's disease and inflammatory bowel disease," Dr. Kugathasan says. "It applies to many other conditions. This doesn't mean children should roll around in the dirt or necessarily change medical practice in the US. But to keep the immune system working properly, you need controlled stimulus or else it doesn't know how to recognize the bad guys. Treatment is meant to suppress the system, while the hygiene hypothesis suggests that it doesn't always hurt in the long run to give stimulus the other way around."

It's important that a child go through normal childhood illness, for example, notes Dr. Kugathasan. "When we visit the doctor to suppress a lot of things like colds, rather than, in effect, letting nature run its course, we're making immediate treatment the priority rather than long-term prevention, using the analogy of immunological 'muscle-building.' We know that antibiotics wipe out normal cells, too, but you don't want to destroy what medical science has accomplished. Maybe there's no going back, but it's important that we take what the hygiene hypothesis is telling us into account when treating our children."

Dan Ullrich
HealthLink Contributing Writer
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I am actually in complete agreement with this philosophy and there is significant scientific evidence to back it up. This is why I do not believe in taking prescription medication unless absolutely necessary. I believe the overprescribing of antibiotics by doctors to children is another leading cause of the increased health problems we see in society, which actually is right in line with the above article. But, if you notice, the main premise of this article is arguing a gradual increase in exposure to environmental microbes which would evoke a stimulated immune response. No where in this article does it mention an increase in exposure to smoke and there is a reason for this. It's because the body would probably react much differently to increased exposure to the over 400 different chemicals found in cigarette smoke in addition to the inherent irritation it causes the body, ie lungs, skin, eyes etc.
 
I personally know 3 people who have had accidents directly related to smoking while driving. So I stand on my opinion.

*edit* And your immune system is not only there for natural irritants, its there to try to fend off all things that can harm you. Humans have been smoking for hundreds of years and the life expectancy keeps going up and up. I see no need to demonize smoking. Especially when we are now living in a world full of electro-smog and haven't even begun to figure out it's effects on us and our children.
 
amateuraficionado said:
I may be in the minority here, but I believe any parent who is caught smoking in an automobile with a child present should be brought up on charges.... or at the very least given a hefty fine. Likewise any parent with small children who smokes indoors should also be fined, maybe even beaten! Smoke is a health hazard..... period! This is one of many reasons why children are sicker today than they have ever been. Increased sensitivities and unexplainable allergies, asthma.... it's crazy! I'm one year cigarette free, but I smoked a pack to a pack and a half a day for almost 15 years and have never smoked in my home or anywhere indoors where my children were or in an automobile where they were present. I smoke in my car but my children never ride in that vehicle, only in the family car where smoking is strictly prohibited whether they are present or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am probably in the minority, too, but I tend to agree with you. I have an 8 month old son and I never smoke around him, in the house or in my truck. It's just not healthy, in my opinion, to expose children to cigarette or even cigar smoke. We recently babysat a 9 month old for a friend of ours for a day. We weren't aware of it, but they obviously smoked around her in the car and at home. Her car seat reeked to high hell, as well as the toys that were brought with her and even the poor child herself smelled of old, stale cigarette smoke. I used to smoke cigarettes for many years and am used to the smell, but even this was too much for even me. Don't get me wrong, I am for smokers rights, but I also feel there is a responsibility that goes along with it, as well.

Wurm I read the article you posted and actually agree with it. Children being exposed to various germs (within reason) is healthy, even vital, for developing their immune system, especially their cell-mediated immunity. I am just wary about my son being exposed to known carcinogens and chemicals that can cause chronic conditions such as asthma or bronchitis. I do wish there can be more unbiased research on the subject, though. I think more genuine knowledge on the subject would be beneficial to everyone (including me). That way we can all make an informed decision on things such as this without having some group, political or otherwise, trying to do it for us. Unfortunately research like this tends to get politicized and genuine data can get lost or skewed depending on the slant one side tries to put on it.
 
Wurm said:
I personally know 3 people who have had accidents directly related to smoking while driving. So I stand on my opinion.

*edit* And your immune system is not only there for natural irritants, its there to try to fend off all things that can harm you. Humans have been smoking for hundreds of years and the life expectancy keeps going up and up. I see no need to demonize smoking. Especially when we are now living in a world full of electro-smog and haven't even begun to figure out it's effects on us and our children.
Click to expand...

We don't know the electro-smog's effects, but we do know the potential effects of smoking. There's over 50 years of solid data that's been published in every journal of medicine. I do believe that the hazards associated with cigar smoking are significantly less than those associated with cigarette smoking, but I don't think most would argue that there are some risks just the same.

I'm not demonizing smoking.... I'm a smoker, but I'm also a realist! If your position is that smoking or increased exposure to smoke is somehow good for you or your children than you and the whole scientific community at large are speaking two totally different languages.
 
In the defense of the writer of the article (I know, flame away), he is just reporting medical news. Maybe it's because I also work in news, but I believe to bash the NY Times or the journalist for reporting this is unfair, if anything bash the medical journal in which it was published, or the researchers themselves. Or better yet don't bash anything but rather read the article, form your own opinion, and leave it at that. This study was done a while ago and has, over the past few weeks, appeared in just about every news outlet and it also aired through my outlet. As a medical journalist it'd be irresponsible for this guy not to report on any major medical findings.

*steps off soap box. Commence nasty comments aimed in my general direction.

With that said I think the study is garbage and it's just some more nonsense to cause everyone to unnecessarily freak out because they have nothing better to do. To be "concerned" about this third hand smoke is really stupid considering what we are all exposed to and breathe in on a daily basis.
 
I do not smoke indoors or while driving. I smoke outside on our balcony, but if my youngest daughter comes out and plays around me, I don't tell her to leave. I do always make sure to exhale away from her.

I am also convinced that she probably gets 100,000 times worse exposure to carcinogens during her 2 mile walk to school on heavily travelled roads.
 
My dad smoked around me my whole life. From the age of 2 until 17 my dad was right there with a cigarette in his hand puffing away. He smoked 2 packs a day for those 15 years of my life, exposing my brother and I on a daily basis. In the house, in the car, outside, everywhere. In the end, we both picked up smoking (no surprise there) but neither of us are "unhealty" in any shape, form, or fashion. No asthma, cancer, or anything of the like. My daughter on the other hand is another thing. We've never exposed her to even the slightest hint of cigar or cigarette smoke. After I smoke (cigars, I quit smoking cigarettes before she was born) I immediatly go brush my teeth and change clothes just so she doesn't get exposed to that smell. After all this meticulous pruning of myself for her, she ends up with asthma. Go figure...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that no matter what we do to prevent our children from getting sick, sometimes there just isn't anything WE can do. All we can do is hope that they can lead a happy and fulfilled life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top