• 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!

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.

Except it isn't a major medical finding it's a Doctor with an agenda. I understand what you are saying flamchop, but it's the news media reporting of such tripe, in a sensationalist manner, that has had a lot to do with a lot of us being forced to stand outside of a cigar-lounge or pub and smoke in the rain.

*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.

And since you also think it is garbage, how do you justify the first part of your post? Is it not the reporter's creed to only report the truth? Sadly I think we both know the answer to that.
 
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.
[/quote]

Agreed. The irony is the baby girl I mentioned in an earlier post has not been sick once, yet my son has had chronic earaches for 3 months despite how careful I've been. You never know.
 
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.

Absolutely, but at least you can say you thought you did everything possible to prevent it.

That's my only point. It's incumbent upon us as parents to do everything in our power to protect our children.
 
The danger is that by doing everything, we commit ourselves to "todays" best practices, which may turn out to be based on bad science or no science at all. How many times have we flipped infants over in their cribs since SID became a syndrome?

I really believe that modern medicine has doomed the human race. We have interfered with the natural selection process, and now have a much weaker genome than we should. I'm not advocating any change, what's done is done, and what will be done will be done. Just my opinion on the results.

We should be careful about over protecting. Remember how sad the boy in the plastic bubble was with his sheltered life?
 
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.

Except it isn't a major medical finding it's a Doctor with an agenda. I understand what you are saying flamchop, but it's the news media reporting of such tripe, in a sensationalist manner, that has had a lot to do with a lot of us being forced to stand outside of a cigar-lounge or pub and smoke in the rain.

*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.

And since you also think it is garbage, how do you justify the first part of your post? Is it not the reporter's creed to only report the truth? Sadly I think we both know the answer to that.

The job of a journalist is to report information objectively to the public so they can make their own decisions and draw their own conclusions. This is exactly what is happening in this thread.

Maybe "major medical finding" wasn't the right term to use, but it was a study published in a medical journal, which in my opinion warrants a medical reporter to report on it. The second part of my post was my personal opinion on the study itself, the first part of my post was my opinion on the reporter's job to report it. Maybe something I'll agree with is that what's missing from this article and from that countless others that have reported this study, is a counter-argument of some sort.
 
The danger is that by doing everything, we commit ourselves to "todays" best practices, which may turn out to be based on bad science or no science at all. How many times have we flipped infants over in their cribs since SID became a syndrome?

I really believe that modern medicine has doomed the human race. We have interfered with the natural selection process, and now have a much weaker genome than we should. I'm not advocating any change, what's done is done, and what will be done will be done. Just my opinion on the results.

We should be careful about over protecting. Remember how sad the boy in the plastic bubble was with his sheltered life?

You are right Matt, and I'm one of the biggest culprits. It is so easy to be too overprotective. But, neither parenting nor life comes with a manual. You just try and do the best you can and hope they stay safe, and that the roots you planted take hold.

I don't know if I agree that modern medicine has doomed the human race though. I believe it does just as much good as bad, if not more so. I know when I was 8 years old and broke both of my arms at the same time, I was happy to have been brought to competent healthcare workers to ease the pain and get me on the road to recovery. If you've ever had one of your children with a 104'F+ fever that won't break, it's good to know that there are those who do know what to do. I just think you have to look at the whole picture.
 
I'm sure we will be hearing about 4th hand smoke being the toxic gases inhaled by the children from their parents clothing and back out into the air, and inhaled a second time by another child or family pet and now both your kids have cancer, and your dog/cat. What a sick world this is
 
I went through and scanned the actual article that is being discussed in the NY Times. I wish I could get crap like this published.
It is completely made of a questions, statistics and opinion. Heaven forbid he has to do real experiments. I also found it rather sensational. If I would have reviewed this I would have kicked it. I have lost some faith in Pediatrics, but it is a medical journal not a scientific journal. If the rumors I've heard about Harvard, I'll offer a potential explanation to his rapid high profile publication record. He's an assistant professor, meaning he's at the bottom of the totem pole. The rumor in science, and some other professors have mentioned it, is that the highly competitive universities, like Harvard, will hire several asst. profs. for one position. They basically have a 5-7 year competition where the winner gets tenure and the others get cut. The whole tenure or get cut happens at every university, but you don't have your competitor right down the hall from you. Getting his paper count up and gaining fame is a great way to keep his job, long term. I won't deny he has an agenda, but most people in science do. Most people aren't out to solve social ideas or use science to do it. In my opinion a scientist presents the facts, they are what they are. Let people do what they want with them afterwords. Now back to grant writing woo hoo. :(

The most irritating thing is this 'tard is likely better funded than my group and we are trying to fight TB. :angry:
 
This bleeding heart crap has just gotten WAY out of hand. This kind of crap will never end, they will just keep coming up with other ways to demonize smokers any way they can.
 
How coincidental that this comes from the Boston area. Last November 15th, the Boston town council introduced the most comprehensive non-smoking ban in the US. They had doctors, researchers, and scientists coming out of the woodwork condemning cigarette and cigar smoke and making references to it being as deadly as mustard gas. Now comes a study from Mass General! Oh my, my....I'm shocked.

Now add in the promotion of this hogwash by the Liberal, agenda driven rag, NY Times.

Come on....residual "radioactive materials" from cigar & cigarette smoke?

Some people will believe anything as long as they read it in print or see it on TV. Sad.
 
Dude! My horse's dog got the black lung from 18th hand smoke just yesterday. We had to kill it.

Believe EVERYTHING you read.
 
It's more than a rumor - they do hire more than one assistant professor for every tenure line. (A tenure line, for those not in the academic world, is a single permanently funded position. You only move up the food chain by getting into a tenurable position - said Assistant Professor - then getting tenured, then moving upwards. In a science department, you can trace tenure lines over a period of years, since a new professor typically has a similar specialty to the retiring/leaving one)

It's doubly interesting that their tenure rate is so low, even though most assistant professors don't stick around for year 6 unless they have a serious shot at tenure.

As for the article. It's interesting, but micro issues rarely have macro effect. In other words, the article is likely 100% correct - there are carcinogens in tobacco smoke, they are carried along in clothing and persistent in the environment - but they won't necessarily increase your risk of anything.

I feel myself agreeing with the parents in this thread. They take reasonable precautions but don't go nuts about it. They're conscious of the risks they assume. This is a mature way to go about your life. If you don't approach it consciously, you're going to make mistakes about how big and how manageable risks are.
 
Here's an FYI. This subject, "Third Hand Smoke", will be discussed on NPR's Talk of the Nation - Science Friday tomorrow.
 

This quote from that article is priceless.

"But get this: After saying that a smoker's third-hand smoke is bad for babies, the researchers then note that for a smoker, breastfeeding a baby is still better than bottle-feeding. So after all this crap about poisoning the air, they're saying breast milk from a smoker is still better than milk from a bottle. Theoretically, a smoking mom that breastfeeds is a better mom, than a non-smoking bottle-feeder."

I guess the "third hand" smoking issue doesn't apply to a smoking breast feeding mom. Forget about the first and second hand smoke as the nicotine gets into the blood stream. We all know this experience when smoking a cigar thats to strong for us. Just simply wow!!! :sign:
 
Greetings! Next, the anti-smoking establishment will probably come up with "fourth-hand smoke". They will probably claim that "fourth-hand smoke" is created when a smoker breaks wind, and this is highly toxic. Yes, the spinning wheel keeps spinning. Regards, knightlaird
 
Top