Judge Imposes Smoking Ban on Mother

[Aceman]

TMPadmin,
Sorry, there isn't one shred of evidence from RELIABLE SOURCES that proves that smoking causes asthma. Asthma is genetic. It can be triggered by secondhand smoke. But this is not always the case. I gave birth to an asthmatic child. My father was asthmatic and both parents smoked up until I was 4-5. My mother still smokes occassionally. I and my wife smoke. When my son had his first asthma attack at 11 months he was immediately evaluated by the #1 expert in the Air Force for pediatrics and asthma. He showed us that asthma is genetic that is triggered by one or many things in the environment. He was very sure to inform us that our smoking did not cause my childs asthma. He asked us to smoke outside the home for a few months and the Air force came though our house to clean the air ducts and install special air filters. After 3-4 months of this and numerous attacks, I can reasonably say that smoking did not trigger his asthma. My son continued to have asthma attacks monthly...................Until we moved from Nebraska to Minnesota. He has had TWO attacks since moving. (That was 4 years ago.) I and my wife still smoke in my house. Funny how you think smoking causes asthma. If my father has asthma and smoked around me, and I smoke, and my asthmatic child is around smoke (along with two of my other children.), Why don't I have asthma??????? Why doesn't my wife have asthma? (Her brother has asthma) Why don't my other two children have asthma??????

I disagree with the ruling and have full confidence that it will be overturned. The mother has problems? That child has serious problems! I bet if you dig into this story, you'll find that the 13 year old never even seriously sat down with his mother to talk it out about her smoking around him. If he hates smokings and never wants to touch a cigarette........GOOD FOR HIM!!! I've told my kids that I sincerely hope they never pick up a cigarette. If my three kids came up to me and asked to have me please smoke outside, I would be reasonable enough to listen to them. I don't think this subject was brought up until they went to court.

 

[Jimbo]

TMPadmin:


<< Well JImbo my point was that I simply did a search and found some evidence and research supporting the fact that smoking is linked to asthma I could have given equal stating the opposite. And even if I had the time to go deeper and find 10 medical documents giving one conclusion and 10 giving the opposite you would still find some fault in each of them. This is exactly my point. >>


You are right. I do admit that I was surprised that various activist groups did not jump upon the contradictory information as additional cannon fodder and have it all over their pages. I erroneously believed that because none of the mainstream activist sites were referencing that material, that it did not exist. I do concede that you found contradictory studies. I stand corrected and bow to your superior search prowess.
As for you statement that ?And even if I had the time to go deeper and find 10 medical documents giving one conclusion and 10 giving the opposite you would still find some fault in each of them. This is exactly my point.? I?m not sure what your point is. Is it that I would disagree with any study, or only the studies that do not support my own preconceived conculsions?

 

[Amused]

<< Well JImbo my point was that I simply did a search and found some evidence and research supporting the fact that smoking is linked to asthma I could have given equal stating the opposite. And even if I had the time to go deeper and find 10 medical documents giving one conclusion and 10 giving the opposite you would still find some fault in each of them. This is exactly my point. >>



TPM,

Explain why, when the rate of smoking has decresed dramtically and indoor public smoking is all but extinct, the rate of asthma among children has skyrocketed.

Asthma cannot be caused by tobacco smoke, only aggravated by it. There will always be fringe groups claiming this and that, but what does the CDC say?

"The actual cause of asthma is not known"

And that was on my first hit when I search for asthma on the CDC. I'm sure there's more, but why bother?

I'll take the word of the CDC before I take the rantings of radical fringe groups.

 

[TMPadmin]

?You can always prove or disprove whatever you want to fine with your tests and studies. I bet I can fine several articles saying smoking and/or second hand smoke causes asthma. On the other hand I bet I can find just as many saying that is doesn't. Quit hiding behind your studies and admin that smoking is bad for the smoker and those around the smoker.?

Aceman:

I think you misinterpreted my statement. I was saying that you could find and prove your point on any stance you take with some study. I simply wanted some admission that smoking and second hand smoke is bad for you. I know there are those what will not admit this no matter how many studies there are.

?simply did a search and found some evidence and research supporting the fact that smoking is linked to asthma I could have given equal stating the opposite. And even if I had the time to go deeper and find 10 medical documents giving one conclusion and 10 giving the opposite you would still find some fault in each of them. This is exactly my point.

Jimbo:

My point was that you can find supporting evidence for both sides of the argument.

?And even if I had the time to go deeper and find 10 medical documents giving one conclusion and 10 giving the opposite you would still find some fault in each of them. This is exactly my point.? What I meant by this is not necessarily you but a collective ?you?. I can conduct a 100 year study on the affects of smoking and second hand smoke on 50 people (and those they come in contact with) from birth to death trying to prove that smoking will kill you and those around you and someone out there will say ?It?s all a big lie!? On the other hand I can do the same study trying to prove that smoking will make you smart and have no Ill effects on your health and someone will say the same thing.

I stand corrected and bow to your superior search prowess.

Google is the best for searches, IMO?

I will now live my life avoiding those who smoke. I know I cannot and in some cases I'll have no choice but what can I do? As for this little boy who doesn't want to put himself in his mother's house because it smells of smoke. Would you want to go to her house if it smelled like a sewer? I think that is the real question here.

Not that I'm saying people who smoke smell like sewers! It's just an analogy! And no I am not even going to look for any studies of the benefits of your house smelling like a sewer.

 

[Jimbo]

<< And no I am not even going to look for any studies of the benefits of your house smelling like a sewer. >>


LOL - Classic!

I think I will take your advice and split this thread. I don't enjoy getting flamed but in looking all over the net yesterday (and doing little work at the office) I found all sorts of information that I did not know before. Before I post any of it, I want to verify some of the more major points with more than just one or two sources. It is easy to find some authority that supports your point of view and then run with it, but I would rather "get the science right" and have accurate facts, than just spew out anyone else?s propaganda.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

Re: Asthma is genetic.

Not necessarily. My family has no history of asthma or allergies or any kind. My asthma is allergy induced - that is, when I am exposed to something I'm allergic to, I'm likely to also have an asthma attack.

As far as my allergies getting better, I don't think that's going to happen as they have been getting progressively worse. I am now allergic to all animals with dander (birds included), and pollen from certain trees...and of course, cigarette smoke.
edit: oh yeah, and milk and a few other food products. Fortunately those allergies aren't severe.

 

[Jimbo]

From the Center for Disease Controll web site: In 1982, roughly 4% of people younger than 18 years old had asthma. By 1994, this rate had increased to almost 7%, or approximately five million people under the age of 18. Furthermore, from 1982 through 1994, the overall annual age-adjusted prevalence rate of asthma for people younger than 18 years old increased by 72%.


<< Not necessarily. My family has no history of asthma or allergies or any kind. My asthma is allergy induced - that is, when I am exposed to something I'm allergic to, I'm likely to also have an asthma attack. As far as my allergies getting better, I don't think that's going to happen as they have been getting progressively worse. I am now allergic to all animals with dander (birds included), and pollen from certain trees...and of course, cigarette smoke. edit: oh yeah, and milk and a few other food products. Fortunately those allergies aren't severe. >>


Certainly all of these things can trigger an attack. I don't doubt that for a minute. However the root cause, not the triggering symptoms of an attack, is what I was wondering about. Right now conventional medical wisdom points to a genetic factor that gets the ball rolling. There is also recent evidence that suggests early exposure to antibiotics and lack of exposure to germs in general can also give somebody asthma.
The reason that many researchers are moving away from the causative effects of smoking and asthma is the 72% increase in asthma from 1982 to 1994. During this time period instances of smoking decreased in this country. If there were a conclusive link you would see asthma rates go down in a corresponding fashion, not go dramatically the other way on a graph as they have done.
I wish you luck.

 

[TMPadmin]

"There is also recent evidence that suggests early exposure to antibiotics and lack of exposure to germs in general can also give somebody asthma."

Do you realize that the colostrum in mother's milk is packed with antibiotics? Would you suggest that these studies are now saying that Brest milk is a "trigger" for asthma, i.e. bad for the child?

I?m not disputing you (God knows you can prove either side with a ?study?) would just like to read where you got this statement from.

<edit>
I was just thinking. Is it possible that since all these people quit smoking while cases of asthma went up the diagnosis of asthma just became more evident? I mean that symptoms are almost the same. The smoke causes a response by our bodies to protect it, blocking contaminate from entering, much like how our allergies act up when pollen is on the rise. Doctors may have attributed the symptoms to the smoking and not diagnosed Asthma. But now the children come into the Dr. office with a breathing problem and the Dr. asks, ?Does anyone smoke in the house? the answer being ?NO? he then diagnoses Asthma!

Just a thought?

 

[Jimbo]

Sure, no sweat.
Asthma and allergy experts from around the world convened at a major conference in New York on Friday to discuss one of the critical public health issues of our time ? the increasing rate of asthma across the country. The numbers are up 154 percent over the past 20 years.
Dr. Andy Liu, who runs the children?s asthma clinic at National Jewish Hospital in Denver, thinks he knows the reason for the increase. ?Our clean living ways perhaps might be leading to this global rise in asthma and allergies,? Liu said.
Most people assume asthma results from air pollution or other dirt in the environment. But it may be caused by just the opposite. The latest research shows the cleaner the environment, the more cases of asthma. It has to do with our immune systems
New studies show if children escape multiple infections as infants, their immune systems then overreact to dust or other things that cause allergies ? with asthma as the result.

Also:

Asthma is not caused by smoking. (Their emphasis, not mine.)
The reason asthma develops in one person and not another is not well known. Asthma tends to run in families, but not always. "Pure" asthma can be treated effectively because the changes to the airways can be reversed in most instances. However, if there is a component of emphysema or chronic bronchitis to the asthma condition, the changes cannot be reversed. For more information about asthma, please refer to the Canadian Lung Association Asthma Resource Center.

 

[Amused]

<< "There is also recent evidence that suggests early exposure to antibiotics and lack of exposure to germs in general can also give somebody asthma."

Do you realize that the colostrum in mother's milk is packed with antibiotics? Would you suggest that these studies are now saying that Brest milk is a "trigger" for asthma, i.e. bad for the child? >>



There's a huge difference in natural antibodies, and artificially introduced antibodies. Plus, mothers milk is only the first few months to the first year of a child's life. After that, the child's immune system is supposed to control disease.

As for his claim, I'd not dismiss it so quickly. The huge increase in allergies and asthma coincides perfectly with the huge popularity increase of antibacterial home soaps and cleaners, and the food poisoning fears that have led to more careful food handling. It's not too hard to believe that a body kept from the normal illnesses of childhood will become hyper sensitive and over react to allergens later.

 

[Jimbo]

<< was just thinking. Is it possible that since all these people quit smoking while cases of asthma went up the diagnosis of asthma just became more evident? I mean that symptoms are almost the same. The smoke causes a response by our bodies to protect it, blocking contaminate from entering, much like how our allergies act up when pollen is on the rise. Doctors may have attributed the symptoms to the smoking and not diagnosed Asthma. But now the children come into the Dr. office with a breathing problem and the Dr. asks, ?Does anyone smoke in the house? the answer being ?NO? he then diagnoses Asthma! >>


The differences between full blown asthma and just normal irritation from smoke is pretty dramatic. From what I have read the diagnosis of childhood asthma is pretty much of a no-brainer for any competent physician because the symptoms are usually so pronounced. True, more accurate reporting can distort the numbers, especially with a disease that was previously unknown or hard to diagnose or a disease that was confused with another disease because the symptoms were so similar.
I just am not seeing any of these factors at play. Better reporting is supposedly easy to correct for in a meta study.



<< There's a huge difference in natural antibodies, and artificially introduced antibodies. Plus, mothers milk is only the first few months to the first year of a child's life. >>


Yes, what AmusedOne said.

 

[TMPadmin]

I can definitely agree that we have become a ?germaphobic? society, and agree that this definitely can lead to hypersensitivity in children who were not exposed to germs as infants. I have the wonderful task of raising a 7 Month old right now. Worrying about him getting sick but then think about how I was raised, the assumption of ?pass him around let him get sick now so he won?t later?

Is it me, or are we way off subject now?

 

[Amused]

<< I can definitely agree that we have become a ?germaphobic? society, and agree that this definitely can lead to hypersensitivity in children who were not exposed to germs as infants. I have the wonderful task of raising a 7 Month old right now. Worrying about him getting sick but then think about how I was raised, the assumption of ?pass him around let him get sick now so he won?t later?

Is it me, or are we way off subject now? >>



LOL, yeah, but it was so cool And I agree, let the child play in the mud and get as dirty as a child should. Let him get all the colds and flus now, so his immune system grows strong and regulated.

See? I'm just a nature boy at heart

 

[Jimbo]

<< Is it me, or are we way off subject now? >>


Actually I think we have come full circle on the parenting issue. I do remember my ex-wife freaking out when the kids and I were outside by ourselves and they were both eating dirt on the side of the house. Oops!
Bad Dad! Bad Dad!

 

[Scouzer]

I only skimmed the thread, but as a 14 year old boy with a mom who smokes a pack a day I totally wish this would happen to my mom. I live in the basement full time, because when I go upstairs even with my minor case of asthma, I literally become short of breath and have to retreat to the basement again to breathe. I go up there for a drink several times a day and the rest of the time I'm down here. I can't breathe up there properly at all. My mom is a mom a 14 year old would only wish for, but smoking comes first for her. I have a hard enough time to get her to roll down her window in the car. As soon as smoking comes in the picture, I'm forgotten. Anytime I whine about it she says "too bad" or "There was a UN study a long time ago that found second hand smoke harmless" blah to that!

Now, I could goto my dad's but he's a full blown alcoholic and I think I'll live being unable to breathe at times rather than be around that scumbag...

 

[Jimbo]

<< I live in the basement full time, because when I go upstairs even with my minor case of asthma, I literally become short of breath and have to retreat to the basement again to breathe. I go up there for a drink several times a day and the rest of the time I'm down here. I can't breathe up there properly at all. My mom is a mom a 14 year old would only wish for, but smoking comes first for her. I have a hard enough time to get her to roll down her window in the car. As soon as smoking comes in the picture, I'm forgotten. Anytime I whine about it she says "too bad" or "There was a UN study a long time ago that found second hand smoke harmless" blah to that! >>



You have a couple of options:

1. Kill your parents and see if you can get adopted out. If you get caught, ask judge for leniency because you are an orphan.

2. Point out to mom that NO study concerning asthma says that exposure to smoke is a good thing. The WHO study (actually there are a few of them) only concerns long term exposure to ETS (second hand smoke) carcinogens as it relates to meaningful cancer and cardiopulmonary risk.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

The decline in smokers and increase in # of people who have asthma only serves to prove that smoking is not the only cause of asthma, it does not disprove the existance of a correlation. For that you would need to perform a study with at least two groups - one with smoking parents (esp. mothers smoking through pregnancy), and one with non smoking parents. Members of the two groups would have to come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, be in the same age group, and in approximately the same location. This would help eliminate other potential factors. Then if you followed these groups from time of pregnancy to say the child's 8th birthday, you could compare asthma rates and make an accurate assessment of whether or not smoking during & after pregnancy makes your child more likely to develop asthma in the first 8 years.

Doesn't sound like such a study has been performed.

 

[Jimbo]

<< Doesn't sound like such a study has been performed. >>


Actually many studies have been done going back at least 20 years. So far the mechanism that links the two, if there is one and it is looking like there's not, cannot be determined. That is why the studies are now branching out into other areas looking for possible links.
The studies that have been done have come back with conclusions that are all over the board. Some say that if you show a pregnant woman a picture of a cigarette the child will need an iron lung. Other studies have almost proclaimed tobacco a health food with LOWER rates of asthma for the children. The rest are sprinkled all over between the two ends. At this time I don't think there is an easy answer. If there were, the biggies like the American Lung Association and the CDC and others would have already latched on to it.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

Can you provide a link to any studies performed in the manner I described?

 

[Aceman]

Sir Fredrick,
I've seen the studies that you are referring to in written format. I'm sure if I can, given time, find the same studies on the web. The bottom line from my son's specialist (Once again, I stress the fact that he was the #1 specialist in the Air Force, now retired) was that smoking has in no way been proven to CAUSE asthma. Smoking however MAY bring on an asthma attack in a person. The doctor attributed the CAUSE of my son's asthma to be "genetic"/hereditry and reared it's ugly head from the RVS that he got when he was 8 months old.

With my son, now 6, there is no direct link that shows that my smoking TRIGGERS an asthma attack. There is a direct link that my smoking WILL intensify an asthmatic attack.

 

[Jimbo]

<< Can you provide a link to any studies performed in the manner I described? >>


I don't know if any of the studies will match EXACTLY your criteria but I'm sure they will come close.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

For some reason, I am unable to post from Internet Explorer. I typed up a nice long response with many links and references, and now I can't post it.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

Some of these links might not work since I had to convert http codes to the actual symbols they represent, and I might have missed a few. If one of the sites isn't working, do a search on google.

I would be interested in seeing the studies which should meet the criteria I outlined in order to be valid. Last I had read on this, which admittedly was quite some time ago, they were claiming that there was a link between smoking pregnant mothers and asthma.

While I have no way to verify the studies used to come to these conclusions, consider the following sites which say that there is a link between asthma and smoking while pregnant. I'm not saying this proves anything other than that studies can be manipulated to say anything, so any study not performed correctly cannot be assumed to be accurate. These are just as likely to be accurate as anything else I've seen posted here thus far.


Community Education

Eschenbacher says children who live in a smoker's household also have an increased chance of developing asthma.

[Refraining from smoking while pregnant means that:] After your baby is born, there is less risk that your child will have health problems such as asthma.

The U.S. EPA report in Dec. 1992 on "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," states that "Children exposed to second-hand smoke have an increased risk of contracting serious respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis, pneumonia and asthma.

Smoking increases the risk of childhood asthma both if you smoke while pregnant or after delivery.

A link from the above page reveals: The odds of developing asthma are twice as high among children whose mothers smoke more than 10 cigarettes a day. - Between 400,000 and 1 million asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to secondhand smoke. Maternal smoking during and after pregnancy has been linked to asthma among infants and young children.

# Cigarette smoking during pregnancy. Mothers who smoke during pregnancy increase the risk for wheezing (a symptom of asthma) in their babies. Babies whose mothers smoked during pregnancy also have worse lung function than babies whose mothers did not smoke during pregnancy - Peak JK. Prevention of asthma. Eur Respir J 1996%3B 9: 1545-1555.

Secondhand smoke also increases the number of new cases of childhood asthma in children who have not previously exhibited symptoms.

Children, especially infants, who breathe second-hand smoke at home have more ear infections, colds, bronchitis, asthma and other breathing problems.

secondary smoke especially harms children, greatly increasing their incidences of asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis and colds.

At least 6,200 children die each year in the U.S. because of their parents' smoking - killed by such things as lung infections and burns. In addition, some 5.4 million other youngsters each year survive ailments such as ear infections and asthma that are triggered by their parents' smoking

Second-hand smoke causes and aggravates asthma, other breathing problems like bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections, particularly in children.

When children are exposed to secondhand smoke from a family member or loved one, they too are at risk for disease - at risk for asthma, wheezing, coughing, bronchitis, eye and ear problems

recent medical research has also shown that children living with people who smoke are more likely to get asthma, have increased episodes and more severe attacks of asthma 7, and have lungs that develop less well.

The costs of second-hand smoking are more a matter for dispute. But for children it may result in about 15,000 hospitalizations with respiratory illnesses, exacerbate asthma in 200,000 to 1 million kids, and increase the number of new asthma cases.

Mothers should be advised about the importance of avoiding exposure to allergens and environmental tobacco smoke in the first years of their child's life to reduce the potential for later asthma development.

The Better Health Store - Parents with young children in the house should not allow smoking indoors. The effects of ETS on respiratory health in young children have been studied extensively. Approximately 38% of children are exposed to ETS in the home, whereas 23.8% are exposed to maternal smoking during pregnancy. ETS exposure increases chronic bronchitis and wheezing among children two months to two years old and asthma among children two months to five years old. Among children two months to two years of age, 40 to 60% of the cases of asthma, chronic bronchitis, and wheezing can be linked to ETS exposure. - Gergen PJ, Fowler JA, Maurer KR, et al. The burden of environmental tobacco smoke exposure on the respiratory health of children 2 months through 5 years of age in the United States: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1994. Pediatrics 1998%3B101:E8.

There have been links made between women smoking during pregnancy and their children developing respiratory problems, such as asthma, later in childhood.

in 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that every year, second-hand smoke exposure resulted in 8,000 to 26,000 new cases of asthma amongst children. - U.S. Environnemental Protection Agency %28U.S. EPA, 1992%29. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA/600/6-90/006F

Asthma and smoking - 1986 in the United States, a comprehensive review of the health effects of exposure to passive smoking was published by the US Surgeon General[19]. The report concluded that ETS can be causally associated with respiratory illnesses, including lung cancer, childhood asthma and lower respiratory tract infections.

Following on from this study, in 1992 the US Environmental Protection Agency undertook a broad review of the major health effects associated with ETS[20]. The findings of the review state:

ETS exposure is causally associated with additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. This reports estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.

Subsequently the California Environmental Protection Agency spent 5 years examining the role of ETS on public health[21]. It solicited input from all interested parties %96 including the tobacco industry and its consultants. It revealed that passive smoking could be a causal factor in as many as 2,600 new cases of asthma in the US annually.


Alright, I hope you get the idea.

 

[Amused]

I'm still waiting for the explaination of how, in the time period that smoking was cut by 50% or more AND nearly all smoking in public places and private businesses has been banned, the rate of asthma increased more than 100%.

That alone tells me that tobacco ain't it. Hell, it can't even be a contributing cause, not with such opposite numbers as these.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< I'm still waiting for the explaination of how, in the time period that smoking was cut by 50% or more AND nearly all smoking in public places and private businesses has been banned, the rate of asthma increased more than 100%.

That alone tells me that tobacco ain't it. Hell, it can't even be a contributing cause, not with such opposite numbers as these. >>



I've said this before and I'll say it again: please read my posts.

I explained quite well how you cannot draw any conclusions from this fact.

edit: As I said before, your point only shows that smoking is not the ONLY cause of asthma. It does not disprove any possible correlation.

As for an explanation for this point you bring up which proves nothing: Would you like me to post a few dozen links that also show that incidences of asthma are linked to air quality/pollution? More people are living in big cities with more pollution. Also, people are spending more time indoors, and indoor air quality is decreasing as we push harder for maximum efficiency - eliminating all drafts, having well sealed doors and windows to keep cold/hot air out (depending on the season), also prevents fresh air from coming in. According to my Safety and the Industrial Process book, there is a higher concentration of pollutants inside your average home than outside.
I'd rather not try to dig up all those links as it's somewhat time consuming.