Posted on 08/16/2006 8:25:06 AM PDT by Moonman62
UC Davis researchers today described in unprecedented biochemical and anatomical detail how cigarette smoke damages the lungs of unborn and newborn children.
The findings illustrate with increased urgency the dangers that smokers' families and friends face, said UC Davis Professor Kent Pinkerton, and should give family doctors helpful new insight into the precise hidden physical changes occurring in their young patients' lungs.
"Smoke exposure causes significant damage and lasting consequences in newborns," Pinkerton said. "This research has a message for every parent: Do not smoke or breathe secondhand smoke while you are pregnant. Do not let your children breathe secondhand smoke after they are born."
Pinkerton added that the results from this study are further proof that secondhand smoke's effects on children are not minor, temporary or reversible. "This is the missed message about secondhand smoke and children," he said. "Parents need to understand that these effects will not go away. If children do not grow healthy lungs when they are supposed to, they will likely never recover. The process is not forgiving and the children are not going to be able to make up this loss later in life."
The 2006 Surgeon General's Report on secondhand smoke estimates that more than 126 million residents of the United States age 3 or older are exposed to secondhand smoke. Among children younger than 18 years of age, an estimated 22 percent are exposed to secondhand smoke in their home; estimates range from 11.7 percent in Utah to 34.2 percent in Kentucky.
To get the word out to parents about the dangers of secondhand smoke, two states (Arkansas and Louisiana) have made it illegal to smoke in a car with young passengers. In California, a similar bill, AB 379, is currently under consideration in the state Legislature.
The new UC Davis research is reported in today's issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. The lead author is Cai-Yun Zhong, a former UC Davis graduate student now working at ArQule Biomedical Institute in Boston; the co-authors are Ya Mei Zhou, also a former UC Davis graduate student and now investigating breast cancer signaling pathways at Buck Research Institute in Novato, Calif.; Jesse Joad, a UC Davis pediatrician who studies children's lung development and cares for sick children in the UC Davis Health System; and Pinkerton, a UC Davis professor of pediatric medicine and director of the UC Davis Center for Health and the Environment.
The Pinkerton research group is one of the few groups in the nation capable of studying the effects of environmental contaminants on unborn and newborn animals. Their 15 years of studies on mice and rats have yielded greater understanding of how air pollution affects human lungs and health through experiments that attempt to reproduce true exposure conditions to environmental air pollutants.
The new study was done with rhesus macaque monkeys, in order to obtain the best possible understanding of what happens in people. Pregnant macaques were exposed to smoke levels equal to those that a pregnant woman would breathe if someone in her home or workplace smoked. Newborn macaques were exposed to secondhand smoke levels similar to those a human baby would breathe if it was cared for by a moderate-to-heavy smoker.
What the researchers found is that environmental tobacco smoke wreaks havoc in babies at a critical time in the development of lungs -- when millions of tiny cells called alveoli (pronounced al-VEE-o-lye) are being formed.
Alveoli are the place where oxygen passes from the lungs into the bloodstream. Human infants are born with only about one-fifth of the 300 million alveoli they will need as adults. They construct almost all those 300 million alveoli between birth and age 8.
Pinkerton's group had previously shown that rats exposed to secondhand smoke while in the womb and after birth developed hyper-reactive, or "ticklish," airways, which typically occurs in children and adults with asthma. The airways in those rodents remained hyper-reactive even when the secondhand smoke exposure stopped. Thus, this early exposure to environmental tobacco smoke created a long-lasting and perhaps permanent asthma-like condition.
In the new study, the researchers analyzed step-by-step how the alveolar cells' inner workings reacted to cigarette smoke. They found the normal orderly process of cell housecleaning had gone haywire.
In healthy people, cells live and die on a schedule. Programmed cell death, called apoptosis (a-pop-TOE-sis), is regulated by genes that increase or decrease various chemical reactions in the cell.
But in this study, when baby monkeys were exposed to cigarette smoke before and after birth, apoptosis went awry. Critical cellular controls regulating cell death turned off. Alveolar cells died twice as fast as they should have.
"If you are killing cells at a higher rate during a critical developmental stage, when they are supposed to be proliferating in order to create new alveoli, the lungs may never be able to recover," Pinkerton said.
Funding for the study, "Environmental Tobacco Smoke Suppresses Nuclear Factor Kappa B Signaling to Increase Apoptosis in Infant Monkey Lungs," was included in a five-year, $1.5 million research grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and $450,000 from taxes on sales of tobacco products in California.
Media contact(s): • Kent Pinkerton, Center for Health and the Environment, (530) 752-8334, kepinkerton@ucdavis.edu • Jesse Joad, Department of Pediatrics, (916) 734-3189, jpjoad@ucdavis.edu • Sylvia Wright, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-7704, swright@ucdavis.edu
Thanks for the ping!
"UC Davis researchers today described in unprecedented biochemical and anatomical detail how cigarette smoke damages the lungs of unborn and newborn children."
How can something stated TODAY be a SIMPLE FACT?
Especially since it never existed before?
Your SIMPLE FACTS are SIMPLY WRONG!
Thanks for the ping. Boy, I sure am glad my kid is raised!!
I suspect that similar damage would be observed in other types of cells. Direct inhalation contact is not implied.
Oh, they're already here.
Sorry. I'm inadequate at explaining . . . well enough . . . in precise clarity . . . that for which explanation is do effectively defended against.
CHEMICALS
ARE
IRRITANTS.
Let me repeat that for any possible increase in understanding it might afford . . . CHEMICALS ARE IRRITANTS. Doesn't matter whether some chemicals are delivered via airborne molecules or via the blood stream--certain chemicals ARE irritants to certain cells, cell types--PARTICULARLY AT CRITICAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT.
This is not really rocket science, folks.
That is true about ALL smoke, from any source.
There is a truism in regard to such "facts" the poison is in the dose.
Oh it's not over. We all heat with big wood furnaces in northern Maine AND fireplaces. It's a warm heat but a very dirty heat.
And silly me, I thought unborn children didn't use their lungs, so I'm kinda wonderin' how the smoke gets in there to damage 'em.
= = = =
Perhaps I'm being thickheaded today. But I fail to understand how silly comments reflect on the science involved. Further, how such comments reflect the slightest understanding of the science involved.
Denial of life; denial of facts . . . UTTERLY FAIL as good survival habits.
"If you are killing cells at a higher rate during a critical developmental stage, when they are supposed to be proliferating in order to create new alveoli, the lungs may never be able to recover," Pinkerton said.
*******
Well, what is the consequence of this? What disease is this supposed to cause?
PROJECTION and DENIAL
are not good survival habits, traits.
Apparently there is a drug out there to treat depression, Bupropion, that is a form of aminoketone. Google it up.
Yeah, and the average lifespan was what? 28 years?
= = = =
ABSOLUTELY.
But I hope you aren't expecting a warm response TO FACTS
on the denial ridden smoking threads.
There are contacts with phone numbers and emails at the bottom of the article.
Yes. But the mothers lungs would filter out any effects from the smoke before it is passed through the blood stream to the fetus.
The article is saying that her smoke 'directly effects' the fetus's lungs, which is not possible since the fetus does not breathe air until after it is born.
= = = =
WRONG.
I suppose it's predictable given how little thought out it is.
CHEMICALS. CHEMICALS. CHEMICALS.
Sigh.
I'm waiting for the study that says smoking causes global warming, earthquakes, anti-semitism and hives.
Does Jim Fixx count?
"It would have to be a chemical effect, perhaps from niicotine."
Better not eat tomatoes while pregnent then.
Its also a drug used to help smokers quit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.