Study Shows How Secondhand Smoke Injures Babies' Lungs

UC Davis ^ | 08/15/06 | UC Davis

[aft_lizard]

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/23/12493

2'-Hydroxylation of nicotine by cytochrome P450 2A6 and human liver microsomes: Formation of a lung carcinogen precursor



Thats what would make smoking while pregnant dangerous to a fetus.

[ut1992]

Not only our ancestors. Have these people never watched "Going Tribal" on the travel channel. We watch it all the time and these folks live in smoke filled huts and grandpa sitting there smoking unfiltered cigarettes which I'm pretty sure are "lights".

I just have to keep thinking back to my own grandfather. He started smoking (non-filter cigarettes/cigars) when he was 13-14. He managed to live through WWII, 55 years of marriage, and made it to the ripe old age of 86.

I don't advocate youngin's start smoking, but geez I'm getting so sick of these people that pray to the "health god"

Have you ever heard of anyone dieing of good health?

[aft_lizard]

MY mother smoked with me, and I was born oxygen deficient, was blind, deaf, and couldnt walk until I was almost 4 years old..not to mention I have weird toes and an gynecomastia in my left breast...so therefore...

[luckystarmom]

Responsible ones don't, but there are a number of irresponsible ones that do.

Unfortunately, they are also the ones that would take crack, drink alcohol, leave their babies in hot cars while they get their drugs, etc.

I don't know how to make parents more responsible, but I know you can't legislate it.

[Publius6961]

This just junk science. Everybody knows smoke is good for babies. Especially newborns.

Nice change of subject.
Of course we all know that the world's knowledge base began when you were born, as is limited to what you know. < /sarc >

Controlling neurotics, next to ignarance, are Science's worst enemy.

[Khepera]

STUDIES PROVE NOTHING.
Who processed the data and how?
What data was used?
How was it collected?
Was it Faulty?
Was it misinterpreted or is it being misrepresented?

Since we do not know the answers to these questions the study is worthless.

[freepatriot32]

ping

[goodnesswins]

Asthma is more likely caused by the milk subsidies given out by our US government.....

[oldleft]

The cancer risk for cavemen was pretty low, considering they usually died around age 25.

[Bigh4u2]

"Our results are potentially significant because aminoketone is the direct precursor to the tobacco-specific lung carcinogen NNK, which is believed to play a significant role as a cause of lung cancer in smokers"

They don't know if NNK is an ACTUAL cause of lung cancer.

Their 'experiments' are based on the assumption that it is.

Proves nothing.

[Quix]

PLEASE BRACE YOURSELF

for the DENIAL TROOPS to descend on you with all their fangs and claws.

Sounds like a very solid and important study, to me. Even the naysayers should have a hard time countering it. Not that they won't try--usually with lots of non-sequiters etc.

Great to see the science progressing increasingly toward protecting life.

Thanks for this important post.

[Gabz]

Nanny State Ping..........


More agenda driven "studies."

[beltfed308]

How did anyone survive in the days of wood burning and coal stoves and fireplaces. Nowadays it is just the forest fires to worry about. /s

[Just another Joe]

From the synopsis of the report, "Methods: Timed-pregnant rhesus monkeys and their offspring were exposed to filtered air or to aged and diluted sidestream cigarette smoke as a surrogate to environmental tobacco smoke.

So, in other words, they did NOT make a connection to ETS. They made a connection to filtered air and/or aged and diluted sidestream cigarette smoke.
Since I can't get the actual study anywhere I won't comment on any of the normal things such as control groups, statistical analysis, etc.

[Old Professer]

Personally, I think the stats reflect an epidemic of diagnosis or self-diagnosis.

[Quix]

Smoke would not have any effect on the development of the lungs.
= = = =

WRONG. Perhaps reading the article again 3-4 more times might help.

FYI, smoke has 100's of carcinogens. SIMPLE FACT.

FYI, smoke born chemicals entering the mother get into her blood stream. SIMPLE FACT

FYI, said chemicals effect the very sensitive developing lung cells and the whole processes involved with said lung cells. SIMPLE FACT.

The assertion quoted from the ref'd post is SIMPLY WRONG.

HARD SCIENTIFIC FACTS HAVE REPEATEDLY PROVEN SUCH A NOTION ABUNDANTLY WRONG.

as in W R O N G, WRONG.

[Quix]

Most folks of sufficient training realize that statistical summaries are inferior at predicting individual outcomes. Nevertheless, the ODDS ARE VERY ACCURATE ESTIMATIONS of survival rates etc. etc. given proper parameters and criteria involved.

DENIAL BORN Glibness is a poor predictor of extended life, however.

[aft_lizard]

Nobody knows what actually causes many cancers, possibly viruses, bacteria or chemical exposure, but we can certainly gather evidence to come to an idea, in fact if 50% of lung cancer patients were smokers, while only 20% of the population smokes, is that evidence to you? The truth is studies like this are important to help discover cures or to prevent cancer from even occuring. I realize many freepers are tepid against these things, calling the studies flawed, funded by anti-smoking nazis etc..but to say that smoking is safe or whatever is simple silliness, like I said I am a smoker, who comes from a smoker who died of lung cancer, I know the difference my body has shown from before I smoked to what it is now, there is a difference. Sure some people are genetically predisposed to cancer, but sometimes that predisposal needs a catalyst and smoking for some is that catalyst.

[Quix]

EXCELLENT LOGIC, COURTESY, REASONABLENESS AND WISDOM.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO REFRESHING.

Thanks.

And may you and your lungs be free from the trashy assault as soon as workable.

[sagar]

I was being sarcastic.