That may be true, but it's not necessarily accurate. The most important "anecdotal evidence" is the number of baby boomers right now who are healthy and living the longest lives in history, although virtually the entire population grew up around smoke and smokers. Every risk should be weighed, but put in perspective.
Is there any level of "risk" below which you would feel "safe"? Is there any level below which you'd consider a "study" finding to be invalid?
I think we've got credible evidence that smoking while pregnant is a significant risk factor for the health of the unborn.
No, the "evidence" is not significant nor is it credible.
I don't think that advising you to not smoke for those nine months is too much. Many responses I've seen to that here seemed to be based on an incomplete understanding of statistics or an argument that you can do whatever you want with your body.
"Advising" someone to do anything one considers important is not "too much," but this drive to demonize, ostracize and criminalize smokers won't end there. I understand statistics very well, and whether or not you "can do whatever you want with your body," it certainly is not the business of special interest groups to tell me what I can and can not do, particularly when that particular witch hunt is based on shoddy science and propaganda.
Say it again, Max.
You have a way of cutting to the chase.
This is still anecdotal. All a large population tells me is that there was a high birth rate. There are far too many other variables to make any conclusions about the effects of smoking from this data alone. We'd need to dig out statistics on all babies born, isolate all variables other than smoking, and examine the health effects in them. I don't think such information is available, but we do have reputable studies available now.
Such as: "Xiaobin Wang, M.D., M.P.H., Sc.D., of the Department of Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine, and colleagues reported their finding that pregnant women who smoke are much more likely to have a premature or low birthweight baby if two genes that normally control the body's chemical modification of components of cigarette smoke were missing or inactive. The authors also note that 65 percent of all infant deaths in the United States occur among low birthweight infants (5.5 pounds or less). " http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/1/GENESMOK.MOD.html
Is there any level of "risk" below which you would feel "safe"? Is there any level below which you'd consider a "study" finding to be invalid?
Absolutely, which is what I've been asking for all along. If you think that smoking while pregnant is A-OK, tell me so because the risk is so miniscule we don't have to worry about it. I recognize that life itself is risky. I'm not saying we should sanitize the world. People are killed every day driving, but I don't advocate lowering all speed limits to 30 mph. Because getting places on time is important. Smoking while pregnant, I'll dare say, is not important.
No, the "evidence" is not significant nor is it credible.
I think there have been volumes of reputable studies done on prenatal smoking. At least enough to raise a question and probably shift the burden of proof. Tell you what. Find me a doctor that says that smoking while pregnant is A-OK.
it certainly is not the business of special interest groups to tell me what I can and can not do
This kind of reasoning, frankly, confuses me. When confronted with so-called special interest groups, I usually employ a follow-the-benefits (usually money) test. If someone is making a argument that will help their pocketbook or their position somehow, I'm immediately suspicious. That's what makes them a special interest. They have an interest. Where is the interest in someone advocating that mothers not smoke?