ASH (Action on Smoking and health) put out a press release today 20/12/13
with a little bit of data 'spin' added -
From the ASH release:-
"And saliva tests have found high levels of nicotine intake in the children, especially among younger ones who like to be close to mum."
"REFRESH also tested the childrens saliva to check for exposure to second-hand smoke. All but one of the 54 youngsters had concentrations in their saliva that indicated high levels of nicotine intake." *
Here is that press release
REFRESH research | ASH Scotland
There is not a hyperlink to the REFRESH study in the article itself,
-Noteworthy while reading it,
reference to PM2.5 in the article is an International standard meaning 'Particulate matter <2.5', the study states that the PM2.5 readings showed a decline from week 2 to week 4 measurement, the study group were asked to refrain from smoking indoors, it is therefore obvious that readings for PM2.5* (particles smaller than 2.5 micromoteres-fine particles) would show a reduced reading.
The 'feasability' study is here
REFRESH--reducing families' exposure to secondha... [Tob Control. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
And the 'spin' that ASH put on it ? , the REFRESH article states this
" There was no significant difference for salivary cotinine."**
In fact there are no printed figures for cotinine levels measured in the above link.
So the levels of saliva cotinine-dietary source ? I don't know, what I do know is that ASH have yet again inflated a claim.....and 'spun' it.
*http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/faq.htm#0
**Cotinine levels <10 ng/mL are considered to be consistent with no active smoking. Values of 10 ng/mL to 100 ng/mL are associated with light smoking or moderate passive exposure, and levels above 300 ng/mL are seen in heavy smokers - more than 20 cigarettes a day. In urine, values between 11 ng/mL and 30 ng/mL may be associated with light smoking or passive exposure, and levels in active smokers typically reach 500 ng/mL or more. Cotinine assays provide an objective quantitative measure that is more reliable than smoking histories or counting the number of cigarettes smoked per day.
with a little bit of data 'spin' added -
From the ASH release:-
"And saliva tests have found high levels of nicotine intake in the children, especially among younger ones who like to be close to mum."
"REFRESH also tested the childrens saliva to check for exposure to second-hand smoke. All but one of the 54 youngsters had concentrations in their saliva that indicated high levels of nicotine intake." *
Here is that press release
REFRESH research | ASH Scotland
There is not a hyperlink to the REFRESH study in the article itself,
-Noteworthy while reading it,
reference to PM2.5 in the article is an International standard meaning 'Particulate matter <2.5', the study states that the PM2.5 readings showed a decline from week 2 to week 4 measurement, the study group were asked to refrain from smoking indoors, it is therefore obvious that readings for PM2.5* (particles smaller than 2.5 micromoteres-fine particles) would show a reduced reading.
The 'feasability' study is here
REFRESH--reducing families' exposure to secondha... [Tob Control. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
And the 'spin' that ASH put on it ? , the REFRESH article states this
" There was no significant difference for salivary cotinine."**
In fact there are no printed figures for cotinine levels measured in the above link.
So the levels of saliva cotinine-dietary source ? I don't know, what I do know is that ASH have yet again inflated a claim.....and 'spun' it.
*http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/faq.htm#0
**Cotinine levels <10 ng/mL are considered to be consistent with no active smoking. Values of 10 ng/mL to 100 ng/mL are associated with light smoking or moderate passive exposure, and levels above 300 ng/mL are seen in heavy smokers - more than 20 cigarettes a day. In urine, values between 11 ng/mL and 30 ng/mL may be associated with light smoking or passive exposure, and levels in active smokers typically reach 500 ng/mL or more. Cotinine assays provide an objective quantitative measure that is more reliable than smoking histories or counting the number of cigarettes smoked per day.
