Dr. Siegel's New Website!

[ladyraj]

OKay then explain this:
Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 substances. More than 40 of these substances are known to cause cancer in people or animals.

Infants and young children whose parents smoke have more lower respiratory tract infections, including pneumonia and bronchitis. Secondhand smoke causes between 150,000 and 300,000 such infections every year in children under age 18 months, and between 7,500 and 15,000 are so severe they require hospitalization. Children who breathe secondhand smoke also have more ear infections, and infants exposed to secondhand smoke run a higher risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. <----- ( WOW no real worries eh)

The EPA estimates secondhand smoke worsens asthma in between 200,000 and 1 million children with the disease. What’s more, children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to develop a new case of asthma as well.

Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause between 38,000 and 65,000 deaths among nonsmokers every year, making it the third leading cause of preventable death in this country

Second-hand smoke linked to cognitive impairment (Previous findings suggested that second-hand smoke exposure could impair cognitive development in children and adolescents.)

Children of smokers have more than 5 times higher levels of a nicotine toxin Nearly 40% of under-fives are believed to be exposed to tobacco smoke at home, and smoke may be responsible for up to 6,000 deaths per year in young children.

Children's IQ Can Be Affected By Mother's Exposure To Urban Air Pollutants, Study Suggests the study found that children exposed to high levels of PAHs in New York City had full scale and verbal IQ scores that were 4.31 and 4.67 points lower, respectively than those of less exposed children. High PAH levels were defined as above the median of 2.26 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3).


If these above links dont make you think twice before lighting up around children and adults then your nuts. Even if they dont have problems now your still looking at a chance of problems later...my fiance has asthma (bad) b/c her grandmother smoked around her as a child.....her medications sometimes could reach up 600 plus dollars every month (thank GOd for insurance and free samples). If she didn't get these medications she could die from asthma. ( its called not being able to breath and then sufficate to death) So not taking asthma seriously is wrong. Putting a child at risk of health problems (present, future) is child abuse.....if you think its not then that is like saying IM going to dangle this child over a rail that is 200ft in the air. The child may have a chance to fall but thats okay if the child falls I didn't mean to. Im sure you guys are great parents but how would you feel if your child developed cancer or some kind of problems that will cost them thousands later in life all because of 2nd hand smoke....Jeesh folks a child's body is growing, you dont know what your child is sensitive to. You can damage brain cells, the lungs, or who knows what. Then by time there older it will be to late to reverse its damage.

Grimmer255, I dedicate this response from years of education and actually am one of the few to read the surgeon general's report not news releases to you...in the hopes that your fears will be allayed:

Firstly, let's deal with the 4-5 point decrease noted on verbal performance scores on ANY exposure to ANYTHING (This one is easier because I know it best). IQ scores are standardized to yield scores that are plus or minus 15 around the mean of 100. Thus an average score (1 standard deviation above or below the mean) on the IQ quotient, verbal, or performance measures would be 85 to 114. A 4 or 5 point variation is called artifact and due to a myriad of influences of which an example is tester or testee fatigue.

Secondly, the sids research found that ceiling fans proved to decrease the occurence of death after the 2nd hand smoke results were published in the popular media. These deaths are unfortunate but appear to be more correlated with genes and heredity.

Lastly, I offer some research I did on the surgeon general's report on environmental tobacco smoke or second hand smoke that I posted on Doc Siegel's blog and was reposted on freedom2choose.org: (Lengthy but important)

2006 Surgeon General's Report (excerpts)

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally.....
The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

Freedom To Choose - Just So You Know...

 

[laurieok]

This was 30-40 years ago, but I smoked during all 3 times I was pregnant. I asked the doctor at the time and he said a pack a day will not hurt the baby. I had 3 full term, very healthy kids. They all were on the honor roll and all very good athletes. My oldest is now an RN, my son is a tailor and my youngest, after a 6 year stint in the navy is about to graduate college in August. I don't consider it child abuse.

 

[ladyraj]

Nevermind...

 

[Two-A-T]

..."Gee (insert name here), sorry your father raped and beat you, I know exactly how you feel because my mom smoked while I was in the house."

Your statement here does a great job of putting the term "abuse" in perspective given so many claims of various forms of "abuse" that are made by activist groups these days! Well said!

 

[grimmer255]

believe what you want but cigs contain 4000 chemicals and 40 carcinogens and 2nd hand smoke contains the same. Give me numbers and better proof than that because I already know people who suffer from 2nd hand smoke. cigarettes killl 400,000 people every year. 2nd hand smoke kills 35,000-65,000 people every year these are facts not some random B.S. Believe what you want but by I go by numbers and facts. And many doctors will tell you that 2nd hand smoke kills.

 

[grimmer255]

You dont see what doctors see everyday in those hospitals. Just because your situation differs from others doesn't make it not true. obviously you never read about mothers who feel tormented to this day because there child died from 2nd hand smoke....give me more than your own person experiences.

 

[ladyraj]

Oh please Grimmer...I tried to be rationale with you. Regarding the 2nd hand smoke theory (as well as 3rd hand laughable surveys) please realize that:

The CDC's 2006 numbers for all deaths in the USA were about 2,400,000

If 20% of the population smoke then we can assume that 20% die of their vice.

20% of 2,400,000 deaths equals 480,000 deaths expected from smokers not 400,000.

Thus, basic numbers indicate that smokers are taking out themselves NOT nonsmokers.

Real numbers real facts check them out at the CDC. But perhaps you have better sources.

Didn't you read the supplied excerpts from the SG? The report is gleaned from hundreds of studies and offers the best known info to date.

 

[ladyraj]

You dont see what doctors see everyday in those hospitals. Just because your situation differs from others doesn't make it not true. obviously you never read about mothers who feel tormented to this day because there child died from 2nd hand smoke....give me more than your own person experiences.

As a grad student I was a pulmonary oximetry tech at a leading children's hospital. Not one body has ever been produced that science could say died of 2nd hand smoke. Perhaps you know where they are all hidden? No one has ever told a grieving parent they killed their child via 2nd hand smoke. Empathy for those that have suffered is a good ploy for furthering an agenda but I respectfully submit the hoopla of news stories offered by readers such as yourself go further to guilt the "suspected" offender than the medical profession would ever do. I'm just saying...

 

[grimmer255]

Okay believe what you will....bottom line is there are 4000 chemicals in 2nd hand smoke. so knowing this your still placing your child at risk. Regardless what you think or say. We know the risks of smoking...2nd hand smoke carries the same risk because they contain the same chemicals. Again children cant simply tell mom and dad to put out there smokes. You guys are lucky not to have problems as many other have had. Im not some activist. I simply believe that knowingly placing your child around an environment that can cause many ailments is child abuse.

Physical Abuse

Physical abuse is generally defined as "any nonaccidental physical injury to the child" and can include striking, kicking, burning, or biting the child, or any action that results in a physical impairment of the child. In approximately 36 States and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the definition of abuse also includes acts or circumstances that threaten the child with harm or create a substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare.4

 

[ladyraj]

Okay believe what you will....bottom line is there are 4000 chemicals in 2nd hand smoke. so knowing this your still placing your child at risk. Regardless what you think or say. We know the risks of smoking...2nd hand smoke carries the same risk because they contain the same chemicals. Again children cant simply tell mom and dad to put out there smokes. You guys are lucky not to have problems as many other have had. Im not some activist. I simply believe that knowingly placing your child around an environment that can cause many ailments is child abuse.

Where did you get the idea that 4,000 chemical existed in 2nd hand smoke? Do you have any citations to analyses other than anti-smoking rhetoric?

 

[grimmer255]

sure read lab testing results.
Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer. These chemicals include (1):

arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
benzene (a chemical found in gasoline)
beryllium (a toxic metal)
cadmium (a metal used in batteries)
chromium (a metallic element)
ethylene oxide (a chemical used to sterilize medical devices)
nickel (a metallic element)
polonium–210 (a chemical element that gives off radiation)
vinyl chloride (a toxic substance used in plastics manufacture)
Many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, including the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the product is smoked, and the paper in which the tobacco is wrapped (1, 3, 4).

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS#q3

 

[HK45]

nope once the damage is done its done. thats asthma for ya. very rare to change that fact. again when smoke damages the body its at a cellular level. it cause many issues....and most of her flare ups now happen when the smoke from the neighbors apartment gets into our apartment.

grimmer255,

I think that we have a lot of people in denial here. Even educated people don't want to accept that their behavior was/is irresponsible and selfish.

Just because one child might be lucky enough not to be harmed another 100 aren't so lucky. And just because the damage isn't evident now doesn't mean it won't show up later and will be different with each person.

grimmer is 100% about the child abuse issue. You may otherwise be a stellar parent but if you smoke around your children, especially in enclosed spaces, you are being irresponsible and negligent and selfish.

We have one lady who justifies it because she is in too much pain to go outside. So her selfishness is more important than the risk to her children. Denial.

Then, we have a "supposed" school psychologist who uses a caveman and pioneer analogy which is ridiculous. Even for a psychologist. Let's ask a question: What were the average lifespans during these periods? What were the statistical incidents of related diseases? Denial.

Instead of getting defensive why not try to get educated on the subject.

If your child had/has no ill effects from your second-hand smoke it is in spite of you, not because of you. You all need a reality check.

Do you think all of that nasty crap stays in you when you smoke and nothing comes out when you exhale? And do you really think that anyone in the room isn't breathing it in? Any semi-intelligent person should see this. Just look at what it does to your car and house! What did the cloth you used to clean your TV screen look like the last time you did it? What do you think that was?

Your whole house is coated with it and you know it but it miraculously isn't in the air your children breathe. Come on! Denial.

 

[ladyraj]

sure read lab testing results.
Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer. These chemicals include (1):

arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
benzene (a chemical found in gasoline)
beryllium (a toxic metal)
cadmium (a metal used in batteries)
chromium (a metallic element)
ethylene oxide (a chemical used to sterilize medical devices)
nickel (a metallic element)
polonium–210 (a chemical element that gives off radiation)
vinyl chloride (a toxic substance used in plastics manufacture)
Many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, including the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the product is smoked, and the paper in which the tobacco is wrapped (1, 3, 4).

Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers - National Cancer Institute

Glimmer....your link also referred to the EPA's disproved 1992/93 study which was thrown out of court because it failed to meet the criteria of scientific research. This was the original study that claimed tobacco smoke as a human carcinogen. You see, the authors of the report lowered the standard of significance to 90% instead of the accepted 95% of statistical significance to demonstrate any effect....what-so-ever. Yet it is still bandied about by those willing to justify any possible hint of risk.

Further, Doc Siegel refers to a possible list of ten-thousand chemicals due to smoke. Problem is...air pollution, diesal exhaust, grilled meats, fireplaces, cooking oils, and so on that we are exposed to regularly and a daily basis all of our lives also have thousands of airborne chemicals.

There is arsenic,benzene, and most of the list of 4,000 is in our drinking water...shouldn't we ban water?

The bottled water remnants end up in the great pacific garbage dump but no matter for we that live on land:

The World's Largest Dump: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch | Ocean | DISCOVER Magazine

I am left to wonder if you even read anything at the Doc's website with an open mind. As I type this my 11 year old grandson is present while I smoke away...stay tuned I may be arrested soon for child abuse. Hopefully I can take my laptop to jail.

 

[ladyraj]

Hey HK45...isn't denial a river in Egypt?

Now don't forget the endothelial dysfunction aspect of smoking and inflammation. That's the new buzzward used for the supposedly educated people that are apparently selfish child-abusers as well. Hubris comes before the fall....

Isn't this site all about the flagrant pre-judgement of e-cigs despite anecdotal evidence otherwise? A sharing of ideas and opinions worthy despite pre-conceived notions? Where each individual is valued and encouraged to debate with-out allegations that one is selfish or abusive of children?

jeez...I must have ventured to the alternate reality website. Perhaps if I click my ruby red slippers together and say "there is no place like home" I will return to the land of free expression.

 

[grimmer255]

Glimmer....your link also referred to the EPA's disproved 1992/93 study which was thrown out of court because it failed to meet the criteria of scientific research. This was the original study that claimed tobacco smoke as a human carcinogen. You see, the authors of the report lowered the standard of significance to 90% instead of the accepted 95% of statistical significance to demonstrate any effect....what-so-ever. Yet it is still bandied about by those willing to justify any possible hint of risk.

Further, Doc Siegel refers to a possible list of ten-thousand chemicals due to smoke. Problem is...air pollution, diesal exhaust, grilled meats, fireplaces, cooking oils, and so on that we are exposed to regularly and a daily basis all of our lives also have thousands of airborne chemicals.

There is arsenic,benzene, and most of the list of 4,000 is in our drinking water...shouldn't we ban water?

The bottled water remnants end up in the great pacific garbage dump but no matter for we that live on land:

The World's Largest Dump: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch | Ocean | DISCOVER Magazine

I am left to wonder if you even read anything at the Doc's website with an open mind. As I type this my 11 year old grandson is present while I smoke away...stay tuned I may be arrested soon for child abuse. Hopefully I can take my laptop to jail.

wow that all I can say. its basic science here. when you exhale the smoke your also exhaling what you inhaled. And smoke is a fine particle mist. ITs gets on everything ,thats the idea of third hand smoke, Those particles also get trapped on close and everything that was touched the smoke. In those particles contain the 4000 chemicals. Everything that was touched by the smoke now have the 4000 chemicals plus tar. Guess what if your child is in the same room or house as the smoke that child also is inhaling those chemicals..... Again its child abuse.

 

[sherid]

We have to agree to disagree. I am a school psychologist and I do assessment of IQ and learning disorders such as ADD. Nothing can be farther from the truth to these claims of lowered cognitive skills. I am a smoker who raised 3 intellectually gifted sons prior to the 2nd hand smoke scare tactics...according to you I abused my children. By the way they didn't have allergies, asthma, increased ear infections and so on that are popularized in the media. Read the Surgeon Generals findings on environmental smoke and you will find that the ADD/ADHD and cognitive dysfunction allegations to be NOT PROVED. Further, there is no causal association between developing asthma and 2nd hand smoke.

Jeez...I wonder how I ever survived the era when everyone smoked? Much less made it thru grad school. How did humans ever progress when they lived via smoke from fires in caves and fireplaces. Jeez...the indians must be nuts because they use tobacco in smoke filled teepees. I hear the North American natives stll heat via fire.

If you actually read the Doctor's blog you will see this nonsense has been dispelled as not scientific nor even in the realm of possibility given the process of homeostasis and the miracle of human biopsychsocial adaptibility. But perhaps you are more educated about the topic than myself, the Doctor, and the Surgeon General combined...If so I humbly apologize for attempting to dispel myths.

Your experiences mirror mine. The denormalization campaign has created some great little soldiers even on this board.

 

[sherid]

grimmer255,

I think that we have a lot of people in denial here. Even educated people don't want to accept that their behavior was/is irresponsible and selfish.

Just because one child might be lucky enough not to be harmed another 100 aren't so lucky. And just because the damage isn't evident now doesn't mean it won't show up later and will be different with each person.

grimmer is 100% about the child abuse issue. You may otherwise be a stellar parent but if you smoke around your children, especially in enclosed spaces, you are being irresponsible and negligent and selfish.

We have one lady who justifies it because she is in too much pain to go outside. So her selfishness is more important than the risk to her children. Denial.

Then, we have a "supposed" school psychologist who uses a caveman and pioneer analogy which is ridiculous. Even for a psychologist. Let's ask a question: What were the average lifespans during these periods? What were the statistical incidents of related diseases? Denial.

Instead of getting defensive why not try to get educated on the subject.

If your child had/has no ill effects from your second-hand smoke it is in spite of you, not because of you. You all need a reality check.

Do you think all of that nasty crap stays in you when you smoke and nothing comes out when you exhale? And do you really think that anyone in the room isn't breathing it in? Any semi-intelligent person should see this. Just look at what it does to your car and house! What did the cloth you used to clean your TV screen look like the last time you did it? What do you think that was?

Your whole house is coated with it and you know it but it miraculously isn't in the air your children breathe. Come on! Denial.

Bull crap. You would do better to post this crap on ASH's site; however you have to pay to do that. Any semi intelligent person would be able to recognize a troll.

 

[HK45]

Oh please Grimmer...I tried to be rationale with you. Regarding the 2nd hand smoke theory (as well as 3rd hand laughable surveys) please realize that:

The CDC's 2006 numbers for all deaths in the USA were about 2,400,000

If 20% of the population smoke then we can assume that 20% die of their vice.

20% of 2,400,000 deaths equals 480,000 deaths expected from smokers not 400,000.

Thus, basic numbers indicate that smokers are taking out themselves NOT nonsmokers.

Real numbers real facts check them out at the CDC. But perhaps you have better sources.

Didn't you read the supplied excerpts from the SG? The report is gleaned from hundreds of studies and offers the best known info to date.

When statistics are against e-cigs we blame big pharma and tobacco. When statistics from these same sources come in and suit our position we say look at this they say I'm not doing anything wrong. You believe them when it suits your purpose yet cry lies! conspiracy! when they don't. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

Big pharma and tobacco money is behind this just like everything else. You just cherry-pick to suit your agenda. ;-)

 

[ladyraj]

wow that all I can say. its basic science here. when you exhale the smoke your also exhaling what you inhaled. And smoke is a fine particle mist. ITs gets on everything ,thats the idea of third hand smoke, Those particles also get trapped on close and everything that was touched the smoke. In those particles contain the 4000 chemicals. Everything that was touched by the smoke now have the 4000 chemicals plus tar. Guess what if your child is in the same room or house as the smoke that child also is inhaling those chemicals..... Again its child abuse.

Third hand smoke is based on a "scientific" study in which a handful of the populace was asked survey questions about if they believed residue from smoke could be possibly harmful. Doc Siegel dispelled this one ages ago...check the link to his site.

 

[sherid]

wow that all I can say. its basic science here. when you exhale the smoke your also exhaling what you inhaled. And smoke is a fine particle mist. ITs gets on everything ,thats the idea of third hand smoke, Those particles also get trapped on close and everything that was touched the smoke. In those particles contain the 4000 chemicals. Everything that was touched by the smoke now have the 4000 chemicals plus tar. Guess what if your child is in the same room or house as the smoke that child also is inhaling those chemicals..... Again its child abuse.

If you are a supplier, remind me to NEVER buy anything from you. Really....third hand smoke, a joke inflicted upon the people, a series of questions in a telephone survey with absolutely NO scientific basis.