Phil Anthrop Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ERM....the children were in a gas guzzler car....guess the fumes produced are good for them. Come on hypocrites! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Nak Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I hope you're not directing that at me Phil. My daughter very rarely goes anywhere by car, I just prefer her not to be exposed to second hand smoke on the rare occasion that a car journey is unavoidable (i.e. when out and about with my mother or sister). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries22 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I grew up in a family that smoked, never did me any harm, Sheffield was a smog City before the clean air act was implemented. This has all come about since Roy Castle died of lung cancer, even though he did not smoke. People die of many things, not just from smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hennypenny Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-399589/Even-smoking-outside-harm-baby.html Babies absorb dangerous chemicals from parents who smoke, even if they take care to light up outside, a study has found. Up to 90 per cent of the nicotine from cigarette smoke can stick to walls, clothes, hair and skin, Georg Matt, a professor at San Diego State University, found. His early research suggests the chemicals from this 'third hand smoke' can be swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through the skin of non-smokers, putting babies at particular risk. The youngsters absorbed the harmful chemicals simply from touching furniture in a smoker's house, or hugging their mothers after they had a cigarette. The risks of second-hand smoke are already known. Babies and children exposed to a smoky atmosphere are twice as likely to have asthma attacks and chest infections, and more likely to need hospital care in their first year of life. They are also at higher risk of cot death. Tommy's Professor of Obstetrics, Andrew Shennan added: "Babies born to smokers weigh less (about 250g) and because they are smaller than they should be they don't cope with labour as well." A nicotine byproduct called cotinine was found in the babies' urine and hair shafts even when their parents took care to smoke outside the house. This was seven times higher than levels found in babies with non-smoking parents. Ash Anand from Tommy's, the baby charity, saad: "This is certainly worrying news and we would urge parents of babies and young children to cut down, if not give up smoking altogether." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Nak Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 There are thousands of people who smoking never harmed, there have been thousands who it has killed. I don't wish to take the chance with my little girl and if I don't wish to take the chance what right has anyone else to disregard my wishes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Sheffield was a smog City before the clean air act was implemented. One of the reasons the life expectancy of your average Sheffielder has risen from 30 something just a century ago. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ERM....the children were in a gas guzzler car....guess the fumes produced are good for them. Come on hypocrites! There's no hypocrisy in wanting to avoid harm to your children. This has always been a smokers straw man, why ban smoking when other things are harmful? Because you can sort out one problem and then look at the rest. The fact that car fumes are harmful doesn't mean that other forms of avoidable harm should be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I grew up in a family that smoked, never did me any harm, Sheffield was a smog City before the clean air act was implemented. This has all come about since Roy Castle died of lung cancer, even though he did not smoke. People die of many things, not just from smoke. How do you know it did you no harm? Sure, it didn't kill you, you don't have lung cancer at the moment. But your statement about no harm just demonstrates lax thinking, so maybe it stunted your intelligence. I'm not trying to be rude, but without a twin who wasn't exposed to smoke to compare you too (and 50 identical study pairs to get some averages) one anecdote can't possibly tell you whether you suffered harm or not. Proponents of smacking say the same thing, I was smacked as a child and it didn't hurt me, well how do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aries22 Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 How do you know it did you no harm? Sure, it didn't kill you, you don't have lung cancer at the moment. But your statement about no harm just demonstrates lax thinking, so maybe it stunted your intelligence. I'm not trying to be rude, but without a twin who wasn't exposed to smoke to compare you too (and 50 identical study pairs to get some averages) one anecdote can't possibly tell you whether you suffered harm or not. Proponents of smacking say the same thing, I was smacked as a child and it didn't hurt me, well how do you know? Can only go on what ages my parents and grandparents lived to, namely into their eighties. l am a pensioner myself now, so quite happy to have lived as long as this. I am talking about Sheffield itself, perhaps you are too young to remember those times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 ...l am a pensioner myself now... Oh. So that's not you in your avatar then? x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.