And now I have to pay for it by doing research on smoking during pregnancy.

I defended one side of the argument in my Developmental Psychology class today by stating that I smoked throughout my pregnancy, unable to quit without becoming violently ill (which is the truth) and although I was threatened with the possibility of a premature delivery or a low-birth-weight baby, I carried my son full term and he was over 7 & 1/2 pounds at birth (I am 5'4" and 98 lbs...same height and 129 lbs the day I gave birth).

Sooooo, in order to find out how much has changed in the medical field regarding smoking during pregnancy, I was instructed to bring in current research (with no promise of extra credit lol). I am still not sure if I think the instructor was out of line but I do think its cool that he wants the rest of the class to know how standards may have changed in 21 years.

In the U.S. they haven't.
Canada offers some threat of cancer in babies but lacks any medical proof to back it up.
The U.K. adds that it is associated with learning disabilities and developmental disorders but also lacks evidence to back it up.

Apparently I am one of the "lucky few" that haven't suffered from the effects on babies by a smoking mother as my son was carried full term, he was of an average weight for newborns, he has never had any kinds of cancer and he was involved with the Gifted and Talented Education Programs throughout High School. Programs you just don't get in to if you suffer from learning disabilities or developmental disorders.

I've got all the info for him come Thursday. I expect points for this LOL. ;)

Lol, you're part of government research! Just like ET [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

Well, there's a purpose in life! ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Gotta be good for something right? ha ha ha

[ 09-11-2002, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Moni ]

<font color="#55aacc"> I did research on AIDS and the World Health Organization
and ended up with much the same results you did on this subject Moni [img]smile.gif[/img] Funny how you try to find hard data for things and end up with nothing but fluff and warm air. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Warm air? nah, Its just that the Center of Disease Control and the American Lung Association can't come up with any conclusive evidence to add any further dangers to smoking during pregnancy. It is a medical fact that smoking will constrict the blood vessels and prohibit the amount of oxygen a fetus receives. What long term effects this has on a developing fetus is still unknown (or unproven) by U.S. standards with the exception of documentation that more cases of SIDS occur with babies whose mother's smoked during pregnancy.

What'd you do that you had to research AIDS? ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 09-10-2002, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Moni ]

My mum smoked 60 a day while she was carrying me! I was a little premature (a couple of weeks) and slightly underweight, but didn't suffer any health problems as a result. In fact I was a very healthy child.

Whoa! That's a lot of smokes! (I smoked just less than a third that amount per day).
I am glad to hear your health didn't suffer as a result Epona! :D

WOW! In health class wehave to look up stuff for aids and lots of the sites on aids has some crap i've never heard of.

<font color="lightblue">My mother smoked (AND drank some) while she was pregnant with me; and before that with my brother and sister.
So far, none of us have had anything wrong with us. For the record, I`m 16 in just over a month; my brother is 21 just over a week ago, and my sister is about 23/24 I think [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>

I did not realize there was so little hard science (not paid for by tobacco institute, e.g.) about smoking whilepregnant.

I do remember when the research came out about kids in households that smoke having 5X the occurrence of breathing problems, asthma, and hay fever, unfortunately amanda was already 5 yrs old by then, and being able to say i told you so to her mom did little. :(

Interesting that they could not find any childbearing related consequences, I wonder if it has to do with the blood barrier and exceptional immunities babies have while being carried by moms?

Interesting point JJ.

Especially what you say about asthma and the like - my mum smoked throughout her pregnancy with me and I am generally fit and healthy with no breathing related allergies whatsoever (infact my only allergies are to medicines - aspirin and penicillin). By the time she got pregnant with my lil bro, she had given up smoking completely - and he is the most allergic person (with the exception of Cloudy ;) ) that I have ever come across. He gets asthma, eczema, food and medicine allergies. He's a lot better off these days since he went vegan because fruit and veg are about the only things that *don't* set him off!

<font color="#cc9999"> You might be surprised at how little "hard science" is behind a lot of things in the media [img]smile.gif[/img] It really does pay to do your own research some times.

While Im pretty sure, intentionally putting smoke in your lungs is not a healthy thing to do (hence the natural urge to cough) I doubt seriously that a smoke here or a smkoe there is going to be the sole determinant of how your baby will do.

As for allergies, I think one of the most important factors in those are wether the kid is breast fed or not. Formula babies do not receive any of the anti-bodies or other good bits included in the mothers milk.

I grew up with my dad smoking heavily untill I was 5 or 6 neither my sisters nor I have any problems, except a severe allergy to cats on my part. I dont think his cigarrette smoking had anything to do with a feline allergy. I don't think it would affect an allergy to goldenrod either (hay fever.)</font>

[ 09-12-2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#cc9999"> Just out of curiosity, were either of you breast fed? or were either of you formula babies? </font>

Very good points!
My father was a heavy smoker and none of my siblings or myself have any respiratory ailments that we did not bring on ourselves (through smoking or having pneumonia).
I can also tell you that my sister, who didn't smoke during her pregnancy has a son who is asthmatic if you need a twist to the factual statistics lol.

I turned in the research today and the instructor was very pleased! Not just that I did it lol, but also with the way I presented it (with differing opinions from other countries).
We were wondering if we might find more than general information through more detailed databases though, like the American Heart Association, for example.
So now you know what I'll be handing in next week LOL. I was too afraid to ask for any extra credit for my effort and in a way I think it would be kind of selfish since everyone in the class gains, not just me (esp not me LOL since I'll never experience pregnancy again).

Yes, a lot of "media science" is unsubstantiated. I very much suspect the data about "second hand smoke," though I myself am a nonsmoker and have much better sticks to beat cigarettes with, such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (emphysema and chronic bronchitis), lung, esophageal, and oral cancer (have seldom or never seen much of them in nonsmokers) and peripheral and coronary artery disease. The same applies to "fetal alcohol syndrome," which is rare and not nearly as destructive as cocaine-induced encephalopathy. ("crack babies"). Just as a minor example, but instructive, is the myth that if your temperature is above 98.6, you have fever. In fact, that strange figure was derived from a European study of average body temperature, which gave as the average, 37 degrees Centigrade, a nice round figure. But American newspapers, using the 9/5C-32=F formula, converted into Fahrenheit, which is, of course, 98.6. In fact, there is nothing "magic" (no offense) about 98.6 as the adult body ges from 96 to 99 quite without problems.

[ 09-12-2002, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Attalus ]

<font color="#cc3399"> Umm in point of fact I seem to average a 97.4 temperature [img]smile.gif[/img] But the nurse alwyas writes down 98.6 for some reason...Do you know why they do this Attalus?

[img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]
I dislike smoking verymuch and I hate being around it, I just have this really ingrained hatred of bad science...anytime yoiu have to fudge the figures or lie or make things up, it is bad science, even if you are only making it up to get people to take it seriously.
For example you see that there is some increase in birth defects from "activity A" but no one pays attention because it is a very small number so you jack it up a bit, play with the wording and make it sound as alarming as possible, This is the kind of thing I really just detest. It was done with the "disappearing rainforest", with the "oil crisis of the 70's", with "Global Warming", with "Smoking hazards", "alcohol and drug abuse" I mean hey, come on, if you can't make your case with the real data, then you really have no case to make! err sorry for the rant ;) </font>

A lot of it is based on special pleading, too, Magik. I saw a great article where they were questioning the incidence of AIDS, mentioning over and over that a cerain number were infected (I am afraid that I do not remember the number) but, when they looked into it, it turned out not to be hard data at all, just a number coming from an anti-AIDS activist. Also, the figure that one sees often on the incidence of male homosexuality is 10%. Well, try and track that one down. Even if you use the loosest criteris, (Had one experience and didn't like it, had a fantasy once, etc.) you still get no higher than about 7%. The true incidence is probably in the 2-3% range.

<font color="#cc3399"> Funny you mention AIDS. My ex was in school and needed help doing research on AIDS. I personally called the CDC (they gave us the number at Anne Arundle Community College specificly for this research) And the CDC had a load of information mostly for the US, and they pointed us at the W.H.O. for statistics in africa, We hear about the "millions" of people suffering from AIDS in africa...well from all the numbers and information I could gather, the World Health Organization comes up with the "Millions" not from testing for the preseance of HIV on a blood test, but by the number of cases claiming "similar" symptoms of AIDS, which can be caused by several hundred other diseases that have been around in Africa for centuries. The World Health Organization just counts them all as AID's related because that seems to bring in more money and donations. A simple case of "ends Justifying the means". They lie about the numbers so they can get more money.

Since most people never do the research, they believe the health officials, but those of us who do find these things out...how can we ever trust anything they say?

On a newer topic [img]smile.gif[/img] West Nile Virus...so far 37 reported cases or there abouts.....what percentage of 286,000,000 is 37? And yet to hear the media report this..you would think we were under seige with an epidemic of biblical proportions :(

Can anyone wonder that I am such a skeptic?</font>

<font color="#cc3399"> Errr <font color="#cc6699">Moni!</font>

Sorry for taking this so far off topic, glad to hear your prof. liked the research you got though [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

I was about to ask you "What the HELL are you doing?!"

Attalus,
I am well aware of the risks I take as a smoker. I wouldn't push the habit on to anyone else and I won't let anyone try to make me quit. I did that once...quit for someone else...went through three days of hell and on the fourth day, when I was finally at a point where it didn't bother me not to have cigarettes, that same person brought me...a pack of cigarettes. To Hades with doing anything for anyone else that they aren't paying me for lol.

In the same class that I turned in the reasearch for, we watched a short film on alcohol dependent fetuses....an extreme amount of difference in being able to document the physical and developmental effects on babies and children, definitely a chapter of its own away from smoking. *shudders*

My "normal" body temperature is 96.8 I am guessing that blood pressure would have some effect on the numbers...mine is normally low.

[ 09-12-2002, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Moni ]

Moni, your temperature and blood pressure sound quite in line for the slender woman that you are. I wasn't aiming that anti-smoking stuff at you, in fact I was questioning the "second hand smoke syndrome" that I am very suspicious of. But, for the record, please try again. I am an ex-smoker, and if I can do it, you can do it.

Well thank you for that reassurance! I have always been considered to be somewhat freakish for registering "dead" when it comes to my BP lol.
I know you weren't aiming your anti-smoking stuff at me, you know I am old enough to know the risks AND to know better. I have been giving it serious thought this past week...easily winded and waking up with bronchitis; obvious signs it could be too late already and not to make it worse. I have been making a habit of blowing out half the smoke I would have otherwise inhaled just two weeks ago. Its a move in the right direction at least and I don't smoke near now what I did when I quit the first time, able to keep it at or under a pack a day. I know if I could do it once, I could do it again, esp after not trying in close to 20 years. Not today though...maybe when I wean myself off of them a little more.

I believe that second hand smoke is a serious threat to people who would otherwise be more succeptable to the dangers of smoking to begin with (Asthmatic nephew above was exposed to second hand smoke by his dad). I also have a younger brother who had half a lung removed at the age of 7 due to lung cancer. He was only ever exposed to second hand smoke unless there was a carcinogen we were unaware of in his elementary school...he did attend a different one than the rest of us but nothing was ever looked into, my mom just up and moved him (and herself) to AZ one weekend when no one (myself, my other siblings) was in town to try and talk her out of it.