I Was Bad A Long Time Ago lol

[Epona]

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!

Originally posted by J.J.: 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?

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.)

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

Originally posted by Epona: 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!

Just out of curiosity, were either of you breast fed? or were either of you formula babies?

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).

[Attalus]

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 ]

Originally posted by Attalus: 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.

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

[Attalus]

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.

Originally posted by Attalus: 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.

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?

Errr Moni!

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

Originally posted by MagiK: Errr Moni! Sorry for taking this so far off topic, glad to hear your prof. liked the research you got though [img]smile.gif[/img]

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 ]