to get really annoyed at people who smoke in playgrounds?

[parachutes]

Why can't they wait until they leave? I just don't understand why you would ever light a cigarette in a childrens playground.
Am I being unreasonable?

No it is not a major issue on health - i did my Dissertation on tobacco consumption and the added risk of passive smoke is the same as eating a head of lettace a day. The risks have been blown all out of proportion.

And really how much smoke does one cig generate anyway.

I mean I would not smoke myself, and would not in a playground but to say it should not be done on health is just crazy.

Fily it does make me laugh that people get so worked up by smoking when the largest risks are ignored - the amount of fat kids i see around is shocking - that has got to be a much bigger danger.

ok then link to research please

a quick search on pubmed would seem to indicate otherwise]]

Err not all research is done on the web - however next time I am at my mum and dads I will dig out my work and find the reference.

flashman, the voice of reason

Oh.

Just peeked at profile, you like Lord of the Rings.

Ah well.

I love LOTR - I will proudly admit that!!!

I am waiting for the day when I have a boy (or girl) where I will watch all films back to back with them!!!

lol there is ONE referance there?

ok there are about 500 + hits on pubmed for bad effects of passive smoking

I do think that pubmed might trump your dissertation there, sorry

more here

Its worth pointing out that opinion has changed here in the past few years, so unless this disseration is VERY recent, it won't reflect current thinking. There WAS a BMA (I think?) piece saying a. that other atmospheric pollutants like smog and traffic fumes compounded the risk of smoking, and alone it only increased the rates of lung cancer around 15%. BUT remember that is ONLY looking at lung cancer. Not, say, increased risk of heart diesease, cot death, etc. Anyway, that figure has now been increased to 30% by the WHO. I do tend to prefer the opinion of the WHO to, say, Mr Morris.

I really don't have my paper with me - I truely am not that vain to have it on my bookcase - so I can't pull the bio - lot of it was from Govt papers - there is an increased risk granted but that actual increase is not that great in real terms. And just punching search keys into google does not really count as research

However fily

www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/05/21/1053196637934.html

right ok

that article kind of lost me with "Enstrom, compelled to take tobacco industry money to complete the study..."

but anyway, all it alleges is that some of the articles suggesting that passive smoking causes lung cancer do not meet the statsitical threshold.

It is 5 years old so at a time whne the WHO increased figure was relatively new

BUT most importnatly, while it suggests that the figures for lung cancer MAY be exaggerated, it suggests that passive smoking DOES contribute to heart diesease.

("the heightened risk of heart disease could apply to people who occasionally breathe in cigarette smoke in public places such as sports club canteens.")

no refs cited either

am off to bed

oh and "And just punching search keys into google does not really count as research "

no but searching pubmed, the bmj and so forth is a rather good way to generate research papers IME.

and there is no vested interest in pubmed??

And we can all selective quote

ther people's smoke revealed that fears that passive smoking kills are unfounded.

After studying the health of tens of thousands of people married to smokers, US researchers found they face no significant extra risk of lung cancer or heart disease

also in studies across Europe over the past decade, air quality experts at Covance Laboratories in England gave air monitors to thousands of people and measured their exposure to smoke. The startling results showed passive smokers are exposed to the equivalent of six cigarettes a year, an extra lung cancer risk of 2 per cent compared with non-smokers. The figure is 10 times lower than the BMJ studies claimed.

One technique is anything but abstruse, however. It involves simply ignoring results that do not fit. In the original BMJ reports, a major US study showing no extra heart disease risk from passive smoking was excluded on the grounds that it did not fit with the positive results, and had been funded by the tobacco industry.

And I am off to bed too.

Ah, we have Enstrom and Kabat's (in)famous study. Marvellous.

As you can see here, the UK Government's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health has factored this tobacco-industry funded study into its review, and concluded that - assuming the results are accurate (and that's a big assumption in the light of the history of tobacco company funded forays into this area) - it only makes a "marginal" difference to the estimated risks. That's because it is only one study, and it is outnumbered by those that say that it causes lung cancer and heart disease...

Having only read the op, I thought it meant school playgrounds, which I would agree is not an appropriate place to smoke. As for play parks though, they're an outside space where smoking is not banned. As long as it is done sensibly, i.e not too close to kids etc then I don't see any harm in it. I've done it myself. Some parents may not want their kids to witness people smoking at all, but with the ban, it's going to be very hard to enforce that. There are worse things they could see.

Lighten up. (No pun intended.)

I must admit that more than once, while taking the dc to a freezing playground, I thought to myself "I wish I could at least smoke a cigarette, while I watch the children playing". But have never done so. Too scared of sanctimonious mothers.
Mind you, I think that my children's health is more compromised by inhaling the smog of cars rather than by the odd ciggy smoked by some depraved parent in a park.

Right, ok

I am not quite sure HOW pubmed would be biased, since it is a search/retrieve site for all biomedical research, and primarily a tool to help researchers/students identify possible studies. those studies are then pos biased or not but to call pubmed biased is like calling google or a book index biased. I accept the bmj might have a bias

look flashman seriously

you are about to become a dad

it is all very well to have a barny on here, but really, you are quoting outdated research which looks at only ONE of the many known problems, Just because you wrote your dissertation on something does not mean reserch won't throw up new data and generate new theories.

There IS almost certainly a link between passive smoking and cot death. It is very well established.

You don't have to admit to doing it or anything but FGS read the stuff and keep your kid away from secondhand smoke.

yabu

this is rather interesting, scroll down for "tobacco industry approach"

yes of course it is biased, it is from ASH, but it references material properly

bear in mind too that the money is all on the tobacco industry side. the tobacco industry has a vested interest in smoking for personal profit. the govt has a vested interest in anti smoking because it is killing its citizens and costing the nhs £££ (yes I know some of that is recouped in tax on tobacco products). I think I know which vestted interest is more reasonable.

Children of parent who smoke are statistically far more likely to smoke themselves. Just another point to ponder, in case no-one else has raised it

Look fily you are drifting the debate into other areas ? this original point was smoking in the play ground ?being unreasonable. I would not think it would be a good idea to smoke with a baby in an enclosed area.

And as for just quoting one source I said I did not do my research off the internet ? but did just grab you an example, and arguing that point with me is pointless, most of it was govt papers lancet ect.

I think the main problem is that most people don?t understand risk ? yes there is a increased risk as all reports show, but what does that increase risk actually transpire to ? a head of lettuce a day ?

In my view it is one of the most effective ways that govt can reduce tobacco consumption ? make people think that they are putting kids at risk, and then feel the wrath of mother?s and is someone damaging their prescious.

Oh and I agree that people really should not smoke with children around, but I don?t think it is right to argue the point from it will affect their health.

but it WILL affect their health.

You can link to govt papers and the lancet on here , you know. actually pubmed should pick them up, lol.

you are making a big assertion here which is contrary to an awful lot of well conducted research. Fine but if you expect to be taken seriuosly in that you do need to back it up with papers. not newspaper articles.

I really can't remember the exact papers or I would link them - I shall when I go home. And yes they all point there is an increased risk - but what that risk actually amounts to is in question.

It won't affect their health in an open air non enclosed playground though, will it? unless they're going to be mentally scarred from witnessing the horrors of seeing grown adults smoke a cigarette.