That Alder Hey programme last night- smoking outside, just as bad as inside

[suwoo]

DH is a fairly heavy smoker- at least 20 Embassy a day, but he smokes outside, so thats ok

I was so glad that he watched that programme with me last night, as to see the nurse saying that the effects of passive smoking are as bad whether they smoke inside or out might finally hit home with him.

I have told him that if he doesn't stop, he will be as bad as that horrible scrote, who won't stop because he didn't believe the Doctors/government or whatever shite it was he was spouting.

Yes MMJ that 5 y-old made for uncomfortable viewing

i think you are missing the point of the conversation, no one is denying smoking kills

A ten stone five year old? Fuck me. I'm bordering on podgy when I am 10 stone and I am 5ft8 (though it has been a while since my scales saw the right side of 10 stone ).

My 6 yo doesn't even weigh 3 stone yet. That poor child.

I still think I'm right. If smoking causes serious ear trouble - it's heavy smoking in the house. It's got to be, surely? I reckon parents routinely lie about smoking inside because they know they shouldn't.

I didn't know it did actually cause ear damage. But it can't be a modern problem can it? I mean generations of us all sat in cars with our parents puffing away - much more common back in 60s than it is now?

the mother of the 5yr old was in such utter, utter denial abnout her contribution to his weight problem

i have an almost 5 year old, if i gave her 2 weetabix with milk and fruit before dinner, i would not expect her to actually be able to eat any dinner !

she did not understand that portion size has an impact too, so yes she gave nice healthy food, but in massive quantities, whihc he seemed to finish

so he came home from school, having been pushed part of the way in a wheelchair, to have some choccy cake, weetabix and fruit , something else and then his dinner, which was healthy. peas, mash and fish IIRC< but a heaped huge plateful

she was convinced there was something wrong with him

yes, he is being overfed

Good link Pixie.

I was horrified by this programme too - the 2 and 3 year olds having eight odd teeth out, 'cos they sucked lollies all day long, or as in one case, ate a whole bottle of ketchup every week

The denial of some of the parents that they were contributing to any of this was staggering. Hats off to those who saw the light and sorted their lives out, but shame on those who couldn't or wouldn't change their behaviour.

And I agree, in the case of the 10 stone 5 year old boy, that is definitely child abuse

The mum was waiting for test results to prove that there was a "genetic" reason for her 5yo weighing 10stone. The lovely consultant thought it unlikely. She was also aggressivley (sp) when the reporter suggested that although the little boy (Leon?) was getting good food, it was too much. Really

tsk - aggressivley defensive

Sorry why can't small kids do much exercise? My two yo has an excessive amount of energy. I walk her daily with the dog in an attempt to burn some of it off. It doesn't work. The dog tires before she does. She also gets muddier than the dog .

It sounds like that mother is living in cloud cuckoo land to me.

My children's afternoon snack was a fruit smoothie ice lolly. That is ample imo. They have also spent 3 hours playing in my nan's garden on the trampoline.

Alder Hey had a point to make, but sadly what comes across is that parental low educational levels and poverty seem to have a
huge part to play in this too.

I find it worrying and desperately sad for these children tha despite massive and expensive health promotion over the years peopole still do bot understand about portion control or what constitute a healthy diet.

I would be very interested in a programme on why people behave this way - although I suspect thats like looking for the holy grail.

Back to the smoking - I'm sure it's true that only smoking outside still affects children, however I think common sense would suggest that the effects of passive smoking are going to be less than being exposed to smoking inside as well. In fact I recently read a research study recently which showed this quite clearly, but can't seem to find it again as I can't remember the authors' names. (Was done by paeds at Addenbrookes in the last 2-3 years if anybody feels like trawling through pubmed)

The major problem IMHO with a nurse exaggerating to 'encourage' parents to give up is that they may also think, sod it, I may as well smoke inside the house then if it makes no difference where I do it.

I was interested in this, as my dad is a smoker and although he NEVER smokes around the kids, he himself is around the kids every day.

I have to admit I am a bit sceptical of these "toxic particles". I can't access the lancet article, but I think it seems a bit of a far-fetched leap. What about toxic particles in household cleaners? In car fumes? In all sorts of things?

My dad, who watched the programme last night, was angered by the nurse saying this without facts and stats to back up her statement. Surely it is a tenuous leap at best? I can understand the dangers of children passively inhaling smoke and the toxins therein, but if those particles are attached to clothing, do they suddenly become airborne again in numbers big enough to to actually cause respiratory disease? To say they may do is not really enough evidence for me to keep my kids away from their beloved papa (who can't/ won't stop smoking) I would really need to be convinced of this one. It does smack rather of the whole demonise-smoking incentive, which seems to hold smoking responsible for everything from a broken ankle to a child in the next street having asthma.

I think they need to do more investigation into why children are presenting with increasing numbers of respiratory disease when fewer and fewer parents nowadays actually smoke. I really can't help but think theer must be more likely dangers (I don't know, lack of exercise, pollution levels, household chemicals- in particular anti-bacterials, less time spent outdoors etc etc) Too easy to blame invisible "particles" which may be present on clothes.

It is statemets like this, tbh, without good quality research and studies to definitively back them up, that have led to me becoming very sceptical of all sorts of thinks "experts" say. Eg- 5 a day: says who? Who decided it was 5-a-day? Based on what? I have to admit I treat a lot of it with scepticism. Worse still, it may encourage smokers who normally DO smoke away from their children to think "what's the point?"