Parents may think their children are exposed only if they’re around someone actively smoking a cigarette, or are unaware of where else their children may be breathing in smoke – but a blood test may help identify and reduce smoke exposure, said researchers at the University of California, San Francisco.

Secondhand smoke exposure in children has been tied to sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory problems, ear infections and asthma.

“What the test does is allow the doctor, in consultation with the parent, to figure out the source of exposure and then to eliminate it,” said Jonathan Winickoff, an associate professor of pediatrics at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children in Boston.

Winickoff, who co-wrote an editorial accompanying the study in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, told Reuters Health the test can also identify if a child is being exposed to smoke without the parent realizing it, such as by living in an apartment building where smoking is allowed.

The researchers tested 496 blood samples left over from children, most aged one to four, to determine how many of them were exposed to secondhand smoke. The blood samples were initially taken at San Francisco General Hospital to test for lead exposure between November 2009 and March 2010.

The researchers tested the blood for cotinine, a chemical produced by the body after it is exposed to nicotine.

Overall, 55 percent of the blood samples had a measurable amount of cotinine, which meant those children had been exposed to smoke within the previous three to four days.

Only 13 percent of parents, however, admitted that their child had been exposed to secondhand smoke.

“I think parents do not understand the various sources of potential exposure,” said Neal Benowitz, one of the study’s co-authors.

The researchers reported that some parents may also believe a child has to be around someone who is smoking to be exposed – but that is not the case.

For example, children still get the effects of secondhand smoke if they spend time in a room where someone recently smoked.

Benowitz and his colleagues said testing children for cotinine could ultimately prevent diseases brought on by secondhand smoke exposure by helping detect the source.

“Once you know there is exposure then you can talk to the parent,” he added.

Testing for cotinine is currently not readily available to the general public, but Winickoff said the best approach would be to integrate cotinine testing with routine testing for lead.

And so a ballot measure that discourages smoking would be a good thing, right? And if it also raised hundreds of millions of dollars for research that might cure cancer, that would be good, too, right?

Not if you believe the blather being promulgated by the tobacco industry.

The misleading, disingenuous, lying media blitz paid for by Big Tobacco’s $40 million campaign chest asserts or suggests:

– The money won’t go to cancer treatment. That wasn’t what this measure was designed to do – the funds would go toward cancer research, which is where cancer treatments are found. We don’t have a cure for cancer yet – where do opponents think that will come from?

– Somehow, all the research money will go out of state. Since California is home to 10 research facilities recognized by the National Cancer Institute as some of the best in the world, and the program will be run largely by California physicians and educators, where do they think the research funds will go – Tennessee?

– The medical community is against it – according to Dr. La Donna Porter, who shows up in television commercials in a white coat. Well, the powerful California Medical Association, along with most other medical groups, is in favor of it. And it turns out Porter is a known rent-a-doctor who shills for all kinds of spurious causes, such as the chemical industry’s defense of perchlorate, a toxic substance that is especially harmful to children. (It’s not clear whether she’s being paid for her efforts.)

– The money raised won’t “support other programs.” This one is mostly true, but why should it? The idea here is to try to cure cancer.

And it will get worse. A new TV ad features an actor portraying a scientist in a lab coat. It says the proposition will “divert money from our schools.” How? It doesn’t divert money from anybody – except smokers.

This page already has endorsed Proposition 29, which would raise the tax on a pack of smokes by $1 to pay for cancer research. And studies have shown that increasing the cost of cigarettes sharply reduces the consumption of this deadly product, which would be a welcome side-effect. What’s not to like?

But the misinformation that continues to spew from the measure’s opponents can’t go unchallenged. Misleading voters is a common trait of political advertising by giant corporations that have $40 million to spend.

This is not an income tax. It is not a general sales tax. It’s a tax that would save lives.

Don’t want to pay a tax on cigarettes? Don’t buy cigarettes.

And don’t believe all the claims by an industry selling a product that, when used correctly, will kill you.

Source: sfgate

Smoking Art Gallery

creative-smoking-ads-suicide

◄ Back

Next ►

Picture 1 of 16

Smoking Kills

Anti-Smoking Campaign

Australian Quit Smoking Commercial

Malaysian Anti Smoking Commercial

Features:
- Display Quit statistics
- Display Extra Life you gained!
- Extended body health statistics
- Calculate statistics in either U.S. or Euro

Download at MobiGeni.com

They are billed as affordable and safe ways to enjoy the experience of smoking without the health risks.  Every day thousands of customers across the country “light up” e-cigarettes, a new product that is taking the online world by storm.  E-cigarettes consist of cartridges filled with nicotine and other chemicals, spiced with flavors such as chocolate, cola or bubble gum.  The “cigarette” typically lights up as it vaporizes the nicotine-chemical cocktail, which it delivers as steam to the user.

As sales for the devices, market as a healthy-living product, have skyrocketed, the Food and Drug Administration became concerned.  Exactly how “healthy” were these cigarette substitutes?

The FDA began testing them and it quickly discovered that the e-cigarettes, like their smoking counterparts, are hazardous to the health.  The samples from various manufacturers contained dangerous carcinogens.  Further, at least one manufacturer’s mix contained diethylene glycol — a chemical used in antifreeze, and a toxin to humans.

Dr. Jonathan Samet, director of the Institute for Global Health at the University of Southern California comments, “We know very little about these devices, but to say they are healthy — that’s highly doubtful.”

Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, commissioner of the FDA adds, “The FDA is concerned about the safety of these products and how they are marketed to the public.”

One of the largest manufacturers of the devices, Florida-based Smoking Everywhere has remained mum on the reports.  The devices do appear, thus-far to be legal as a combination drug-device product under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium urges people to think of the children, commenting, “It is very important that parents let their children know these are not safe and to make recommendations, or even enforce rules that they not be used.”

Dr. Matthew McKenna, director of the Office of Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds, “Children who use these products may also be using other tobacco products.  It’s a good idea to make sure the child is aware of the dangers of tobacco in products in general.”

Can’t quite kick that disgusting smoking habit of yours? Sometimes willpower or nicotine patches just aren’t enough, and anyone who’s every tried Nicorette gum knows exactly how the nasty burning sensation on your tongue just isn’t worth it.

A Hong Kong company might have the answer for you with their battery-powered cigarette. Golden Dragon’s Ruyan (Chinese for “like smoking”) cigarettes have been a huge hit in China since their 2004 launch.

For $280 you get your personal atomizer which can be refilled with $4 “cartridges containing pure nicotine, available in three strengths and good for some 350 puffs each,” reports Business 2.0. “Inhale, and the Ruyan – powered by a Motorola chip – turns the nicotine into smoke-like vapor.”

Last year’s profits reached an incredible $36.5 million from sales in China, Turkey, Israel and Australia. The FDA has yet to approve the product but if approval is granted, could be a gold mine for Golden Dragon. If it was able to only reach 1% of the US smoke market that would still add up to $750 million at the end of the year.

Carrot stick cigarettes, celery stick french fries, and blueberry candies are all part of Daizi Zheng’s ‘Stereotype’ project. Dizi Zheng is a Chinese, London-based designer who created ‘Stereotype’ as a way to encourage people to rethink their associations with food packaging, diet and health.

The series of food packages were created from the artist’s observations on personal behavior. It is recommended by some that smokers curb their habit by holding and eating carrot stick ‘cigarettes’ as cancer stick replacements. By using recognizable packaging to give healthy food a little makeover, Zheng hopes that people will feel encouraged to make a change to their regular diets.

That’s the curious conclusion that researchers at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia reached after they surveyed 115 lung cancer patients, all of them current or former smokers, at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The team, led by Barbara Campling, asked when the patients had stopped smoking relative to their diagnosis and onset of symptoms and how difficult or easy it had been to quit. The researchers also used a standard tool called the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence to calculate how deeply addicted the smokers had been to nicotine at the peak of their habit.

The researchers, whose work appears in the March issue of the Journal of Thoracic Oncology, undertook the study on a hunch: They had observed that many of their lung-cancer patients had quit smoking before they were diagnosed, often without consciously deciding to do so. The scientists were aware of the common belief that people typically quit smoking in response to the appearance of symptoms suggestive of lung cancer. But they weren’t convinced that was really how things work.

Their study appears to bear out their hunch. They learned that 55 of the 115 patients had quit smoking before being diagnosed, all but six of them before any cancer symptoms appeared. Of those who quit, 31 percent reported they’d done so with ease – but not because they had never been addicted: Their levels of addiction when they were smoking the most had been the same as the levels of those who hadn’t quit.

The authors suggest that the presence of a lung-cancer tumor may somehow block the body’s uptake of, or desire for, nicotine; perhaps, they surmise, such tumors may secrete a chemical that makes that happen.

They acknowledge that their work has limitations, among them the small sample size and the fact that the data were self-reported and after the fact. Still, they believe they’re on to something that should be investigated further.