Banner
    Early-Life Tobacco Exposure Linked To Emphysema
    By News Staff | December 28th 2009 12:00 AM | 2 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    Researchers at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health claim that children regularly exposed to tobacco smoke at home are more likely to develop early emphysema in adulthood. The findings, published in the December 2009 American Journal of Epidemiology, suggest that the lungs may not recover completely from the effects of early-life exposures to tobacco smoke (ETS), the research team says.

    The researchers studied CT scans of 1,781 non-smokers without clinical cardiovascular disease recruited from six communities in the United States, including northern Manhattan and the Bronx, New York.  Those reporting childhood ETS exposure were somewhat younger, with an average age of 61; were more likely to be non- Hispanic white; and less likely to have been born outside the United States. These differences were statistically controlled in the analyses.

    "We were able to detect a difference on CT scans between the lungs of participants who lived with a smoker as a child and those who did not," observed Gina Lovasi, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of epidemiology at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health. "Some known harmful effects of tobacco smoke are short term, and this new research suggests that effects of tobacco smoke on the lungs may also persist for decades."

    Previous studies have found evidence that childhood ETS exposure affects perinatal and childhood health outcomes, and that adult exposure may affect adult respiratory health outcomes, including lung function and respiratory symptoms.

    This population-based study, however, is the first to examine the association of childhood ETS with early emphysema by CT scan in nonsmokers. Approximately half of the participants had at least one regular cigarette smoker in their childhood home. Participants with more childhood ETS exposure had more emphysema-like lung pixels; an average of 20% of scan pixels were emphysema-like for those who lived with two or more smokers as a child, compared with 18% for those who lived with one regular smoker, or 17% for those who said that they did not live with a regular inside smoker as a child.

    Although childhood ETS was not associated with adult lung function in this healthy population, this does not contradict the results for early emphysema, since airflow obstruction and anatomic damage are theoretically and clinically distinguishable.  "However, emphysema may
    be a more sensitive measure of damage compared with lung function in this relatively healthy cohort," Dr. Lovasi notes. Combined emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are projected to become the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2020.

    The exposure information in this study does not provide information on the timing of ETS exposure during childhood, making it difficult to distinguish as exposure in utero.  "The association between childhood ETS and early emphysema among participants whose mothers did not smoke, suggests that the effect we are detecting is for smoke exposure in the home during childhood rather than in utero exposure alone," observed Dr. Lovasi.



    Citation: Gina S. Lovasi, Ana V. Diez Roux, Eric A. Hoffman, Steven M. Kawut, David R. Jacobs, Jr, R. Graham Barr, 'Association of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure in Childhood With Early Emphysema in Adulthood Among Nonsmokers', American Journal of Epidemiology 2010 171(1):54-62; doi:10.1093/aje/kwp358

    Comments

    More ill informed smoker bashing. I do not think the authors would argue with me that smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

    “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

    The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
    “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

    They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

    http://www.medwire-news.md/…/…gic_sensitization_.html

    This is a Swedish study.

    “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

    CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156

    In conclusion let’s have a balanced debate and not characterise smokers as race akin to the devil.

    SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke…when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor………………thats right water……….you ever burned leaves in the fall…know how the heavy smoke bellows off…….thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made……thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006……..after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons…….because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ……..they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position…….as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa’s is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa’s study on shs as junk science……… Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke “health hazard” claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:

    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

    concludes that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed.” What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers…..

    meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:

    Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent ” The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: ‘There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.’ ” And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

    The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). – (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)

    The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It’s not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/

    As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
    -harleyrider1978

    I am watching on TV right now, Dr. Harold Varmus, who is a leading Cancer researcher and a Nobel Prize Winner for his research. He said, Virus causes cancer in genes. A virus interrupts the genetic code and causes mistakes in genes. His book is the Art of Politics & Science if anyone cares. There over 170,000 Cancer deaths a year and there are many ways in which the genetic code can be affected. Lung Cancer is on the increase and there are many kinds of Lung Cancer and all are being studied but only a few have seen any advance in a cure. Smoking was suggested but he didn't dwell on it and went on to more information not related to smoking. He gave the impression that smoking was not of great concern.

    Since everyone over 30 has been raised around SHS/ETS,and SHS/ETS IS SUPPOSED TO BE SO DEADLY, why are they the longest living of all generations? Why, since smoking has dropped from 54% to 21%, are all the diseases supposedly caused by smoking, on the rise every year? California has the oldest smoking ban and their Asthma rate is 16% and Kentucky has only a 6% rate of Asthma with the highest rate of Smoking? Why do Anti's still say SHS/ETS KILLS, when the EPA Report they base their statements on was found to be a FRAUD by Federal Judge Osteen and two Congressional Committees? Why, did the longest/largest studies by the ACS and the WHO find SHS/ETS had no connection to Cancer or Heart Disease? Why are there more than 250 other studies with the same findings?