Grandchildren of smokers at risk

[seriousstan]

NEW research suggests women who smoke while pregnant are putting their grandchildren as well as their children at risk, writes Jonathan Leake.
The study suggests that some of the chemicals in smoke can permanently alter the DNA of those exposed to it in ways that can be inherited by smokers’ children, grandchildren and possibly subsequent generations too.



The researchers analysed asthma rates in both the children and grandchildren of women who smoked during pregnancy.

They found the grandchildren of such women had 2.1 times the normal risk of developing asthma. The children of women who smoked in pregnancy were 1.5 times more likely to develop asthma.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1562445,00.html

[splat]

1. Crunching numbers for fun and profit

This seems fairly meaningless correlation, in isolation. Pollution and pesticides and an awful lot of other variables aren't considered.

I once saw a New England Journal of Medicine study in the paper that said that men who drank more than one beer a month had lower-birthweight babies. Nothing about the mothers was studied.

I'm sure their numbers were accurate, but they're meaningless.

I don't begrudge the scientists their grant money, but this seems like bad science.

Pet peeve of mine -- like the studies of coffee and eggs that spawned an industry of contradictory "findings" that jerk us between "they're good for you," "they're bad for you..."

I don't jerk any more. Everybody's "at risk." Life is fatal. And there's really nothing sadder than outliving your generation -- and your wits -- and wishing you'd taken more risks and enjoyed more pleasures along the way. Denial makes for lousy deathbed memories.

[Redstone]

2. Thank you, thank you, for a well-reasoned

and well-written rejoinder.

Now get ready for the Health Nazis to work you over.

Redstone

[fushuugi]

11. well said [n/t]

[newyawker99]

14. Hi fushuugi!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mzmolly]

3. Were the grandchildren exposed to second hand smoke?

I'd certainly think that would be likely?

[politicat]

4. I'm sorry, there are too many factors here to nail anything down.

Pollution, to start with. Did they control for factors like urban pollution, rural pollution, etc? We know that environmentally related asthma - such as allergy related asthma, dust related asthma, and mechanical asthma - rates vary heavily by location and even by time (i.e. Phoenix in the 60s was an asthma sufferer's haven; now it is one of the worst places for someone with asthma in the US.)

Since a child has a rather high chance of getting asthma - 122 out of 1000 kids get asthma - the statistics can be difficult to read. If this is anything like the statistics in the less than credible second-hand smoke study, it will be used as scare tactics rather than real science.

I don't smoke, but I do dislike the constant nagging and brow-beating by the anti-smoking types. The ones I have met have run to hyperbole and a fascist attitude up to and including the advocacy of killing smokers. Given the choice of dealing with someone who smokes and someone who has made anti-smoking advocacy a religion and crusade.... I'll take the former.

[Sgent]

5. Haven't read the article

But children of smokers are much more likely to be smokers. Correlation doesn't mean causation.

[Seabiscuit]

8. Bingo! "Correlation does not mean causation."

There are lies,
Damned lies,
And statistics.

[politicat]

9. exactly my point - correlation != causation....

so why are you getting on me about it?

[Speck Tater]

6. Over 95% of heavy drug users were exposed to milk while infants.

Ooooo! Aaahhh!

More numerical mumbo jumbo. Politicians use fear mongering to gain power. Scientists use fear mongering to get grant money.

[Lindacooks]

7. Since cigarette smoke is filled with thousands of toxic chemicals,

and at least 50 known carcinogens, this report makes sense. It's entirely believable that the toxins and carcinogens in cigarette smoke alter DNA.

You can moan and groan all you want about 'statistical mumbo jumbo' but this report is most probably true. This was a peer reviewed study with a nice group size, and the results are statistically significant.

[politicat]

10. Carbon Dioxide is a carcinogen. So is nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide,

and the several thousand chemicals coming out of your tail pipe. Without controlling for other factors, and without making the distinction between correlation and causation, there's not enough data. The statistical sample is under 1000 total - 300 some smokers and 500 some non. That's actually not a big enough sample.

And peer review only means checking the methods, not checking the data coming in.

True or not, until it's replicated, it's a first pass study that shows correlation. In microbiology or chemistry, that would not be the basis for a new scientific principle (remember cold fusion?); thus it should not be the same for social science or medicine.

[Lindacooks]

13. Really? You routinely get your air directly out of your tail pipe?

Cigarette smoke is much more concentrated; that's what makes it more dangerous and deadly. And the statistical sample is plenty big enough. This is just another warning added to the thousands of others showing how cigarettes are one of, if not THE, most preventable cause of disease in this country.

[Dervill Crow]

12. Good grief.

In this age of blame the parents, I have enough guilt over things I may have done to screw up my kids' lives; I don't need to add living for nine months in the uterus of a smoker added to my list of transgressions.