New research provides adequate evidence to support home smoking ban

NewsGuard 100/100 Score

New research published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, supports the World Health Initiative's efforts for a home smoking ban, according to researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

Specifically, hair nicotine concentrations were higher in children exposed to secondhand smoke at home, and the younger the children, the higher the concentration under the same level of secondhand smoke exposure at home.

"This study provides adequate evidence to support home smoking bans, particularly in homes with small children," said Sungroul Kim, Ph.D., a research associate at the Institute for Global Tobacco Control at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Kim and colleagues used hair nicotine concentrations as a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, because it is less affected by day-to-day exposure variation compared to the presence of nicotine in other body fluid samples.

The study included 1,284 children from 31 countries in Latin America, Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Among the houses with high nicotine concentrations in the indoor air (more than 10 mg/m3 compared with less than 0.01 mg/m3), women had three times the level of hair nicotine concentrations; children had a 6.8-fold increase in hair nicotine concentrations.

Furthermore, children who were younger than 6 years old had 12 percent higher levels of nicotine concentration than those who were older. Those who spent more than 19 hours a day at home had 15 percent higher levels of nicotine concentration in their hair than those who spent less than 19 hours a day at home after adjusting other explanatory variables.

"Clearly the younger children are the most at risk; this is a call to action on a global level," said Kim.

These results were published as part of a special focus on tobacco in the December issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Comments

  1. Vellocatus Vellocatus United Kingdom says:

    What a pointless (and expensive) waste of time and resources!!

    Ask anyone over the age of ten years; who is more likely to have nicotine in their hair; someone exposed to cigarette smoke or someone who is not? Believe it or not, they will in all probability come to the same conclusion, as this ‘study’ ! So what exactly is the point in this ‘study’?

    "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is PERCEIVED as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." (Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler)

    THATS WHY!

    Quote: "Clearly the younger children are the most at risk; this is a call to action on a global level,"  “said Kim.”

    This is so obviously propaganda, intended to persuade the public into curtailing the liberty of smokers! AND is just another example (of many) of the battle between the tobacco industry and the pharmaceutical industry as to who controls the nicotine supply and delivery system. (It is now widely known that nicotine is somewhat of a wonder drug with MANY health benefits! and big pharma want it all!!)

    If ‘cancer research’ organisations such as these had concentrated on actual cancer research over the last 50 years, instead of spending millions upon millions of dollars/pounds/shekels etc in smoker bashing, maybe -just -maybe, a cancer cure may have been discovered by now where lives could have been saved. Instead what we have is a continuing explosion of cancer in all developed countries, unchecked and unaffected by the substantial reduction in smokers or the masses of money wasted on the anti-smoker agenda.

    Surely what matters is what the effects of SHS has on children not whether they have nicotine in their hair? In fact there is plenty of research that show SHS to have a BENEFICIAL effect on SHS exposed children, although a few children suffering from chronic asthma can be adversely affected. Interestingly, child asthma has increased 'manifold' over the same time period that their exposure to SHS has been substantially diminished. (Other genuine studies have shown that children of smokers are LESS likely to get asthma too).

    Even anti tobacco’s large flagship European WHO study concluded that there was a non statistically significant risk of lung cancer in non-smokers who lived or worked with smokers. They don’t like the public to know that there WAS actually only ONE statistically significant result in that study- a beneficial effect on children! (Boffetta, et al, 1998) Despite the hyperbole and moral panics spread by anti-tobacco scientists, doctors and disciples these studies stand!

    PS. I have no connection with any tobacco company, I am merely one of many individuals who refuse to be deceived any further, by anti-tobacco misinformation.

  2. kathryn kathryn United States says:

    I can assure you that if you come into my home and attempt to serve me with some lame ticket or fine, I shall greet you as I would any home invader.  

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Rising costs fuel quit-smoking surge in England amid health advice dip