Smoke hurts kids' cholesterol status
(From Science News, volume 152 #14, 10/4/97.  Author:  Nathan Seppa.
Reproduced without permission.  Typos are mine.)
 
Children at high risk of heart disease who live in houses with smokers
have significantly lower concentrations of HDL cholesterol, the good
cholesterol, than their counterparts living in smokefree houses, a
study in the Sept. 2 CIRCULATION finds.
 
Researchers recruited 103 children whose HDL concentrations placed
them in the bottom fifth percentile for their age group; 28 of the
children lived with at least one smoker.  They had similar fat intake,
degree of obesity, and amounts of exercise as the 75 children who
lived in smokefree homes.  Most of the children had a family history
of heart disease.
 
Both groups had very high concentrations of LDL cholesterol, the bad
cholesterol, in their blood.  HDL concentrations in children exposed
to secondhand smoke, however, were only about 90 percent of those in
the smokefree counterparts, says Ellis J. Neufeld, a pediatrician and
hematologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
 
The findings indicate the need for a larger study on the effects of
passive smoke on children at the risk of heart problems, he says.  A
10 percent change in HDL would be difficult to achieve through diet or
exercise.  "The next step is to convince parents to get the smoke out
of the house,", Neufeld says.

71 responses total.

This is item #76 in the Fall Agora and #23 in Science.

I have never understood people who smoke around kids. The worst is when I am
driving and see another driver smoking, with all the windows up, and a baby in
the back seat. So the kid has no choice but to breathe in that stuff. Does the
parent just not care or what? 

As an asthmatic, I'm pretty vocal about asking people not to smoke around me.
Fortunately, many smokers are considerate... I've had a few strangers ask if it
is ok for them to light up around me. It annoys me to death that any time I
want to go to a concert or some big gathering, I am expected to inhale the
crud, risking an attack or hoarseness from breathing it in. Not to mention
coming home smelling like an ashtray. Yes, it's my choice to attend things, but
don't I have the right to clean air?

I also don't understand smokers tossing their butts out of cars, onto the
ground. The world is not your ashtray! Why do you think cars come with ashtrays
built in? Grrrr.

  My mother smoked for years around me and my sister, yet she denies the cause
of my cancer was probably her smoke. I beg to differ, I think it played a
small role, though the source was never traced down.

i'd bet most smokers who throw their butts out the car window do so because
either they don't want the hassle of cleaning out the car ashtrays or they
don't want the car smelling like one.

Omni... probably because she does not want to deal with the guilt. You can't
tell me that long term exposure to smoke, especially as a child, has no effect
on someone. 

I saw a loving dad holding a wiggly toddler in one arm, a cigarette in
the other hand.  Ugh!  What was he THINKING?  Not just the smoke, the
danger of burns...

I know people who actually take their children to places like
McDonald's, denying them the nutrition they need in favor of grease
covered, oversalted french fries and meat that has been stored under
a heat lamp for sometimes hours.  What is the *matter* with these
people?  How can it be there is no law?  Sometimes these parents carry
their children, unprotected in their arms, right across a wet and/or
dirty restaurant floor.  Can't they imagine what would happen if they
slipped and smashed their baby's head against that hard floor?  The
chance of a cracked skull... the near certainty of a possibly dangerous
infection if the child bleeds?

(I hate it when people treat their preferences as a law of nature.  For 
the record, I smoke a pipe, but my kids have never seen it, let alone 
been exposed to it.)

  I, too, was bothered by #6 but chose to let it pass when I first
  read it because I didn't have time for a response..  Without specifically
  talking about kami (I don't know whether she feels this way or not..) 
  I'm really bothered by the seemingly rapidly growing number of people 
  in our society who see it as being their place to judge how others are
  raising, disciplining, teaching their children..  If you hold strong
  opinions on how children should be reared feel free to put them into
  practice yourself but short of actual criminal abuse (which is an
  awfully broad category these days) I think it's pretty nosy to presume
  that you know what's best for someone else's child.

It might be inappropriate to interfere. It's hardly inappropriate
to have opinions about parenting and to express those opinions in
a public forum like this one.

Well then what about not smoking so you can at least live to see your kids grow
up, and be healthy enough to play and spend time with them? The kids don't have
to SEE you smoke anything. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for
sometimes... if they know you smoke, it's likely they'll pick it up later on
(or be so repulsed they'll run from it). The do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do does not
work on kids. My grandfather smoked a pipe and cigs, until heart attacks forced
him to quit. Although he was in his late 50s at the time, I remember playing
with him in the backyard and having to take a break every 10 minutes or so
because he couldn't stop coughing. 

  re #9:  I guess I disagree with that pretty strongly -- I don't
  think you or I or anyone except the parties directly involved have
  any business commenting on the structure or interaction of other
  people's families..  It may be the case that one can't help having
  an opinion but one can certainly keep that opinion to onesself.

Jep, are #6 and #7 really analogous?  I *do* take my kids to McD's on
occasion.  I also take them into the presence of smokers on occasion.  Their
regular diet consists of healthy, appropriate, nutritionally balanced food
and their usual environment is *moderately* clean-aired.  While I admit that
I'm neglegent in allowing so much dust and probable mold to build up (no,
neither of them has asthma or any apparant resperatory allergies), I'm not
sure that's *quite* the same category.  How many kids per year die in house
fires caused by cigarettes?  How many kids per year aquire cigarette burns
(not counting those deliberately inflicted by abusive parents)?  How many
asthma attacks are triggered by second hand smoke?  No, I can't change the
parenting choices of another family.  Nor do I know them well enough to
comment, although I might ask a question of some mutual friends, who also have
kids and one of whom also smokes, regarding that choice and its effect on the
kids.  And *certainly* I have the right to comment here; that's called the
first amendment...

Re #11: I really don't see why you have a problem with somebody
making observations and expressing opinions about other people's
parenting behavior. It's not like we're mentioning names or
interfering with the behavior. We do it all the time with
respect to the behavior of drivers on the road, politicians,
law enforcement officers, etc. etc. Just look through any Agora
conference.  If people can say "I saw a driver do X on the highway
and I don't like it because...", then what's wrong with saying "I
saw a parent do X with their kid and I don't like it because..."?
Why the double standard?

I don't have any problem with you expressing an opinion, kami (or
remmers, or anyone else).  I don't have any problem with me expressing
a different opinion, either.

Your viewpoints, I am sorry to say, are very disturbing.  For example:

>How many kids per year aquire cigarette burns
>(not counting those deliberately inflicted by abusive parents)?

How many *do*?  Both of my parents smoked throughout my entire 
childhood.  I was never burned by one of their cigarettes.  Do you have 
any statistics, are you referring to any facts whatsoever, or are you 
just trying to invoke the horror of a possibility?

It was the parenthetical part that really struck me, though.  It reminds 
me of arguments I have personally heard against gay schoolteachers on 
the basis that one of them might sexually abuse a child.  It's just 
plain irrational panic.

What about the abusive health-conscious adult who dumps hot vegetables 
from the wok on his/her baby?  This scenario could happen, too.  Let's 
not forget to panic about the epidemic of wok-wielding child abusers!

My comment in #7 was intended to make a point: I don't think *you* would 
enjoy someone else telling you how to live your life, and give you rules 
for raising your child, and treat you like an inferior because you don't 
follow their rules, which are a sacrifice for you but not the other 
person.  If you think it's appropriate for other people to do things 
like that to you, then feel free to accept it.  I won't accept it.

Kami certainly doesn't have the power to dictate anyone how to live their life,
and neither do I or anyone else. But that wasn't what she was doing. A comment
is a comment. No harm done.

I wouldn't be surprised, if some time in the *near* future, smoking in the
presence of a small child would be considered child abuse.  A child belongs
to a parent no more than a pet and if society decides that your actions are
abusive, your my forfeit your privilege of caring for your child (or pet)
unless you change your ways.  (And you will be monitored by the Department
of Protective Services to be sure you conform.)

I saw that suggestion made on a Fidonet message area about 10 years ago.  
I've been expecting it since then.  I'm surprised it hasn't happened 
yet.  With the Probition pushing, blacklisting attitude that has 
developed in the country about anything related to tobacco, which has 
been accelerating in the last couple of years, it seems almost 
inevitable.

It is now an allowable issue in custody cases.  If one person smokes, it 
can be considered as a custody issue, right alongside such issues as 
whether one parent is a child abuser, is mentally ill, or has a job.  
I've read that, in some states, it is the law that this *must* be 
considered as a deciding factor.  Not in Michigan.  Yet.

  <throws up hands in despair>

I firmly second that throw.

>any statistics, are you referring to any facts whatsoever, or are you
Had some statistics about types of physical abuse, etc. but a) I think they
were slightly hysterical in the first place and b) I've long since forgotten.

>childhood.  I was never burned by one of their cigarettes.  Do you have
Fortunate.  And the more common case.  And yet, I've read specific cases of
kids whose eyes were damaged by cigarette ash in a moving car (open window),
whose clothing or hair was singed (an odd one), whose arms or faces were
marred by moving too fast for the parent to get his/her cigarette out of the
way, and the classic kid who found the matches...(Now, mine did that- I use
candles.  No one was hurt and I still have the same number of kids...>:}  )

>It was the parenthetical part that really struck me, though.  It reminds
Sorry, but it does happen.  It's almost a "classic" form of extreme abuse.
While most smokers are caring, loving, careful parents, I find it unlikely
that a nonsmoker would go *find* a cigarette with which to "discipline" (ugh)
his/her kid, so I was being careful to separate the abuse issue in which
smoking is coincidental from the accident harm which can sometimes be caused
by cigarettes (or other fire) near kids.

>What about the abusive health-conscious adult who dumps hot vegetables
Again, two different issues; it *did* happen to Timothy a few years back;
Michael was cooking fried tofu, Tim came to watch and the tofu spattered
before Michael could tell him to get back.  And there I was too sick with a
migraine to move or talk, trying to tell him to get the baby (ok, older
toddler, but at that point it's a detail) into a cool bathtub.  Fortunately,
Timothy's a rational kid.  Also fortunately- no one was trying to pin a claim
of child abuse on us or we'd have been hosed...

And worse, in that "coincidentally related" issue, there *are* cases of
abusive parents putting their kids' hands in boiling water or on hot stoves
to "show them" (what hot is, not to touch, I don't know.).  Don't know of any
hot grease examples, and the veggies thing is a bit extreme.

>enjoy someone else telling you how to live your life, and give you rules
It is indeed a very delicate subject, and seldom well handled.  Even with
pretty good friends, it's easy to alienate them by butting in unasked.  And
while asking questions or educating is better, it can be patronizing and
offensive.  And yet, so many kids are harmed, some die, and folks are left
going "Why didn't anyone do anything about it" while everyone was being
careful not to offend the parent.  What about a toddler out of a carseat? 
What about an infant on his mother's lap in a car?  Not only are these things
illegal, they can be lethal.  And you know the parents love the kid dearly,
and you don't want to invade their privacy, but perhaps a real life story will
make the point that a commercial didn't, and perhaps you discover that they
couldn't afford a car seat or that they're juggling vehicles and you can help
out in some fashion.  Been there.  Awkward, but so are flattened faces.

The issue of criminalizing smoking with kids in the house does concern me. It
isn't a far stretch. And yes, it can lead to "you took the kid to McDonald's
instead of a good home-cooked meal. We're taking the kid." So no, I don't want
to see that happen. I just wish some parents would use common sense if they
still choose to smoke when they have kids. When I was in high school, I had a
friend who smelled like smoke ALL the time. Everyone thought she smoked. But
the truth was, her mom had a cig in her mouth as soon as she awoke and right
before bed at night. Her mom blew smoke on her clothes as she hung them up in
the closet. Her mom was in her 50s, but had been smoking so long that she had
dark circles under her eyes. She had lines all down her face. She coughed
constantly. She could pass for 65. If I didn't know better I'd think it was her
grandma. Not me, man. I want to be active for my kids.

As a kid, I've gotten cigarette ash in the face, and cigarette burns, 
under circumstances kami described.  My mom, then a 2 pack/day smoker,
was very careful with lit cigarettes.  But on a couple of occasions
it wasn't quite enough.  I suffered no lasting damage.

But to this day, I hate cigarettes, and don't like to be around 
people who have a lit one in their hand - particularly if they're
talking to someone and gesturing.  

   one problem is that the line between accidents and intentional abuse
has become fuzzy to the point of nonexistence. our society has almost
convinced itself that children only become injured at the hands of
abusive or neglectful adults. i can think of several injuries my
siblings or i incurred as kids which were the results of our own
klutziness or the fact that we were kids, whereas today those same
injuries would have people wondering just what sort of abuse was
occurring in our household.

Kind of reminds me of the warning labels you see "Hot coffee is hot" or
"Batman cape does not enable wearer to fly".  A few generations ago,
accidentally spilling coffee on yourself, and claiming you didn't know it was
hot - would any judge _not_ have laughed hearing that as grounds for a
lawsuit?

 Yup, because Momma taught us that when we were still in short pants. Now
Momma is a CEO of a big corp and hasn't got the time to buy a new pair of
pantyhose let alone teach lessons about common sense, and somehow the world
is poorer for that.

Hmm, omni. Do you mean that in the sense of both parents are so wrapped up in
work that the kids take a backseat? I tend to agree.

Let me make clear right now: I have no problem with mothers (or daddies)
working outside the home or building a career. I DO have a problem when the
kids become secondary to the career goals. Tossing a kid in daycare for 9 hours
a day isn't parenting, sorry. I'd rather have my kid bond with me than a
daycare worker. A daycare worker may be caring and compassionate, but will not
care about your kid as much as you do. God forbid you do with a little less so
that one parent (mom OR dad) can stay home with the kid. As expensive as
daycare is, it seems losing one income would almost balance out. This of
course, excludes the  situation where there is a single parent, or both parents
must work to keep the family financially afloat.

My doctor is a woman, and her husband is also a doctor. They decided not to
have kids because they knew they couldn't devote the time necessary for raising
a kid. Seeing this Au Pair trial, I noticed that both parents were doctors.
Couples with such timely, demanding careers need to think twice before having
kids. I mean you don't go through all those years of training then quit to stay
home. So who raises the kid?

Re #24 Please spare us the "McDonald's Coffee Case" (if that is indeed what
you were referring to) as an example of what is wrong with our legal system.
If you had checked your facts you would have known that the evidence showed
that McDonalds kept its coffee far hotter than any heated liquid the average
American would make at home (somewhwere between 180 and 200 degrees, very
close to boiling). This was a conscious corporate decision. Quite honestly,
I myself burned the inside of my mouth with McDonald's coffee the first time
I tried it. See, not everyone makes McDonalds a daily, weekly or monthly (or,
in my case, yearly) part of our lives. Therefore, we have no way of knowing
that McDonalds considers it expedient to heat coffee far beyond the
temperatures to which we are accustomed. While you could make an argument that
the woman in the McDonalds case may have been contributorily negligent, there
are far better examples of what is wrong wiht our legal system than that case.
There are also many unpublicized cases that demonstrate all that is right with
our system. (Disclaimer: Yes, I am an attorney, and I do get tired of
misinformed or underinformed people making judgments about our legal system
that are factually unsupportable. Its certainly not a perfect system, and it
will always need "fine-tuning" as our society evolves, but it sure beats much
of what the rest of the world is stuck with)P.S. Obvbiously, many Americans
boil water for coffee and tea, but what makes that different fromthe McDonalds
case is that we don't allow those items to remain heated to those temperatures
over a long period of time. We also know how recently the liquid was at that
temperature so we can adjust our behavior accordingly. Equally obvious is the
fact that McDonalds did nothing to inform consumers of how recently their
coffee was raised to such high temperatures. 

And (someone I know is related to the lawyer in the McDonald's case)
as I recall, the person was elderly and it wasn't given to her in a 
stable carton -- as she was leaving the drive-through, it tipped and
scalded her, including melting her polyester pants to her lap. Now,
maybe she SHOULD have known better than to leave it where it was, but geeze,
if I spill coffee/tea/whatever at home or at work, it ain't THAT hot. 
I might get a burn, but usually it's not that serious.

(That case concerned an older woman who picked up a cup of coffee at a
 McDonald's drive-in window.  She spilled the coffee in her lap, and, being
 seat-belted into a car with bucket seats was unable to get up.  She suffered
 severe burns over large areas, and was hospitalized for some time.)

Twila slipped in.

She was hold the coffee between her legs -- yes, at her crotch!!! When you 
keep coffee at your crotch while driving a car and something bad happens,
it is time to say, "Yes, I was fucked in the head and will not do that
again." 

I am waiting for the label, "Coffee is hot and will burn your crotch." 
Telling me that coffee is hot is not useful -- it does not explicitly tell me
that I may burn my crotch. 

"Coffee is 200 degrees F" would tell me a lot, however.  In that case,
I wouldn't even buy the stuff since I don't want to wait 20 minutes
for it to cool down sufficiently.

In a word, 200-degree coffee is undrinkable.

Which explains why I do not drink coffee... too darn hot. Burns my tongue. Ow.

When making coffee & tea at home, waiting until the water's squealing hot
(boiling - 212 degrees) is very common.  I see no basis for anyone to
assume that McD's would never make coffee with boiling water or that McD's
would always let it sit around until much cooler before serving it.  

I don't think that this is really a problem with our legal system - it's
a problem with society at large.  Too many people can't or won't assume
responsibility for themselves, then further assume that someone else
must be responsible when things go wrong for them.  (Generally a government,
corporation, or other authority figure as seen through their infantile
point of view.)  

This "responsibility is only required of others" world-view is not 
compatible with a viable modern society.  I feel very little sympathy for 
anyone holding it.  

Damn.  I didn't realize I was going to get jumped on like that for bringing
up an example...
All right, I'll grant you that in the case of the McDonalds Coffee Incident,
McDonalds may well have been at fault.  I have no interest in that specific
case except in that it was - or so I thought - a good example of a general
point I was trying to make.  Although this may not hold true in the
particulars, that general point was that people are too apt to blame others,
'the system', or outside factors when they should just accept what's happened.
I wasn't passing judgement on our legal system, I wasn't passing judgement
on the plaintiff in that case, I wasn't passing judgement on McDonalds, I was
stating a general idea as I see it.

#34: I disagree. People will exploit whatever is available to them. 
     The legal system is being exploited and needs change. If the
     banking system were a system of holes in the ground where people
     left their money and it were found that the money is disappearing,
     is that a problem of the system? Of course.

Huh?!? What changes are you suggesting? I think some folks are missing the
point. As I tried to point out earlier, there may have been an issue of
contributory negligence. But there is no principled distinction between a
person saying "I was blameless, therefore BigBadCorpCo should pay" and
BogBadCorpCo saying "we are blameless for any injuries suffered by those who
use our goods and services." In either case, both are refusing to accept
there role in the injury. I think this bothers people, who prefer to see
things in Bad Guy/Good Guy or black/white terms. Unfortunately, life ain't
that simple folks. BTW Rogue, how exactly is the legal system like a banking
"system of holes in the ground"? (oops, that should be "their" role)

Kurt - I'm _agreeing_ with you.  The wrong response, in the McDonalds case
was to say 'I'm the Good Guy and McDonalds is the Bad Guy'.  The proper
response might be something along the lines of 'Ouch!  That hurt!'

This item certainly has drifted.
 
I'm afraid that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has yet gotten
the facts of the McDonalds coffee case correct.  First, McDonald's
makes (made?) its coffee extremely hot because the customers demand
it that way.  I don't know why, but it probably has to do with the
cooling effect of creamers and the large amount of air flow in a
typical car.  Coffee tends to cool fast, and people just don't like
cold coffee.  (Neither do I, but I don't doctor mine, so I don't
like it to start so hot.)  McDonald's always puts lids on drinks,
to protect against spills.
 
Second, the woman who was burnt was a passenger in the car, not
the driver.
 
Last, she had *removed the lid* from the coffee when the driver
jerked the car, causing the spill.  (It was between her legs.)
 
Now, there's no question that people are capable of handling 200 
degree coffee safely, even in a car.  You can put the cup in a
cup holder before removing the lid, or you can pull into parking.
You can do both.  You can do neither, but if you ignore all the
safety rules, you're just begging for trouble.
 
This is quite a bit different from where we began, which is the
influence of someone else's acts upon the health of children.
Unlike adults choosing what drinks to get at the drive-through,
children do not get to choose where they will live or what their
parents will do in their household.  They are at our mercy.
 
Prenatally and post-natally, smoking harms the development of
children in a multitude of ways.  These range from reduced birth
weight to more and worse respiratory illnesses to this latest
finding, a strong likelihood that smoking around children
pre-disposes them to heart disease.  Unlike handling hot coffee,
there is no way to make second-hand smoke safe for a child.
 
Adults are free to consume liquor and even drink themselves to
death if they wish, but we don't allow them to give significant
amounts to minors; that's a crime.  We don't have to criminalize
tobacco, and we shouldn't, but how much more evidence do we need
before we have to conclude that smoking while pregnant, or in
space used by children, is child abuse?

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss