Google analytics

Tuesday 21 May 2013

I don’t bullyeve it.

Sorry about the title, but it’s a hint about this blog post content.

Apparently researchers have discovered that second hand smoke causes bullying in children. Think I’m making it up? Read on.

Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke in early childhood are more likely to grow up to physically aggressive and antisocial, regardless of whether they were exposed during pregnancy or their parents have a history of being antisocial, according to Linda Pagani and Caroline Fitzpatrick of the University of Montreal and its affiliated CHU Sainte-Justine hospital. No study to date has controlled for these factors. “Secondhand smoke is in fact more dangerous that inhaled smoke, and 40% of children worldwide are exposed to it. Moreover, exposure to this smoke at early childhood is particularly dangerous, as the child’s brain is still developing,” Pagani said. “I looked at data that was collected about 2,055 kids from their birth until ten years of age, including parent reports about secondhand smoke exposure and from teachers and children themselves about classroom behaviour. Those having been exposed to secondhand smoke, even temporarily, were much more likely to report themselves as being more aggressive by time they finished fourth grade.” The study was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health on May 21, 2013.

I’m fucking gobsmacked. What will they blame SHS on next?

I was surrounded by wreaths of SHS when I was a kid (A long time ago), and grew up to be quite a shy child.

Now I find that smoking calms me down, so I suggest that instead of smoking around the cheeeldren, we should instead shove a lighted ciggie in the mouths of our new borns to prevent bullies of the future.

*For the anti-smokers out there. I’M JOKING*.

That’ll work. My studies of 97% of smokers in my household prove it (One).

You can read more at Junk science.

12 comments:

  1. I grew up in a house where my father smoked, and all of his friends smoked. I was subjected to second hand smoke for all of my childhood as were my three sisters. I am now 75 years old and as far as I can remember I have never bullied anyone and neither have my sisters.Where do these people dream up these ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Obviously, the answer then is to expose your own kids to SHS. For their own protection, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did. Worked for me. The two girls have bullied men to marry them.

      Delete
  3. They've realised that bashing smokers guarantees them a job for life.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You'll probably notice that all these studies and other crap on the same agenda always keep the actual smoker at a safe distance. This is because the smoker is a very serious risk to their health.

    l look forward to the day when l am confronted by one of these righteous control freaks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

    Second hand smoke in children causes:

    More frequent and severe asthma attacks/Respiratory symptoms/Respiratory infections

    It increases their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.

    So unless it's all one big conspiracy by the center for disease control and hundreds of thousands of scientists and doctors around the world...

    I'd say it's pretty safe to say that these studies are not 'crap' or 'junk science'.

    What is the point of smoking around children and exposing them to second hand smoke? If you think that it is good or un-harmful to them.... well they have also proven that smoking causes a decrease in IQ and brain damage so maybe that's why smokers think it's ok to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeez, are all you antismoking lot called 'Anonymous'?

      l'm sure the smoker Einstein if he was still alive would agree with what 'they' have proven ...not!

      Delete
    2. You're the perfect example that smoking causes brain damage.

      Delete
    3. "More frequent and severe asthma attacks/Respiratory symptoms/Respiratory infections"

      Why is it that smoking prevalence has fallen from 60% in the fifties to 22% now and that childhood asthma has dramatically risen?

      "It increases their lung cancer risk by 20–30%".

      Show me the paper that proves that.

      "So unless it's all one big conspiracy by the center for disease control and hundreds of thousands of scientists and doctors around the world..."

      So the science is settled? True science is never settled.

      "well they have also proven that smoking causes a decrease in IQ and brain damage so maybe that's why smokers think it's ok to do."

      I'm a member of MENSA. I have a tested IQ of 143. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

      Delete
    4. Anon as usual reverts to type FE.

      "well they have also proven that smoking causes a decrease in IQ and brain damage so maybe that's why smokers think it's ok to do."

      One wonders how the baby boomers ever achieved such fantastic technological and social change seeing as children they were surrounded by smokers and as adults were probably smokers themselves.

      Given 'anon's' rhetoric, l think he made a typo ... it should say "well they have also proven non-smoking causes a decrease in IQ and brain damage ...."

      Delete
    5. Are smokers really this inept?

      http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm

      Citations at the bottom for scientific studies.

      It's unbelievable you guys are arguing that smoke is not harmful and it is akin to scientists thinking the earth was flat. That's just LOL, the drug really has you guys addicted and the tobacco companies really have you brainwashed.

      Delete
  6. Three points here (Ok, four by the time I got finished).

    First, if you go back and read the transcripts of the original EPA investigation/case about shs, the head of the EPA agreed that there was no case for SHS having a harmful impact, but ruled it harmful anyway.

    Second, this is now "accepted science" just like global warming, or the flat earth in it's day. We are in a period where most (self proclaimed) scientists don't actually understand science. they're more interested in politics and media spin. A single fact trumps a consensus regardless of what you want to believe.

    Third, this particular study is a perfect example of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (It follows therefore it is caused by). What about other correlations. Just to pull another possibility out of the air, how about the fact that smoking has always been more popular amongst the poorer end of the socioeconomic scale and that in turn correlates with many problems (not to say that poor people are bad, but that being poor has an effect). Perhaps this is the correlation they've found. Bet they didn't control for it

    And finally, "Secondhand smoke is in fact more dangerous that inhaled smoke". Excellent, so I'm safer and I'll have the kids take up the habit today.

    Idiots

    ReplyDelete

Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.