| Research shows secondhand smoke damages lungs | |
|---|---|
| Nov 28, 2007 01:07 |   |
 | A report from WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 --For the first time, researchers have identified structural damage to the lungs caused by secondhand cigarette smoke. The results of the study, conducted by researchers at the University of Virginia and The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, were presented Monday at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) in Chicago. "It's long been hypothesized that prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke may cause physical damage to the lungs, but previous methods of analyzing lung changes were not sensitive enough to detect it," said Chengbo Wang, magnetic resonance physicist at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Wang and colleagues used helium-3 diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to study the lungs of 43 volunteers, including seven current and former smokers and 36 people who had never smoked, 18 of whom had a high level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Patients inhales a specially prepared helium gas prior to imaging, and the scanner is adjusted to collect images showing this helium gas in tissue. Magnetic resonance measures how far the helium atoms move, or diffuse, inside the lungs during a specific time period -- 1.5 seconds in this study. Using this method, radiologists can detect changes deep in the small airways and sacs in the lungs, which can break down, become enlarged and develop holes after prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke. Helium-3 diffusion MRI identifies this damage by measuring the increased distance the helium atoms move. |
| Nov 28, 2007 01:07 | #1 |
| "With this technique, we are able to assess lung structure on a microscopic level," Dr. Wang said. For the study, measurements were translated into scores called apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for each of the participants. An increased ADC value indicates that the helium atoms were able to travel farther during the measurement time. Fifty-seven percent of the smokers and 33 percent of the nonsmokers with high exposure to secondhand smoke had ADC values greater than 0.024, suggesting that early lung damage was present. In addition, 14 percent of smokers, 67 percent of high-exposure nonsmokers, and 39 percent of low-exposure nonsmokers had ADC values below 0.0185. Relatively low ADC values in adults are a possible indication of a developing respiratory problem, such as chronic bronchitis or asthma. "These findings suggest that breathing secondhand smoke can injure your lungs," Dr. Wang said. "Since legislation to limit public exposure to secondhand smoke is still being considered in many states in U.S., we hope that our work can be used to add momentum to the drive to pass such legislation." |
| Nov 28, 2007 01:18 | #2 |
| Bad news for most of us. If you don't smoke, lungs can be damaged as seriously as the smokers. So no one will escape the trouble. In this case, for so many years, I have been thinking if I don't smoke(and my BF won't smoke), I will be free of the trouble. My lungs will be safe and sound enough. While this news made me depressed. Knowledge increases pain. I am a secondhand smoker( this is beyond my control), since there are numerous smokers around me. This is fate? A model smokes as make-up is applied on her backstage before Clips' Spring/Summer 2008 women's collection during Milan Fashion Week in Milan September 23, 2007  |
| Nov 28, 2007 07:12 | #3 |
| Iceblue, You can begin by explaining that this is a serious issue and that those around you who do smoke could respect you by not smoking around you if at all possible. I ask taxi drivers not to smoke while I am in the car and I even had one driver put his cigarette out before I asked when he saw that I was going to get into his cab. It was a pleasant surprise. Smokers by and large are often arrogant about smoking but I find if you ask people not to smoke especially in very confined spaces like elevators where you would be forced to breath the smoke, they will wait. If we don't ask they will never change or even consider changing. I've even asked people in restaurants whose smoke is billowing around our table to at least move or of be aware that we are offended by the smoke while we eat. While some think it is funny they do make an effort. This week I found a man smoking in the back of a city bus, clearly marked NO Smoking and he was a little surprised that I asked him to put it out, but he did as he was clearly in the wrong. It's pretty simple really . A cigarette has a filter which is designed to reduce the amount of harmful chemicals that a smoker inhales. No non-smoker has the luxury of a filter for the little benefit it may give so of course second-hand smokers will be affected more than the smoker with the filter(second-hand smoker) Children of course are often the biggest victims with parents, grandparents and friends smoking all around them while their little bodies grow. You can make a difference but you have to stand up for yourself. You have a right to fresh air like everyone else around you. |
| Nov 28, 2007 13:29 | #4 |
| Common sense tells you that breathing smoke is not good for you - it is neither rocket science nor brain surgery. Only a fool would dispute that reality. With the information available today, good parents minimize their childrens exposure to tobacco smoke...and more importantly the other contaminants in the air. In the article, notice the political commentary from the researcher. Such commentary from the scientist calls the credibility of the entire study into question. Consider this: by the time the test subjects were examined in that study they had been exposed to all sorts of things that are bad to breath in: cigarette smoke, vehicle exhaust, paint and solvent fumes, dust and all sorts of other things. To evaluate the study, you must be able to verify the validity of the test subjects. Clearly, it is impossible to quantify all of the bad things the test subjects breathed during their lives. Drawing conclusions from invalid test subjects is what it is...invalid. More than likely, this is another study done only for propaganda use and the political ends of people who want to tell you how to live your life and impose more laws on productive, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens. |
| Nov 29, 2007 03:54 | #5 |
| Haha! Griz326 is strongly against the research. He himself might be a smoker. LOL! Anyway, smoking does no good to your health. Take care! |
| Nov 29, 2007 09:16 | #6 |
| Heh, I am very passionate about non-smoking too. Given the chance I would volunteer for smoke-free campaigns. ;-) |
| Nov 29, 2007 13:21 | #7 |
| After 30.6.2007 in Finland smoking is not allowed in any restaurant. Many people said: that´s it, I won´t go to restaurant or night club any more! Now, almost all say it has been a good desicion. After evening spent in night club, clothes do no t smell and hangover is not as terrible as earlier. Got to mention that bar tenders have been the biggest secondhand smokers. It is a great relief to them, too. I smoke cigars, little ones. Most I suffer that can´t smoke a cigar after a good meal with coffee and brandy. Smoked outside cigar simply doesn´t taste the same. Especially if there is -20 degrees, heh. I don´t smoke in my car or home inside, so to go out for a smoke is not so big deal after all when in night club. Carlos |
| Nov 29, 2007 14:00 | #8 |
| I do indeed smoke cigars SunnyDream, but I do it at my own risk. ...and I acknowledge that in the first part of my post.... HOWEVER, junk science is junk science...you can cover it in chocolate sauce...but only the fool would swallow it. |
| Nov 29, 2007 20:43 | #9 |
| Quote >>Smokers by and large are often arrogant about smoking but I find if you ask people not to smoke especially in very confined spaces like elevators where you would be forced to breath the smoke, they will wait. If we don't ask they will never change or even consider changing>>. JABAROOTOO, I have met many arrogant smokers on many public occasions. I asked them not to smoke. Just in vain. They often turned a blind eye to me. Some of them glanced at me with the despising eyesight and even shouted at me: '" it's none of your business, little lass!" I just felt very powerless. |
| Nov 29, 2007 22:07 | #10 |
| I'm sorry about that, Iceblue. I had the same encounters too. Most of the time they would even blow smoke right in front of you. I think that is very rude. -_- |
Page 1 of 2 < Previous Next > Page:
Post a Reply to: Research shows secondhand smoke damages lungs
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.