MORE LAUGHABLE RESEARCH INTO SMOKING

The brainiacs below found that physically active people are more likely to ATTEMPT to give up smoking. What does that tell us? Nothing that I can see. If they also SUCCEEDED at giving up that might be interesting. I am going to have to give up reading the crap that is the medical literature one day. How much of it can I stand? Or does the April 1 date below tell us something? I sorta hope it does. It's certainly an appropriate date for what they have published

Characteristics of Physically Active Smokers and Implications for Harm Reduction

By Wayne K. deRuiter et al

Objectives: We sought to establish the prevalence of physical activity among smokers, whether or not physically active smokers were more likely to attempt cessation, and who these physically active smokers were.

Methods: We used logistic regression to contrast physically active and inactive smokers in a secondary data analysis of the Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 1.1.

Results: Physically active smokers represented almost one quarter of the smoking population. Compared with physically inactive smokers, physically active smokers were more likely to have attempted cessation in the past year. Physically active smokers were more likely to be young, single, and men compared with their inactive counterparts. Income had no influence in distinguishing physically active and inactive smokers.

Conclusions: Skepticism persists regarding the practicality and potential risks of promoting physical activity as a harm-reduction strategy for tobacco use. We found that a modest proportion of the daily smoking population was physically active and that engagement in this behavior was related to greater cessation attempts. Interventions could be developed that target smokers who are likely to adopt physical activity.

American Journal of Public Health, April 1, 2008






THIS IS NOT EVEN AN ATTEMPT AT OBJECTIVE SCIENCE

The old secondhand smoke religion defended below. Note that the aim was to "generate locally relevant data to motivate the development of tobacco control policies". That sure is frank: No attempt at objectivity. The conclusion is foreordained. What gets published in the medical journals never ceases to amaze me. And the research is crap. All they showed is that people living with smokers had more exposure to smoke. As if we didn't know that already! There is NOTHING in their findings that supports their conclusions.

Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Women and Children: Evidence From 31 Countries

By Heather Wipfli et al.

Objectives: We sought to describe the range of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) among women and children living with smokers around the world and generate locally relevant data to motivate the development of tobacco control policies and interventions in developing countries.

Methods: In 2006, we conducted a cross-sectional exposure survey to measure air nicotine concentrations in households and hair nicotine concentrations among nonsmoking women and children in convenience samples of 40 households in 31 countries.

Results: Median air nicotine concentration was 17 times higher in households with smokers (0.18 micrograms/m3) compared with households without smokers (0.01 micrograms/m3). Air nicotine and hair nicotine concentrations in women and children increased with the number of smokers in the household. The dose-response relationship was steeper among children. Air nicotine concentrations increased an estimated 12.9 times (95% confidence interval=9.4, 17.6) in households allowing smoking inside compared with those prohibiting smoking inside.

Conclusions: Our results indicate that women and children living with smokers are at increased risk of premature death and disease from exposure to SHS. Interventions to protect women and children from household SHS need to be strengthened.

|American Journal of Public Health, April 2008, Vol 98, No. 4, 672-679