The CTV Toronto article says that all of the data came from the 2001-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which examined a representative sample of 2,600 U.S. children aged eight to 15. The journal was published in the journal, Pediatrics.

The article says that the rate of ADHD in the whole group was 8.6 percent. The rate of ADHD  in children whose mothers smoked while pregnant was roughly 17 percent, and the rate was approximately 14 percent in children who has the highest recorded levels of lead in their blood.

Of kids who had a joint exposure to lead and prenatal smoking, 28.6 percent had ADHD.

Exposure to tobacco was linked to  2.4 times greater chance of ADHD, while a high blood level of lead was liked to a 2.3 greater risk. Combined, the tobacco and lead exposure increased the odds of ADHD by eight times.

The article states that it is unclear why prenatal smoking and smoking around children leads to an increase in the chance of ADHD, and add that the study wasn’t done specifically to find a link between smoking and ADHD, but concludes

“Our findings suggest that reduction of toxicant exposures may be an important avenue for ADHD prevention.”

Everyone knows that smoking when pregnant is very bad for the child, and more things just keep cropping up, yet people continue to smoke during pregnancy. If all the previous research wasn’t enough to stop people, do you think this will?

ADHD Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD or AD/HD) is a neurobehavioral developmental disorder. ADHD is characterized by “the co-existence of attentional problems and hyperactivity, with each behavior occurring infrequently alone.” For more information visit here.

In the first reported case, an Apple Macbook was sent in with overheating issues. The customer was then told that his warranty had been voided due to the second hand smoke being a health hazard. Yes, his Apple was actually labelled a biohazard.

Now, this doesn’t specifically affect UMass students, because smoking isn’t allowed in our rooms. But I’m sure there are people who do smoke in the vicinity of their laptops.

From reading comments on the articles, it does seem like working on a computer that is used by  heavy smoker is quite disgusting. Commenters who claimed to work in computer maintenance say that they smell terrible, and are really horrible inside. One commenter was kind enough to send a link to an online competition for the ‘grossest inside of a computer‘. If you scroll down past the dusty dirty ones, there is one that is an orangey yellow one titled as belonging to a smoker.

But the problem with this is, I have an Apple laptop, and I’m very sure that there is nothing in the warranty that says that it will be voided if it is nicotine stained. The Consumerist says that

“Consumerist has tried repeatedly to obtain some kind of answer about these two cases from Apple’s media relations department, and we have received nothing on the record after months of waiting. Mostly, we’re curious what the threshold is for smoke damage to a computer, and why this is not mentioned in the Applecare contract.”

Obviously, if it is a hazard to their health then computer maintenance workers shouldn’t have to work around them. But where is the proof? And it is completely unfair to void a warranty without anything being in the contract. This is not the right way to treat Apple customers, smokers or not.

Results from the world’s first long term, international study of people who have given up smoking revealed that for the first 30 days, smokers actually combated the cravings quite well. More than 2500 smokers partook in the survey, from 4 countries; USA, UK, Canada and Australia.

However, after those initial 30 days, the going gets tough. The study found that smokers cravings became harder to control, and being around smokers was almost unbearable. Even seeing images of cigarettes – such as in an anti-smoking advert – actually made the ex-smokers want to take up the habit again.

Image: Cathy Wilcox

The article went on to mention that the strength of the cravings were not that important at the beginning. However, as time went on, and the cravings didn’t subside, willpower weakened and even negative images of smoking tempted them to have a cigarette.

Another worrying statistic – people who experienced long-term cravings were less likely to successfully give up smoking. Professor Borland of the Cancer Council Victoria was quoted in the article as saying that people who experienced these long-term cravings tended to think more and more about cigarette’s, until eventually it was all the time.

Obviously, this would make it very hard to continue refraining from taking up your old habit again.

The one thing I noticed that the article, the professor and the survey don’t offer us, is an option to get around this. I mean, quitting smoking is hard enough as it is. It’s a well known fact that smoking is highly, highly addictive. We can’t expect other people to stop smoking, but if the adverts that are supposed to encourage and support us in quitting are have the opposite result, what do we do?

I’ll keep an eye out to see if anything else about this crops us, because I think it’s really interesting.

I noticed, aside from all the usual tourist attractions, that a lot of New Yorkers smoke. I mean, almost every third person seems to be smoking. This is surprising, considering that this story claims that the Health Department have released new figures that show NY smoking rates are decreasing, while America wide smoking rates are increasing.

What surprises me even more is that people don’t seem to be bothered by all the smokers. Even if you light up on a busy street, no one says anything. In Sydney city, I’m used to lighting up away from people, and still getting that sly muttered comment about ‘disgusting smokers’, or the glare, or my favourite, the fake cough.

People in New York smoke in doorways, in the middle of the street, and in huge crowds at crossings or on main strips. I’ve yet to hear anyone complain, and this baffles me. Why, would the stereotypically obnoxious outspoken self important New Yorker have nothing to say on this issue? It’s certainly not an issue of tact. I watched a table full of New Yorkers make fun of the Russians for a long, boring and repetitive 10 minutes. In a Russian restaurant, run by a Russian family.

Does anyone have an insights on this? Is smoking in the Big Apple completely acceptable? Legally it’s not allowed inside, but there seems to be no etiquette once you hit the street.

The campaign is being called EX, which has the slogan ‘become an Ex’. The campaign is sponsored by the National Alliance of Tobacco Cessation (NATC) which included such groups as the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and the National Cancer Institute.

Adverts will be airing this month on radio and TV, as well as cable and in print. It’s being labelled as more than just an ad campaign, it gives advice and hard facts to smokers. It also, importantly, includes information on how to successfully quit smoking and re-learn how to live as a non-smoker. The website covers how to find your triggers – what makes you want that cigarette at that time, and how to deal with it.

Here is one advert I came across on youtube, showing a man who smokes in his car trying to distract himself from his craving. I’m not entirely convinced that it’s an authentic EX advert, but you do get a gist of the idea of re-learning your life, and doing something else instead of smoking.

Many people smoke when they drive. Another similar advert shows a man leaves his store for a cigarette. While smoking, he tries the doors of a few cars, before jumping into an idling delivery van and driving off. The voice over says “You don’t drive every time you smoke, yet, you smoke every time you drive” and tells the viewer to “relearn life without cigarettes.”

Most smokers in America (70 percent, in fact) want to quit, but so few are successful in their attempts. The EX website is really quite incredible, and smokers can sign up and create a smoker profile, and use a quit-smoking plan, which you can find here.

I think this is a really good initiative, and all smokers should give it a go, because it really can’t hurt to at least try. Rather than just exhorting you to quit full stop, EX is giving smokers a way to change their lives around learn to not need a cigarette in certain situations.

It’s traditionally held on the third Thursday of November, and smokers are supposed to try and quit for 24 hours. The American Cancer Society hopes that this will encourage smokers to quit for a lifetime.

It started in California in 1974, when the editor of the Monticello Times in Minnesota encouraged people to give up smoking for a day. Then, 3 years later, Arthur P. Mullaney of Randolph, Massachusetts suggested that people give up smoking for a day and donate the money to a local scholarship fund. The idea caught on, and in 1976 the Californian Division of The American Cancer Society managed to get 1 million people to quit smoking for a day. This was a huge success, and the society took it nation wide in 1977.

‘Smoke Smoke That Cigarette’ by Tex Williams is an unofficial anthem of the day, and has some entertaining lyrics pertaining to the annoyances of smoking.

This year, UMass is getting in on the action. As I mentioned briefly in a previous post, cigarette butts collected on UMass’ Butt Clean-Up day will be displayed in all three of the dining commons in a effort to encourage student smokers to quit for at least one day, if not a lifetime.

There are plenty of different ways for towns or university’s to get involved, this website offers a few ideas on how to join in, such as getting a sandwich shop to give out free ‘cold turkey’ sandwiches to anyone who hands in at least half a packet of cigarettes.

Do you think that this works? It’s a great idea- trying to create a smoke-free America for 24 hours. But how well is it advertised? I only came across it when I was searching for any news on smoking through google. I haven’t seen it advertised around UMass, or on TV. How many smokers take part if they do actually know about it? And would smoking for 24 hours be enough to make someone quit? I know that in my time as a smoker I’ve given up for several days before turning back to smoking. I tried to find statistics on whether the Smokeouts success, but had no luck.

What do you think?

Cease-Fire Bin

Last year alone, volunteers picked up 12 pounds of cigarette butts. That it a phenomenal amount of cigarette butts, when you think of how tiny and weightless 1 butt is. And I’m sure that the volunteers barely skimmed the surface in the 3 hours they had. It’ll be interesting to see how many more they get this year.

All the butts collected from this years clean up will be used as part of a display in all the UMass dining commons – Berkshire, Franklin and Worcester – on November 19th to promote the Great American Smokout, held by the American Cancer Society. More on that later, and I’ll post some photos and get some opinions when that happens.

Cigarette butt litter is quite a problem, as butts get washed by rain into sewerage and can end up in the ocean. They take years to decompose and can be hazardous to animals and marine life that may try to eat them.

There are solutions to the disposal of cigarette butts if there no bins around, but many people complain that unless it is in something airtight, the butt will stink out their bag or person. You can actually order a free ‘butt out’ portable ashtray here, and all you need is to post a return envelope with a stamp.

If you are interested in being a volunteer at the UMass ‘No Butts About It’, please contact Tom Schiff at 413-577-5133.

If you are interested in trying to throw your own cigarette butt cleanup day, ehow has a step by step process in hosting one in your University or community.

photo credit: www.supplylinedirect.com/. ../items/jr-26800.jpg

from Cease-Fire Cigarette Butt Receptacles supplier at : http://www.supplylinedirect.com/item/maintenance/housekeepingcleaning/smokingcontrol/smokerscease-firecigarettebuttreceptacles/

At my uni back home I’m used to being one of the only people outside my faculty building having a cigarette before class. Here, there are so many. Granted, it is a much bigger University, but I feel like if we counted the numbers of smokers compared to the number of students, UMass would still have a lot more.

Up until one o’clock, you can leave any given residence hall and see at least 5 smokers outside, getting one more in before bed.

There are regulations regarding smoking, such as not smoking within 20 feet of a building or exit. However, come bad weather and this rule is completely ignored, and I have yet to see anyone be fined for it. This must be a nuisance to people entering and exiting the building, or people who have their windows open at the dorms.

A group of students called “Hopkins Kicks Butt” (HKB) from the Johns Hopkins University, Maryland are calling for a complete campus smoking ban. The article from their university newsletter says that students from HKB feel that smoking is a really big problem at their campus, and that there have been a lot of complaints about it. They hope to have a smoke-free campus by 2012, and those in violation will face a $15 fine.

Is UMass heading the same way? Do you think it’s a big problem at UMass now, and is a smoke-free campus a feasible and attainable goal? I asked a few students, some smokers and others non-smokers what they thought about a smoke-free campus.

“I think it’s taking away our rights, if they forbid smoking on campus. Especially because we have to live here. People will just sneak off and smoke anyway,” said Dominic Blake, a smoker.

“Alcohol is a drug, it’s dangerous, and that’s still allowed. Smoking doesn’t bother me as long as it’s not inside,” said Laura Orcutt, a non-smoker.

“That would be great, I’m all for a smoke-free campus. Smoking is stupid, and I hate the smell of it,” said Lauren Heron, a non-smoker.

What do you think? Do you agree with the above views, and why?

photo credits: <div xmlns:cc=”http://creativecommons.org/ns#” about=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/saneboy/3595175373/”><a rel=”cc:attributionURL” href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/saneboy/”>http://www.flickr.com/photos/saneboy/</a> / <a rel=”license” href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/”>CC BY 2.0</a></div>href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/saneboy/”>http://www.flickr.com/photos/saneboy/</a> / <a rel=”license” href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/”>CC BY 2.0</a></div>

I thought I might post a couple of the ones I thought were really good on here, and I’d love to hear back from people, and if they think that they are in anyway effective.

Click a thumbnail to enlarge.

The first one, ‘Smoking harms children’ is quite a disturbing image. A crying child is one thing, but the imagery of a child being suffocated by what looks like a plastic bag, but is actually cigarette smoke is quite disturbing. However, does this actually bother people without kids? Or people who don’t smoke around kids? Obviously it’s targeted at a specific audience, and it’s probably quite a disturbing image to parents, but these days not many parents will smoke around their small children. It reminds me of an Australian anti-smoking advert which caused a lot of controversy, as the child was actually left by his mother in order to film him crying.

The smoking effect is a really great graphic, it looks really good and is quite chilling, but personally doesn’t do anything for me. To me, I get the illusion that it’s someone trying to quit, and struggling to get away from smoking.

The next two, ‘Smoking, your future’ actually quite affected me. You see these two young and beautiful girls smoking, and the reflection of their future in the mirror. One has aged badly, and looks sad and old. The other is obviously being treated for cancer. The expression on her face really affected me. I think more so because I am a young female smoker.

The next one is a bit of black humour, where in a room designed for smokers, if you look up the ceiling is painted to make it look like you are in a grave with a mourning family standing over, and a priest. This one I find more amusing, and inventive, but doesn’t make me consider quitting smoking.

The final one is almost scary. This one did bother me, the implying of the slow death, and the half man half skull graphic disturbed me.

Did these bother any one else? If so, which one in particular and why? I think some of these are better than the ones where they show the effects on the human body. Do you agree?

The argument for: Smokers bring it upon themselves don’t they? They choose to smoke, knowing the consequences of their actions could result in an early death. Doctors should not have to work hard to save someone who’s only going to continue to poison their body.

The argument against: What about alcoholics and the obese? Alcoholics still get dialysis and kidney transplants – although they need to be sober for a year to get on the transplant list. Both alcoholism and smoking are addictions, so smokers shouldn’t be solely targeted. Obesity is another example – obese people still get treated. Smokers still pay taxes, and should receive the same benefits as anyone else.

There have been cases where smokers have died due to doctors refusing to treat them, but the only reference I could find for this was an article dated to 1993, linked to above.

More recently, again in England, a man was refused surgery on his ankle because he was a smoker. He broke his ankle in 3 places and it won’t heal in a normal plaster cast. The NHS, England’s health care service, has refused to do surgery, as they are worried that his heavy smoking will reduce healing and increase the risk of amputation.

The man, John Nuttall, is now in constant pain, as the bones grind against each other when he walks. If he doesn’t get the surgery soon, his bones will calcify, and he’ll have missed his chance at having surgery.

Does he deserve this? Should he quit smoking, if it means that much to him? Are the doctors in the wrong for refusing?

I think one option could be that smokers are required to sign a waiver – which most patients do anyway – but one specific to smokers that outlines the added risks that being a smoker has. This way, doctors are released from any liability with smoking risks. As well as this, I think that  smokers should quit if they are going to have an organ transplant. American health care requires that alcoholics remain sober for one year before receiving an organ, and the same sort of guidelines should apply to smokers.

What do you guys think? Do smokers get the same rights, or should they be denied health care?