Professor calls for yet another smoking ban
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 Just when you least expect it, a story pops out of nowhere. Today I had to drop everything to do an interview for BBC News on the subject of smoking in cars with children. I didn't expect to be on camera today so I was looking (how shall I put this?) a little bit scruffy.
Thankfully I had shaved before I left home this morning, but I very nearly didn't. I had an ironed shirt in the boot of the car (very unusual!) but I still had to ask the cameraman to film me from the waist up, such was the "casual" nature of the rest of my attire.
Anyway, a professor from (I think) the Royal College of Paediatrics has called for a total ban on smoking in cars where children are present, arguing that the carcinogens from a single cigarette are enough to axphyxiate any child within 100 yards.
I exaggerate. To be honest, I don't have much information. As I write (5:30pm) only the BBC seems to know anything about it, and the producers I have spoken to don't know much more than me. The health risk is all based on a study from Canada, apparently, but there's no press release accompanying the story so goodness knows where they got it from.
The interview with BBC News - filmed in a car park outside the BBC studios in Cambridge - is due to feature on the BBC Breakfast news bulletin. After that I'm on Five Live (7.40am) with Martin Dockrell of ASH; followed by Radio Wales and Radio Cambridgeshire.
Meanwhile my colleague Neil Rafferty will be on Radio Bristol, Radio Northamptonshire and Radio Scotland. I'm sure there will be more.
For the record, this is the statement we gave the BBC:
"Adults should err on the side of caution when young children are in the car, but a ban is very heavy-handed.
"It's unnecessarily intrusive. You can't legislate for every aspect of people's behaviour. Who's going to enforce it? The police have got better things to do with their time.
"Our fear is that this is a stepping stone to banning smoking in all cars, regardless of whether children are on board. Many cars are private spaces, like the home. Are we going to ban smoking at home as well?"
As soon as I have more information I'll let you know.
Reader Comments (4)
A totally terrifying prospect, but I must say Simon, they have more than enough looney ideas of their own with you suggesting any more for them!
I am a firm believer that since smoking was banned in commercial vehicles, such as lorries, this is the reason for more incidents of trucks running into the back of other trucks or vehicles! If you had to drive a truck all day on a motorway with your vehicle restricted to around 56 mph and you are a smoker, it is extremely easy to find yourself in an hypnotic state - it is easy enough in a car, after all, but at least we can vary speed a little better than the truck drivers can! A cigarette would often counter the hypnotic effect of such a journey, but since it has been banned there have been many more accidents of this nature.
I know, as well as anyone else, that most smoking truck drivers still smoke in their cabs, but there are some who don't and it may be to do with the company they work for or the fact that they have been caught. Neither this government nor its quangos are serious about road safety in this country, if they were they would abolish speed cameras, put more police on the roads to catch the dangerous drivers, repair the roads that cause so much damage to vehicles and allow drivers who smoke to smoke!
As far as I can see they are just having their leads twitched by the powers that be in the EU and they have to tug their forelocks and succumb to these dictators, which make our government nothing more than petty dictators who do not have the balls to get us out of the mess they got us into!
Simon, good luck today. I trust you aware there are 34 individual studies of children exposed to SHS and lung cancer. 3 show a small raise in risk, 11 found it protective and 20 were statistically insignificant, RR <1.1. The most famous one is the 1998 World Health Organization, Boffetta study which came out with an RR of 0.78, i.e. 22% protective.
"Results: ETS exposure during childhood
was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever
exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64–0.96)"
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/23769.pdf
Also with childhood exposure to SHS on Asthma and Atopy (allergic reactions like psoricis, eczemza etc) they have a staggering 82% REDUCTION. This New Zealand report was published January 2008.
"MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand."
"Writing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Robert Hancox (University of Otago, Dunedin) and colleagues explain that "the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the immune-suppressant effects of cigarette smoke protect against atopy."
"Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders."
"The authors write: "We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens."
http://www.medwire-news.md/48/72330/Respiratory/Smoking_linked_to_reduced_allergic_sensitization_.html
Well of course the study came from "Kanada"