Passive smoking increases stillbirth risk, says study

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Obviously scientists, doctors, researchers, etc think that this study is important even if you don't think it is. By knowing there is an increased risk (even if it doesn't matter to you), they know there is a risk and it helps them learn more about the body and how it reacts to things while its developing. This helps develop new hypotheses, sparks new ideas, new research, and eventually new cures or medications. Knowing there is a risk helps scientists develop ways to explore why there is a risk and learn how to decrease that risk and eventually eliminate it. Right now they don't know enough to tell you more than "passive smoke increases stillbirth risk" but with more research they will be able to tell you why, what you can do other than "don't smoke" to prevent this, and it opens the door for them to learn more about how a fetus develops and what happens to cells during development.

Every single breath we take comes with a risk. The moment you step into the shower, walk out your front door, etc. Everything you do in life increases the risk that something is going to happen.

We spend too much time in our lives figuring out ways to prolong life, prevent disease, cure illness, etc. that we see to forget the 'risks' and consequences of those things as well.

We all have choices we make in life. I'm not saying that the study is useless at all. I'm saying in relative terms to what they are saying, it's a null point at the end of the day in the relative terms.

Of course, the logic here is simple as well that doesn't require any type of extra study. If second-hand smoke might effect some people, it stands to a logical conclusion that some women would be effected during pregnancy as well.

Never mind. It's all good if paul says it is.

Next pregnant women will be given a green flag to do that cigar party trick.

playing ignorant as usual?

I'm making a point on why the article/study is over-stated on the 'risks' involved.

I never said it's 'all good' and whatnot. I simply pointed out the falsehood in the scare tactic writings of the article that say "23%" versus using real numbers.

[Amby 490]

Paul - I do a lot of scientific research so it's quite obvious we will never agree on topics like this

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul - I do a lot of scientific research so it's quite obvious we will never agree on topics like this

lol, what's there to disagree on?

I'm using simple math/numbers relative to the situation.

Its like you're saying "gasp" how dare someone point out in relative terms that the conclusion is one that's truly small overall.

Sure, there's an 'increased' risk from the study group (though i'd still like to see their 'work' here), but i'm talking about sheer numbers. Not the science.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Every single breath we take comes with a risk. The moment you step into the shower, walk out your front door, etc. Everything you do in life increases the risk that something is going to happen.

We spend too much time in our lives figuring out ways to prolong life, prevent disease, cure illness, etc. that we see to forget the 'risks' and consequences of those things as well.

We all have choices we make in life. I'm not saying that the study is useless at all. I'm saying in relative terms to what they are saying, it's a null point at the end of the day in the relative terms.

Of course, the logic here is simple as well that doesn't require any type of extra study. If second-hand smoke might effect some people, it stands to a logical conclusion that some women would be effected during pregnancy as well.

playing ignorant as usual?

I'm making a point on why the article/study is over-stated on the 'risks' involved.

I never said it's 'all good' and whatnot. I simply pointed out the falsehood in the scare tactic writings of the article that say "23%" versus using real numbers.

It's overstatement to you. The decision to smoke or not is personal (ie. If you're a smoker and your partner is pregnant). It has zip to do with you, since the risk isn't yours.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's overstatement to you. The decision to smoke or not is personal (ie. If you're a smoker and your partner is pregnant). It has zip to do with you, since the risk isn't yours.

That's still not the point I was making....

As you mention in 'personal' terms though, don't you think it would be fair of those posting an article on the study to give the 'actual' risk instead of trying to make a number magnified? Telling someone there's a "23% increase in risk" is a lot different than telling them their risk goes from .625% to .789% chance. You and I both know that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's still not the point I was making....

As you mention in 'personal' terms though, don't you think it would be fair of those posting an article on the study to give the 'actual' risk instead of trying to make a number magnified? Telling someone there's a "23% increase in risk" is a lot different than telling them their risk goes from .625% to .789% chance. You and I both know that.

Your point doesn't matter.

The increase in risk described in this article informs the personal decision of couples and pregnant women. It's not for you to say the risk is negligable.

[Dakine10 5,452]

MY POINT IS, is that it doesn't make much of a difference at all. This was a non-story and a study that at the end of the day didn't produce the results they were hoping for (as usual).

The study is significant in and of itself. If the rates you listed do not seem like much, then look the absolute numbers. It would be almost 6000 more stillbirths per year in the USA, from 26000 to 31990. That's unacceptable to most people.

If for some reason you still don't think that's significant, factor in the numerous other risks associated with second hand smoke and infants - low birth weight, increased risk of SIDS, cognitive impairment, asthma and respiratory problems. There is no reason children should be subjected to these risks, either before they are born or after. There is simply no way to rationalize it.

[Zero Sum 305]

lol, what's there to disagree on?

I'm using simple math/numbers relative to the situation.

Its like you're saying "gasp" how dare someone point out in relative terms that the conclusion is one that's truly small overall.

Sure, there's an 'increased' risk from the study group (though i'd still like to see their 'work' here), but i'm talking about sheer numbers. Not the science.

You may want to seek better definitions on what constitute statistical significance before failing yet again at statistical numerology.

Besides, the point of the matter is that you are claiming a level of significance based on what you think should be significant. That in itself invalidates your entire bias as one based on opinion and not fact.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The study is significant in and of itself. If the rates you listed do not seem like much, then look the absolute numbers. It would be almost 6000 more stillbirths per year in the USA, from 26000 to 31990. That's unacceptable to most people.

If for some reason you still don't think that's significant, factor in the numerous other risks associated with second hand smoke and infants - low birth weight, increased risk of SIDS, cognitive impairment, asthma and respiratory problems. There is no reason children should be subjected to these risks, either before they are born or after. There is simply no way to rationalize it.

and that's your opinion.

That's doesn't mean we need to legislate around it either as some Nazis like to try and do.

those numbers perhaps are unacceptable to most people. When you have a population as large as we have there again, it's a very very small number. There are also a lot bigger fish that are killing people each and every day as well.

To each his own situation, but numerically it's not significant.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You may want to seek better definitions on what constitute statistical significance before failing yet again at statistical numerology.

Besides, the point of the matter is that you are claiming a level of significance based on what you think should be significant. That in itself invalidates your entire bias as one based on opinion and not fact.

everything in your little head is invalidated when i post it. It's like a mental illness with you to troll around every post i make. Seriously, get a life.

[Krikit 1,163]

Please be civil or you will be banned from the thread. Thank you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and that's your opinion.

That's doesn't mean we need to legislate around it either as some Nazis like to try and do.

those numbers perhaps are unacceptable to most people. When you have a population as large as we have there again, it's a very very small number. There are also a lot bigger fish that are killing people each and every day as well.

To each his own situation, but numerically it's not significant.

Does the article mention legislation will be enacted on the basis of this research?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Does the article mention legislation will be enacted on the basis of this research?

i was saying that in reference to the language used by Dakine10 the post, not the article.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That post didn't mention legislation either

[Amby 490]

I give up