18% drop in child asthma admissions since Scottish smoking ban

Sep 20, 2010

The rate of hospitalisations for children with asthma in Scotland has dropped by more than 18 per cent year-on-year since the introduction of the ban on smoking in public places in 2006, according to scientists.

In a study led by Professor Jill Pell in the Centre for Population Health Studies at the University of Glasgow, researchers analysed data on for in Scotland from January 2000 through October 2009 among children younger than 15 years of age.

Before the came into force, admissions for asthma were increasing at a mean rate of 5.2 per cent a year. After the ban, admissions decreased by 18.2 per cent per year, relative to the rate on March 26, 2006.

The study, published in the latest edition of The , follows previous research by Prof Pell in 2007 that showed a reduction in respiratory problems among bar workers following the introduction of the ban on smoking, as well as a 17% year-on-year drop in hospital admissions for heart attacks.

Professor Pell said: “The aim of the study was to determine whether the smoking ban produced benefits for people who do not have occupational exposure to tobacco smoke.

“We found a reduction in asthma admissions among both preschool and school-age children.

“It is clear that smoke-free legislation has resulted in a reduction in the rate of respiratory disease in populations other than those with occupational exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

“Before implementation of the smoking ban, there was concern that it might result in the transfer of smoking activity to homes, leading paradoxically to an increase in exposure to environmental smoke among children.

“Other studies have shown that this is not the case, rather the smoking legislation has resulted in an increase in voluntary bans within homes.”

During the study period there were 21,415 admissions for asthma - 11,796 in preschool children and 9619 in school-age children.

There were no significant differences in the impact of the ban according to factors such as age, sex, urban or rural residence, region or socioeconomic status.

Explore further: Providing futile care in the ICU prevents other patients from receiving critical care

Provided by University of Glasgow

3 /5 (2 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Arizona's smoking ban reduced hospital visits, study finds

May 20, 2010

Two University of Arizona researchers have studied the relationship between Arizona's 2007 law that bans smoking in public places and hospitalization rates for a range of ailments related to secondhand smoke exposure.

Bar workers who smoke also benefit from smoking ban

Feb 10, 2009

The health of bar workers, who actively smoke cigarettes, significantly improves after the introduction of a smoking ban, reveals research published ahead of print in Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Children unaffected by smoking ban consequences

Nov 24, 2009

The smoking ban in Wales has not displaced secondhand smoke from public places into the home. A study of 3500 children from 75 primary schools in Wales, published in the open access journal BMC Public Health, found that t ...

Recommended for you

Mums trust mums on the net, according to study

2 hours ago

Facebook groups for mothers are overtaking the traditional mums-and-bubs and playgroup environments as a source of trusted advice, and offers a largely untapped marketing tool for businesses wanting to sell ...

Social networks key to improving health in New Zealand

2 hours ago

Turning conventional thinking about health and healthcare on its head by championing social networks is vital if New Zealanders want to improve their health outcomes, and ultimately save the nation money, says a leading public ...

User comments : 15

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Harleyrider_Davidson
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2010
In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: .
http://www.jimmun.../11/7655
Harleyrider_Davidson
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2010
2000: 2391/366 = 6.53 per day

2001: 2142/365 = 5.87 per day

2002: 2034/365 = 5.57 per day

2003: 1803/365 = 4.94 per day

2004: 2621/366 = 7.16 per day

2005: 2103/365 = 5.76 per day

2006: 2633/365 = 7.21 per day

2007: 2056/365 = 5.63 per day

2008: 2235/366 = 6.11 per day

2009: 1397/304 = 4.59 per day

Javinator
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2010
Nicotine is not the concern. There's a lot more in cigarettes than just nicotine, nicotine is just what people are addicted to in the cigarette. Your study only refers to nicotine.

Also, it says nothing in the abstract about "unequivocal evidence" and does not "conclude that ... active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma". Stop being so dramatic.

Think of it like red wine. Red wine can be good for you because it has antioxidants which help to prevent cancers. That being said it is an alcoholic beverage. If you slam bottles of red wine back every day then your liver will soon fail.

(Please realize that the above is just an example/comparison and I'm not suggesting that a cigarette a day is good for you)
Harleyrider_Davidson
Sep 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Harleyrider_Davidson
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2010
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
Harleyrider_Davidson
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2010
The Myth of Second Hand Smoke (ETS)

http://www.sexcig...oke-ets/

BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax

http://www.examin...ird-h...

The thirdhand smoke scam

http://velvetglov...cam.html
Kate_Vapersnet
Sep 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2010
HD,

You're nelecting the 50% of cigarette smoke that is composed of ash, which is what produces the actual asthmatic symptoms. Nicotine is not at play otherwise chewing tobacco would cause asthma attacks.

Just an FYI: stimulants expand your bronchial tubes, irritation from ash is what closes them.
Javinator
5 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2010
What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......


No one ever said a single cigarette would kill anyone. The problem has always been chronic exposure. Nanograms, picograms, and femtograms of toxic substances that our body doesn't process easily build up in the lungs over a lifetime.
Harleyrider_Davidson
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2010
No they dont,ya piss them away everyday......there is no build up.....Where do you come up with this stuff.......and ash is the leftover from burning its a solid.....duh
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
No they dont,ya piss them away everyday......there is no build up


Tar builds up in your lungs. You don't piss it out. That's just a fact.

Where do you come up with this stuff.......


Are you kidding me? What is this the 60s? It's pretty well known that smoking is bad for you. Suggesting otherwise means you either work for a cigarette company or your addiction has severely brainwashed you.

and ash is the leftover from burning its a solid.....duh


Fun fact: Building up solids in your lungs is generally bad for your health.
Harleyrider_Davidson
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
Obviously only specific work places where smoking occurs all the time (restaurants/bars) are a concern! Second hand smoke fresh from the cigarette before it's diluted throughout the room is the concern. Quoting PEL estimates from a lawyer that worked for OSHA in 1997 is a crap argument. There's nothing in 29 CFR 1910.1000 dealing specifically with cigarettes. It's estimates.

I was doing some searching and suprise suprise I found you posting on other blog sites making the same "second-hand smoke is ok arguments." The number of sites you've made this same argument on under "harleyrider1978" is staggering (hundreds of sites). In fact, searching the name harleyrider1978 in google ONLY brings up comments with respect to smoking. I'm supposed to believe you have no opinions on anything else?

I'm definitely convinced you work for a tobacco company which makes this debate pretty pointless since you're obviously being paid to argue these points on forums.

I'm out.
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
I also liked your friend Kate Vapersnet who came in and made a single post (which was removed), upvoted you and downvoted me.

Quick google searches link her to a bunch of smoking stuff too (mainly on social networking sites).

Absolutely brutal.
Harleyrider_Davidson
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS INDEED A JOKE!
Harleyrider_Davidson
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2010
BTW I got a personal war against tobacco control and I dont get nothing from any tobacco company.

Nobody fights the bans more than me!nobody....
Skultch
not rated yet Sep 22, 2010
BTW I got a personal war against tobacco control and I dont get nothing from any tobacco company.

Nobody fights the bans more than me!nobody....


You're fighting a losing battle and it's kind of sad. Why would you spend so much time all over the net if you aren't being paid? Are you so insecure that you have to get people to agree with you to justify your habit to yourself? You must be the poster child for the hopelessly biased. Why don't you just keep killing yourself and keep the rest of the world out of it?