Persuading families not to smoke at home: a how-to guide from the UK National Smoking Cessation Conference

From Laura Jones at the University of Nottingham comes this review of research on initiatives to discourage people from smoking in the home, presented in an audio clip and slide show.

The abstract page contains (as standard) a declaration of no interest, even though it was funded from the UK Centre for Tobacco Control, some of whose staff have clear interests in the nicotine replacement therapy market.

Personally I found the soundtrack quite difficult to listen to, especially when Dr Jones says that inadequate rules about where smoking is allowed in the household (that is, rules that don't amount to a complete ban) might as well not be in place at all. I find it difficult to accept that level of what is politely called 'intervention' where I live (in fact I need not worry on that score as I neither smoke nor have children).

I can see tobacco control experts being content with an absence of legislation in this area: all the more reason to undertake further research into the most effective ways to persuade people not to expose their children to 'second-hand' smoke. But at what point (to paraphrase the title of Chris Snowdon's blog) will the velvet glove become the iron fist?

And will the children whose health is of such concern today find themselves at the receiving end of an iron fist in the future?

Arizona lung conditions, secondary smoke exposure and guesswork

A study from the University of Arizona relates parental smoking with respiratory conditions carried over into adulthood.

Source

Using data from the 1970s to the 1990s the studies purport to show that parental smoking makes the crucial difference between getting ill and not getting ill. Or something like that. As if there were no other factors to be considered.

Local air quality information is here. It's a recognized issue, and note that the issue of smoking is not even mentioned in this local guidance. The critical thing is:

Sometimes the amount of ozone or particulate pollution can violate federal standards.

Sometimes. Pollutant levels vary, from day to day and from region to region. It is therefore impossible to draw conclusions about the impact of passive smoking exposure. You can establish that one or two parents smoke, but can you then factor in whether visiting friends and relatives smoke, for how many hours a day, how big the house is, or how well ventilated? What were they smoking? All these variables for a single 'pollutant'. Then we get to the outdoor pollutants. Where did the children live? How exposed were they to the pollutants and for how long? How bad was the pollution? No one can make accurate generalisations over such things.