Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th May 2008

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Stub out smoking for the sake of your family



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Kicking the habit can boost chances of conception, says Karen Bray.
COUPLES in Scotland who are planning to have a family can improve their chances of conceiving by giving up smoking. Smoking during pregnancy is the number one preventable cause of low birth weight babies. Women who smoke are more at risk of having an
ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage and smoking whilst pregnant can also lead to premature labour. There is also growing evidence that smoking whilst pregnant can affect the future fertility of baby boys.

However, it’s not just the women who need to give up. Men who smoke tend to have lower sperm counts and produce higher numbers of abnormal sperm than non-smokers. It is becoming more and more apparent that smoking is not only bad for your health but has an adverse effect on your chances of conceiving.

One in six couples now experience problems conceiving and face fertility treatment with no guarantee of success at the end. Recent studies have shown that even when couples do go for fertility treatment such as IVF, when either partner smokes the success of the treatment can be affected. The emotional impact of infertility is devastating and couples need to take any steps they can to improve their chances of conceiving, such as stopping smoking. It may be a difficult step to take but it will have such a profound effect on your health and the health of your baby.

Passive smoking also has a negative impact on the health of both unborn babies and children and can increase the risk of low birth weight and premature delivery. Babies of smokers are also at higher risk of cot death.

There are many support services available to help you give up before you try for your baby and after you become pregnant. Even apart from the health benefits of giving up smoking, there are financial benefits and the money you can save on cigarettes can be used to treat your family to something special.

Stopping smoking is probably the most important single thing that you can do for you and your baby’s health. Yesterday was No Smoking Day and we urge you to take the Great No Smoking Day Challenge in 2008 and take the first steps to helping you and your baby to a healthier and safer lifestyle.

At Infertility Network UK we offer support and advice to anyone from the day they think they may have a fertility problem, right through investigations, treatment and beyond. We have fact sheets on many topics including pre-conceptual care and we also provide help and support to those ending treatment or facing involuntary childlessness. At Infertility Network UK we aim to ease the feelings of isolation on both an emotional and practical level.

• If you would like more information or support visit www.infertilitynetworkuk.com or contact us on 01292 471 670.

• Karen Bray is Scottish regional organiser of Infertility Network UK




The full article contains 505 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 March 2008 8:16 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Big Eddie,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 11:35:32
I'm just waiting for the comments to start coming in from the pro-smoking zealots complaining that this article is just another example of how they're being persecuted and their precious human rights eroded.
2

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 13/03/2008 11:57:06
#1,Big Eddie,Edinburgh.
Big Eddie shouldn't have to wait too long. Petrol Man and Charles Linskaill are probably fuming away at their keyboards as we read.
3

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 12:45:46
#1:

No Eddie. I won't do that. This article isn't persecuting me or eroding my human rights.

It is rubbish, pure and simple. And I am never offended by rubbish. Neither am I offended by those who talk rubbish or re-itterate rubbish. I feel sorry for them. That's the long and short of it. I feel even more sorry for them when they appear not to have the brains to take account of logical reasoning and prefer to go along with said mindless rubbish.

I get offended when people try to impose rubbish on me and by so doing, affect, or attempt to affect my life.

This article hinges around the concept of "passive smoking". As anyone with any sense knows, passive smoking is a myth borne out of the desire of interfering "antis" to impose their fantasy world on normal people. As such, the entire content of this article is a myth and it should be ignored. However, I know of some small minded people who will unfortunately take this seriously. Perhaps they are just having a laugh? Well Har! Har! Har! Really funny.
4

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 13/03/2008 13:06:44
Look at whats in a fag!...formaldehyde amongst many other poisenous and cancer inducing chemicals....when people smoke around me I cough...it irritates my lungs and makes me cough for bleeding ages...but maybe thats because I am an ex smoker and the damage is done....

Ban it in all public places....including the street and bus shelters etc.....
5

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 13/03/2008 13:16:10
#3, Petrol Man.
Knew it wouldn't be too long till he surfaced! Notice how he has a persistent tendency to decry any theory, treatise or opinion that suggests smoking has the slightest detrimental effect. He also used the term "rubbish" six times to deride the article. Does his imagination stretch to no synonyms, viz. garbage, claptrap, nonsense, codswallop, piffle, bunkum, junk, offal? That enough for starters?
6

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 13:41:22
Doreen,

What do you enjoy? Tell me and I'll come up with some kind of reason why you shouldn't be doing it and then call for it to be banned. Bans are utterly daft and only serve to set people against each other.

Yes, there are poisons in tobacco smoke. There is a quantity of poison in almost any substance you care to name. The factor which decides whether it does you any harm is the dose, not the mere presence. In Victorian times it was fairly common practice to ingest such substances as strichnine, hydrocloric acid, bromine etc etc. In small doses these could actually be beneficial, but an overdose could prove fatal.

It's the same with smoking. Smoke to excess and you risk health problems. Provided you don't do it to excess, it probably won't do you much harm. With airborne tobacco smoke, the dosage of poison is so low as to be insignificant. It will cause no lasting harm.

The only real argument against smoking, as far as non-smokers go, is the smell. Some of them may not like it. However, in my experience, the majority (if it was up to a majority decision, which it should not be) don't mind it, and many actually like it---especially cigars and pipes.

One of the things that the labour party have done is to remove tolerance and set people against each other. Remove the ban, stop the propaganda and gradually people will come to accept freedom of choice as a concept once again. Well... Those with any brains will.
7

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 13/03/2008 14:42:02
6...It aint the smell bothers me...its the fact that the smoke in the atmosphere makes me cough...irritates my lungs..

Sorry its a drug...dont want people doing it in my face, smoking hash shooting up or drinking in my face...unless I choose to be in a space where its happening..ie a private social gathering....

I know that smokers will feel annoyed at my comment....but I was beginning to feel like a leper before I gave up...and quite rightly so...its damaging man....it kills...it should not be socially acceptable...I know people who smoke in the same room as their asthmatic kids...smokers with asthma and bronchitis...COPD...gasping for air as they light up....their choice and let them continue to do so....but not in my face.....
8

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 15:33:16
Whilst I can appreciate the fact that you may not like tobacco smoke, I really cannot see that as justification to stop people from enjoying smoking. There are a whole load of things I don't like and some of them really annoy me, but I put up with them in the interests of the common good.

Presumably, if smoking was confined to separate areas of pubs and there was no leakage of smoke (as they have in Canada) then you would be happy to remain in the non-smoking area and would have no problem with others going into the smoking area to smoke. Also, if the pub in question was too small to have segregated areas but was clearly marked as to whether smoking was allowed or not, I cannot see that you would have a problem with some people going into a smokers' pub whilst you went to another pub the other side of the street.

If you think I am wrong then please explain why you think so. Why does it have to be a blanket ban? Why can it not be driven by market forces in the same way that non-smoking cinemas etc came about? My main objection to this ban is that it was imposed on us, even though market forces clearly indicated that allowing smoking in pubs was desireable.

Even though you do not now smoke, can you really justify forcing others not to? There is nothing wrong with advising them if you so desire, but it is simply not acceptable to impose these kinds of views on people.
9

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 15:35:45
Just for sake of interest, would you be happy to sit in an old-fashioned pub in winter around the log fire?
10

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 13/03/2008 17:02:15
Smokers pubs....staffed by smokers, they sign a contract that they will not sue once any lung conditions kick in....however pubs where non smokers work...then they should have no contact with cigarette smoke..If the pubs too wee for separate areas then sorry...its a no go...not that many bothys these days due to most pubs modernising...and they tended to be hogged by smokers anyway....

Hash smokers want to light up in public but they cannot...boozers want to get p!ssed in the street but its against the law...I am absolutely for the banning of smoking in public...unless that area is a specified public place where non smokers will not inhale cigarette smoke...

I have a log fire at home and I am given a good smoking on a regular basis....need to get someone in to look at it...again, I am coughing like a 40 a day smoker....but got to heat the place up....

I love old fashioned pubs but not at the expense of my lungs...

They did'nt have to ban all pubs from smoking...could have been a gap in the market there...
11

Methalions,

13/03/2008 17:55:20
This has been done to death. Passive smoking is a myth. If you say you don't like the stink of tobacco on your clothes then fine. Just don't say you believe in this nonsense. A roaring log fire .....carcinogens. BBQs...carcinogens. Smoked meat, fish etc ...carcinogens. Will we ban them? of course not.

Apropos carcinogens. Female deodorants have carcinogens. The instances of ovarian cancer in women who have had their tubes tied is negligible. Look it up.

While you're at it, check carcinogens in talcum powder.
Should we stop powdering our kids with talc? Of course not.

Now if you don't like or approve of smoking then fine. It's disgusting. It stinks..but you won't get cancer from passive smoking. If you have an allergy or are asthmatic, then it's inconsiderate to smoke around you. I am a smoker and wouldn't dream of it.

In short...yet I agree with Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head.
12

Methalions,

13/03/2008 17:56:12
....pauses to light up a cigarette in my own home.
13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 13/03/2008 21:56:02
Couldn't comment the Scotsman still don't have the mobile phone link working, like it used to, but I can see it was a good banter!
"Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head" always is realistic! he saves me work on here! :-)
14

mandyv,

banitland 14/03/2008 00:17:16
Doreen #7 Shall we ban these too? this is without listing another 50,000 other things, like diesal, ect.
http://www.ourlittleplace.com/chemicals.html
3. BENZYL ACETATE (in: perfume, cologne, shampoo, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, soap, hairspray, bleach, after shave, deodorants)
Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer); "From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough." "In mice: hyperanemia of the lungs." "Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects." "Do not flush to sewer."
http://www.mamashealth.com/doc/cleanprod.asp
FURNITURE POLISH: contain petroleum distillates, which are highly flammable and can cause skin and lung cancer. They contain nitrobenzene, which is easily absorbed through the skin and extremely toxic.
http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html
Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer.
http://www.deliciousorganics.com/Controversies/roomdeodorizers.htm

The ingredients are troubling and may include things like formaldehyde, artificial fragrance, benzyl alcohol, camphor, ethanol, and naphthalene, among others. Aside from causing asthma and allergies, many of these chemicals are known carcinogens that lead to cancer and birth defects. Many attack the central nervous system which can lead to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, or SIDs in infants. Sound clean to you?
Air fresheners and room deodorizers actually create pollution. When used in a confined area, like our homes, places of work, or cars, they create an intense amount of toxins in a small area. Children are parti
15

Tim85,

14/03/2008 00:38:38
Doreen 7 - you support the banning of smoking in the open air? The evidence for passive smoking harming people indoors is specious enough, but OUTDOORS? All because you don't like the smell?

I don't much like the smell of diesel, and I'd wager it does markedly more damage to your lungs, and mine, in the open air, than passive smoking. I suppose I should be calling for a total ban.

Some hash smokers do smoke in public. They only have to be careful about it because it's illegal full stop.

Alcohol street bans are enacted for reasons of public order, i.e., a demonstrable harm would be caused by not having them. The same cannot be said of tobacco smoke in outdoor locations. You seem to be motivated solely by an inclination to socially engineer something you don't like, have stopped doing, and now, conveniently, abhor, out of existence.
16

helend498,

Wigan 14/03/2008 00:46:59
Until the anti-smoking zealots got their way, the percentage of adults smoking in this country was far greater than it is now. I don't see everyone keeling over as a result (as they have brainwashed us into thinking), in fact I see life expectancy increasing since the baby boom during the years of high smoking! Funny old world, but I'm sure the anti-smokers will come up with another 24-hour 'scientific study' to prove the reason for this.
Their latest lie was the worst - you can catch an asthma attack from smelling stale smoke on clothes - Come On! Who are you lot trying to kid? Your over-zealousness will be your downfall, and we're waiting and watching to see it happen
17

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 14/03/2008 01:11:19
Make Peace now you lot!
Do what the Indians did!

Smoke the...'Peace-Pipe'..:-DD
18

NoBanJan,

Manchester 14/03/2008 09:25:44
I am sick & tired of these health police blaming all the worlds ills on smoking, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with their latest claims which would be laughable if it didn't cause even more persecution of smokers. If cigarettes contained the level of toxins they claim, then surely 1 cigarette would be enough to kill us! Give premises the freedom to choose to allow smoking if they want to, you antis out there would still have enough places to go to where you are able to avoid our "noxious fumes"
19

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 14/03/2008 11:15:00
If, in the 1970s, you had said to people that in 30-odd years time we would have a worldwide computer network that was fast and cheap to access, they may have been able to picture it.

If you had also said that most homes would have a computer capable of performing hundreds of millions of calculations per second and displaying the result on a high resolution screen, they might have had a bit of difficulty getting to grips with the concept.

If you had told them that on this huge network there would be millions of powerful computers called "web servers" which would store data and "serve" that data on "web pages" out onto the network for anyone to look at they may have thought that you were dreaming a bit.

If you had then gone on to say that these "web pages" would be used to argue over a smoking ban IN PUBS then they would have considered you to be totally away with the fairies, would have called the cops who would have given you a good kicking, followed by a trip to the funny farm.
20

Bill Crombie,

UK 14/03/2008 12:11:54
Yet another article/ propaganda on the smoking issue, no doubt timed to coincide with No Smoking Day. I must admit I forgot all about this momentus day in the calendar - even though it had been advertised repeatedly by "New Mills Dave". Never mind, there is always another year.

Strange, my father "fathered" eight children and he was a lifetime smoker and I have had no problems producing any. No doubt, we will be called exceptions to the rules, as laid down by this Gordie McBean administration.
21

timbone,

Research lab 14/03/2008 12:53:21
Research has also shown that there is an increase in children being born with web feet if their parents smoke, it has also been discovered that some children born with this problem had grandparents who smoked, suggesting that smokers can pass on faulty genes which affect future generations.
22

TheTerminator,

14/03/2008 12:56:14
Another Government inspired fairy story in their bid to sell more NRT drugs ( the ones that carry a suicide warning ).
23

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 14/03/2008 20:39:55
#19, Petrol Man.
Some of us are managing to keep abreast with advances in technology and changing mores and attitudes.
Might Petrol Man one day be capable of keeping up with the flow?
24

DaveA,

Forfarshire 15/03/2008 01:11:25
For the record 2% of petrol is benzine and a constiuent of tobacco. If you were in a room 9 feet by 9 feet 6 feet, you would need to be exposed to 14,700 smokers.
25

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 15/03/2008 11:47:14
#20,Bill Crombie,UK.
I had perhaps simply followed the example of a contributor last year, who, over a period, kept publicising so-called National Smoking Day, and of another who reminded us of some pugilistic event involving one Ricky Hatton. Both events perhaps failed to meet the hopes and expectations of their supporters, and at least National No Smoking Day has a certain regularity in the calendar.
If Bill regrets having missed the day, he can console himself with the fact that he is free to observe it any day of the year, keeping 31st December free, of course.
National No Smoking Decade.
For more tips on giving up smoking, visit www.gosmokefree.nhs.uk or www.quit.org.uk.
26

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 15/03/2008 12:00:14
#24,DaveA,Forfarshire.
Is there any correlation between the two sets of disparate data? Anyway, I'd prefer not to be, as the stage might seem a trifle obscured, assuming they were all in the act of smoking.
27

timbone,

15/03/2008 22:09:38
The 'Smoking Ban Experiment' has unleashed a roller coaster for those with an evangelical anti smoking agenda. Those commited anti smoking evangelists are jumping onto this roller coaster and attaching tobacco smoke to every kind of illness or incapacity they can. Even ridiculous statements like #21, which I made up while having a cigarette and a cup of coffee, go unchallenged. ASH, WHO, the NHS smoking cessation programme, countless medical charities, MPs and councillors and individulas like some of those who write on here, have all aquired a condition called OCD - Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: They are Obsessed by their anti smoking propaganda, they are Compelled to find anything they can to justify this obsession, and in the process are creating Disorder in the lives of the majority of people, smokers and non smokers, who just want to get on and enjoy their lives, which, let's face it, are not that long in the eternal scheme of things and hey, anti smoker, you are not immortal and your obsessive tub thumping is not going to make me immortal either. Kind regards to all the antis, I am going for a fag now. x
28

DancingTigerBait,

Florida/North Carolina USA 15/03/2008 23:16:24
Has anybody heard of the "Baby Boomers"? A huge, record-blowing boom in the population after WWII. Yet, that's when smoking prevalence was at its highest. Now health officials are saying that smoking will REDUCE the chances of bearing young? Kinda makes ya wonder what the health officials have been smoking, ROFL!
29

DaveA,

Forfarshire 16/03/2008 00:01:15
For the record 2% of petrol is benzine and a constiuent of tobacco. If you were in a room 9 feet by 9 feet 6 feet, you would need to be exposed to 14,700 smokers....

To make it dangerous I meant to say.
30

Greg Burrows,

Dewsbury 16/03/2008 03:02:28
The smoking ban is the same political education, like the road advert where a little girl says if you hit me at 40MPH I have an 80% chance of dying, If the little girl had been educated to find a safe place to cross and look right and left she would have a far higher degree of not being knocked down.
Daft beyond belief, is everyone so stupid now that they have forgotten common sense, cancer rates have increased since the reduction in smoking of the populace, does anyone really think the government want people to live longer to be a burden on society.
Get real
31

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 16/03/2008 09:42:59
#29, DaveA,Forfarshire.
Dave still hasn't explained the correlation.
Asphyxiation might be the immediate danger.
32

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 16/03/2008 09:49:38
#30, Greg Burrows,Dewsbury.
I think the road advert is aimed at adult drivers, rather than at little girls and boys, who don't always follow their Green Cross Code.
Perhaps the government's solution would be to hand out cigarettes as free issue, and hasten the end of the populace. Or there's always the "Soylent Green" option.
Yummy, yummy!
33

mandyv,

cambs 16/03/2008 17:55:19
How many babies could have been saved had parents NOT have listened to the so called experts?
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/34/4/874
Conclusions Advice to put infants to sleep on the front for nearly a half century was contrary to evidence available from 1970 that this was likely to be harmful. Systematic review of preventable risk factors for SIDS from 1970 would have led to earlier recognition of the risks of sleeping on the front and might have prevented over 10 000 infant deaths in the UK and at least 50 000 in Europe, the USA, and Australasia.
We have the oldest living generation ever, who have survived through smoking parents and the biggest so called "passive smoking" eras ever.
Now that is FACT!! We are all safer NOT listening to so called propaganda experts, and look at the older generation for what we can or cannot believe in.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.