Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is one of the few things that can actually be conclusively tied to secondhand smoke.
Conjunctivitis is usually caused by a virus or bacteria, but can also be caused by stuff like chlorine, dust, or smoke of any kind.
That is interesting, I was not aware of that fact. I guess it seems reasonable considering most smoke particles. Hmmm...
Though like I mentioned, do the tests that attempt confirm this take into account possible other factors such as rubbing ones eyes? Not that doctors are sources of definitives, but I once got pink eye coming back from Reno Nevada and the doctor said that it was most likely my unclean hands combined with an environment that irritated eyes (smoke filled rooms) which caused me to contaminate my eyes with the bacteria from my hands.
To be honest and fair in the response she stated, I would say the cause was due to unclean hands combined with rubbing her eyes due to the irritation caused by the smoke. The question is, will she agree to that as a likely possibility?
Believe it or not, I actually know better than to touch my eye with unclean hands. I even keep antibacterial wipes in my car in case I need to eat or touch up makeup on the go.
The first thing I did when I felt a slight irritation in that eye was put in eyedrops to try to flush whatever it was out. Instead of helping, it burned.
Though I agree that rubbing can indeed cause a bigger problem.
I got to have my dd in a beautiful, brand new, state of the art hospital because I pointed out in my smoking cessation class that if a child were to weigh 1 oz less for every cigarette smoked during pregnancy (according to the doctor's propaganda), than since my neice weighed 9 lbs, 6 oz at birth, it was a GOOD thing my sis smoked 1/2 a pack a day. (The doc recommended me FIRST when the opening came up... it was AMAZING... especially considering the number of infant deaths & doc caused natal injuries at JAX that year).
Now, I know smoking stinks (moreso now that I quit than ever), and I know it's not GOOD for you, but all this PROPAGANDA just infuriates me!
I think you either misunderstood the doctor or the doctor misspoke (it happens to all of us at times). I did a little search and the only thing I could find about how much smoking lowers an infant's weight is this, which I realize is not a scientific source:
You did say that, and I was impressed. But then you negated it by saying I must just have a weak immune system.
Not even close. I've smoked for a lot of years, and known smokers my entire life, and not until today had I heard of this. The only conclusion I can draw from your admitting that you came home sick the last two times you visited your relatives is that your immune system isn't what it should be.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I negated nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mearth
Uh, I think we on this thread just agreed that it is.
So wait - you're suggesting that the bans and all the anti-smoking discussion on this forum and everywhere else are about pinkeye???
Sorry, but that's not passing the smell (or common sense) test.
Can smoke aggravate existing conditions? Sure! I never argued to the contrary. You know as well as I do that that's not what all the hoopla surrounding SHS is about, though.
We don't have to agree on anything, but at least be honest with your argument.
Not even close. I've smoked for a lot of years, and known smokers my entire life, and not until today had I heard of this.
The only conclusion I can draw from your admitting that you came home sick the last two times you visited your relatives is that your immune system isn't what it should be.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I negated nothing.
So, because YOU have never heard of this today, it must be questionable? Sorry, but being a smoker and knowing smokers your entire life doesn't give you more clout, it gives you less. All you've developed more of is plausible deniability by training yourself to avoid learning about the true health causes.
And your conclusion is wrong. The only difference between their place and mine is the smoke. In fact, the pollen count is worse where I live, and I live closer to the city (smog) here. If SHS did nothing, I would be sick MORE often here, not less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
So wait - you're suggesting that the bans and all the anti-smoking discussion on this forum and everywhere else are about pinkeye???
No, I am suggesting it os one of MANY ill health effects that most people don't think about. You already admitted to not knowing about it, so who is to say there aren't tons of OTHER SHS-associated illnesses you don't know about?
I may not have all the answers, but that doesn't mean YOU DO.
Can smoke aggravate existing conditions? Sure! I never argued to the contrary. You know as well as I do that that's not what all the hoopla surrounding SHS is about, though.
We don't have to agree on anything, but at least be honest with your argument.
But that is exactly what you have been saying, that second-hand smoke is not harmful! Maybe it's time for YOU to be honest!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
