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.
The 60's and 70's, even the late 70's were different. Even if women had heard about the dangers of smoking/drinking while pregnant, it took time for the information to sink in.
In this day and age, all of that is pretty much common knowledge now. I would say that the vast majority of women do quit drinking/smoking while pregnant, or at least they cut back.
In fact, I have never seen a pregnant woman chain smoke. And of the women that I know who drank alcohol while pregnant, they never drank more than a glass or two in a day.
Yes, absolutely agree . . . but my point was . . . these women have in years since learned all the really negative things that are associated with smoking and drinking during pregnancy . . . and they have grown children and their kids never had any of these problems, nor were they premature.
So it puzzles me where the stats come from that associate drinking and smoking and all these childhood illnesses and premature births. What I am wondering is - are these women simply glossing over (in their minds) what problems there may have been?
Someone has to have made up the statistics. I mean, researchers had to make a correlation somehow . . . ????
Yes, absolutely agree . . . but my point was . . . these women have in years since learned all the really negative things that are associated with smoking and drinking during pregnancy . . . and they have grown children and their kids never had any of these problems, nor were they premature.
So it puzzles me where the stats come from that associate drinking and smoking and all these childhood illnesses and premature births. What I am wondering is - are these women simply glossing over (in their minds) what problems there may have been?
Someone has to have made up the statistics. I mean, researchers had to make a correlation somehow . . . ????
That is what I was wondering about.
You are looking at the wrong group of kids.
Don't look at the healthy kids, look at the UNhealthy ones.
"The risk for SIDS is increased, in normal birth weight infants, about two-fold with passive smoke exposure and about three-fold when the mother smokes both during the pregnancy and the baby continues to be exposed to tobacco smoke after he/she is born."
So if you look at babies with low birth weight, which is associated with all sorts of problems, you find more of them had moms that smoked during pregnancy. If you look at infants who died from SIDS, you find more of them had moms who smoked during pregnancy and more babies who were exposed to second hand smoke after pregnancy.
There is no need to make things up. You just look at babies with problems and divide them into groups based on whether mom smoked or not and see how many are in each group.
"The risk for SIDS is increased, in normal birth weight infants, about two-fold with passive smoke exposure and about three-fold when the mother smokes both during the pregnancy and the baby continues to be exposed to tobacco smoke after he/she is born."
So if you look at babies with low birth weight, which is associated with all sorts of problems, you find more of them had moms that smoked during pregnancy. If you look at infants who died from SIDS, you find more of them had moms who smoked during pregnancy and more babies who were exposed to second hand smoke after pregnancy.
There is no need to make things up. You just look at babies with problems and divide them into groups based on whether mom smoked or not and see how many are in each group.
The same with alcohol.
I guess I shouldn't have posted here, cause it seems what I have written is not being understood, lol.
I am fully aware of the stats. I am a writer and have written quite a few articles for healthcare publications and physician practices - on everything from fetal alcohol syndrome to smoking and low birth weights, the benefits of breastfeeding, etc.
What I am saying is . . . women with grown children - adult children - who were in the cohort of women who did the MOST SMOKING, i.e., women who were pregnant in the 60s and early 70s . . . these women look back and say that despite their smoking (and occasionally drinking - having wine for dinner and a cocktail or two a week) . . . despite that behavior . . . their kids 1. were not premature . . . 2. did not have low birth weight . . . 3. did not have exceptional respiratory problems or asthma.
Since there kids are now in their 30s and 40s . . . and having children of their own. . . we can see how their health has been throughout childhood and indeed, into adulthood.
Random probability would mean that out of 50 or so women, at last a percentage of them would have had babies that were affected by smoking. Yet, they all say they DID NOT have babies who were affected by smoking.
That is all I am saying. I have wondered for years whether the women are in denial. I am fully aware of the statistics and all the risk factors that we are told exist for mothers who smoke. I just find it odd that one of the best groups you could hope to study are women who had children during the time when smoking - and secondhand smoke - were common . . . yet none of them believe the smoking affected their children.
I should not have even brought it up, lol. I just wondered how many others here have experienced this - friends who smoked but swear it didn't harm their kids. I am talking about people I KNOW - not statistics and case studies. I am wondering about others who KNOW people who smoked - and who are convinced their smoking didn't affect their children, in utero and while growing up, as well.
The OP asked if anyone knew folks who smoked during pregnancy and this brought to mind how often I have wondered about all those moms who swear their smoking did NOT harm their children. It seems so unlikely that it caused no harm.
I guess I shouldn't have posted here, cause it seems what I have written is not being understood, lol.
I am fully aware of the stats. I am a writer and have written quite a few articles for healthcare publications and physician practices - on everything from fetal alcohol syndrome to smoking and low birth weights, the benefits of breastfeeding, etc.
What I am saying is . . . women with grown children - adult children - who were in the cohort of women who did the MOST SMOKING, i.e., women who were pregnant in the 60s and early 70s . . . these women look back and say that despite their smoking (and occasionally drinking - having wine for dinner and a cocktail or two a week) . . . despite that behavior . . . their kids 1. were not premature . . . 2. did not have low birth weight . . . 3. did not have exceptional respiratory problems or asthma.
Since there kids are now in their 30s and 40s . . . and having children of their own. . . we can see how their health has been throughout childhood and indeed, into adulthood.
Random probability would mean that out of 50 or so women, at last a percentage of them would have had babies that were affected by smoking. Yet, they all say they DID NOT have babies who were affected by smoking.
That is all I am saying. I have wondered for years whether the women are in denial. I am fully aware of the statistics and all the risk factors that we are told exist for mothers who smoke. I just find it odd that one of the best groups you could hope to study are women who had children during the time when smoking - and secondhand smoke - were common . . . yet none of them believe the smoking affected their children.
I should not have even brought it up, lol. I just wondered how many others here have experienced this - friends who smoked but swear it didn't harm their kids. I am talking about people I KNOW - not statistics and case studies. I am wondering about others who KNOW people who smoked - and who are convinced their smoking didn't affect their children, in utero and while growing up, as well.
The OP asked if anyone knew folks who smoked during pregnancy and this brought to mind how often I have wondered about all those moms who swear their smoking did NOT harm their children. It seems so unlikely that it caused no harm.
And I could note that all of my sisters in law who smoked had at least one miscarriage.
Even if you think that a sample of 50 people sounds like a lot, it is statistically a small sample.
What the studies tell us is that if you look at a group of low birth weight infants, the odds of finding moms that smoke is higher.
And just because an infant was not technically low birth weight does not mean that there was no effect of smoking on the size of the baby. A baby that weighed 7 pounds at birth is not low birth weight, but if the mom had not smoked during the pregnancy, the baby might have weighed more.
The lowered birth weight tells us that smoking has an adverse effect on the placenta, and one of the things it does is decrease the amount of oxygen available for the baby.
So even if you know people who smoked and apparently had normal babies, it does not mean that smoking does not have adverse effects during pregnancy.
And I could note that all of my sisters in law who smoked had at least one miscarriage.
Even if you think that a sample of 50 people sounds like a lot, it is statistically a small sample.
What the studies tell us is that if you look at a group of low birth weight infants, the odds of finding moms that smoke is higher.
And just because an infant was not technically low birth weight does not mean that there was no effect of smoking on the size of the baby. A baby that weighed 7 pounds at birth is not low birth weight, but if the mom had not smoked during the pregnancy, the baby might have weighed more.
The lowered birth weight tells us that smoking has an adverse effect on the placenta, and one of the things it does is decrease the amount of oxygen available for the baby.
So even if you know people who smoked and apparently had normal babies, it does not mean that smoking does not have adverse effects during pregnancy.
BRILLIANT analysis! So hard to prove, but easy to predict, is that the baby (and the mature individual) will be so much MORE, if the mother does not smoke.
And I could note that all of my sisters in law who smoked had at least one miscarriage.
Even if you think that a sample of 50 people sounds like a lot, it is statistically a small sample.
What the studies tell us is that if you look at a group of low birth weight infants, the odds of finding moms that smoke is higher.
And just because an infant was not technically low birth weight does not mean that there was no effect of smoking on the size of the baby. A baby that weighed 7 pounds at birth is not low birth weight, but if the mom had not smoked during the pregnancy, the baby might have weighed more.
The lowered birth weight tells us that smoking has an adverse effect on the placenta, and one of the things it does is decrease the amount of oxygen available for the baby.
So even if you know people who smoked and apparently had normal babies, it does not mean that smoking does not have adverse effects during pregnancy.
I agree with you. And I am not trying to imply that smoking does not have adverse affects. I am just wondering if all those moms are simply in denial cause they don't want to believe their smoking DID cause some sort of developmental problem.
I agree with you. And I am not trying to imply that smoking does not have adverse affects. I am just wondering if all those moms are simply in denial cause they don't want to believe their smoking DID cause some sort of developmental problem.
I think that women who lucked out and had healthy babies in spite of their prenatal smoking tend to talk more about their experiences than the women who smoked while pregnant and were not so lucky.
I think that women who lucked out and had healthy babies in spite of their prenatal smoking tend to talk more about their experiences than the women who smoked while pregnant and were not so lucky.
That makes total sense to me! Folks just simply have not said anything to me to reveal they DID smoke if their children have developmental problems.
This has actually been quite a big discussion with women my age and older, cause so many of my friends have autistic grandchildren. And we are all puzzled, wondering what the factor would be that would cause such a spike in autism in just one generation. That is how the recent discussions got started - often w/ g/mothers saying they wonder what could be causing all these cases of autism (and then things drift to comparing environment, food, risk factors such as smoking, drugs, alcohol while we were preggers).
That makes total sense to me! Folks just simply have not said anything to me to reveal they DID smoke if their children have developmental problems.
This has actually been quite a big discussion with women my age and older, cause so many of my friends have autistic grandchildren. And we are all puzzled, wondering what the factor would be that would cause such a spike in autism in just one generation. That is how the recent discussions got started - often w/ g/mothers saying they wonder what could be causing all these cases of autism (and then things drift to comparing environment, food, risk factors such as smoking, drugs, alcohol while we were preggers).
The incidence of prenatal smoking/drinking has gone down, while the number of children afflicted with autism has gone up. Doesn't seem very fair.
I suppose there could be a connection between prenatal smoking in a grandmother and autism in her grandchildren. Although that, alone, as a cause of autism seems kind of unlikely to me.
OB/GYNs usually know if their patients are on prescription meds, so you would think that if there was a connection between prescription meds and autism it would already be noted.
So environment wise what's left? Food? Water? Air? Changes in diagnostic criteria? Home/school/child care situations? Maternal, paternal age? Complications at birth?
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.
