Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Render

Second-Hand Smoking Damages Memory

21 posts in this topic

ScienceDaily (Sep. 11, 2012) — Non-smokers who live with or spend time with smokers are damaging their memory, according to new research from Northumbria University.

The findings, published in the latest online edition of the journal Addiction is the first study to explore the relationship between exposure to other people's smoke and everyday memory problems.

Dr Tom Heffernan and Dr Terence O'Neil, both researchers at the Collaboration for Drug and Alcohol Research Group at Northumbria University, compared a group of current smokers with two groups of non-smokers -- those who were regularly exposed to second-hand smoke and those who were not.

Those exposed to second-hand smoke either lived with smokers or spent time with smokers, for example in a designated "smoking area," and reported being exposed to second-hand smoke for an average of 25 hours a week for an average of four and a half years.

The three groups were tested on time-based memory (remembering to carry out an activity after some time) and event-based memory (which refers to memory for future intentions and activities).

Researchers found that the non-smokers who had been exposed to second-hand smoke forgot almost 20% more in the memory tests than those non-smokers not exposed. However, both groups out-performed the current smokers who forgot 30% more than those who were not exposed to second-hand smoking.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911091340.htm

So maybe ppl can think again when they claim other ppl shouldn't be bothered when they smoke because it only affects their body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that this isn't true but how do they know the person didn't have the memory problem to begin with.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scienceda...20911091340.htm

So maybe ppl can think again when they claim other ppl shouldn't be bothered when they smoke because it only affects their body.

Or maybe non smokers can still stop complaining, nowsdays smoking is outside, and if you are a non smoker hanging around a smoker, dont blame the smoker. you have a choice, its not like smokers come up to people and hang around them to pass off their second hand smoke.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do ya forget the one in your first hand? . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's true, then smokers should be continuously forgetting where they put their keys, wallet, glasses etc.

Such is not the case, so I respectfully call "BS".

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man kind has been smoking how long and if this was the case when the majority smoked society would have been fubard. I call this BS anti smoking propaganda.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.scienceda...20911091340.htm

So maybe ppl can think again when they claim other ppl shouldn't be bothered when they smoke because it only affects their body.

This doesn't make a lot of sense because other studies have shown that smoking a cigarette can improve memory, like if you smoke right before a test. I do not see why when exhaled it would have the opposite effect. I would like to see some more study into this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How large was the study group?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How large was the study group?

Probably a very select group that belong to hitler like anti smoking groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article doesn't say anything about what was done to control for bias or confounding, so it would be premature to make any sort of conclusions based on the information provided. There's not much doubt that second-hand smoke is harmful, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How large was the study group?

http://onlinelibrary...4056.x/abstract

Another case of bad mainstream science journalism. They didn't give the reader enough information and warped the authors' "may suffer impairment" into a title making a defnitive statement.

Edited by Cybele
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Msg and aspertame plus soda and potatoe chips can create the same results. I bet most monsanto gm foods do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say it's the nicotine that actually improves memory when you smoke. I dunno about that either. I couldn't find my keys when I was a smoker, I quit 7 months ago, with a nicotine replacement therapy, and I still can't find my keys. :blush: LOL

I've never quite figured out what it was about 2nd hand smoke that was so different from first hand.

I'm guessing here: exhaled smoke should have been somewhat filtered after it's been pillaged by the cilia in the smokers lungs. These are the fibers that trap the tar, many particles, and other nastiness that goes along with smoking.

Or do they consider second hand smoke to be the smoke emitting directly from the burning cigarette (which would then make it first hand smoke?)

It's just something I've always wondered about. LOL.

Oh and I'm pretty proud that I've been smoke free for 7 months. Thanks to a good quality ecig. The anti-smoking freaks have been trying to get those banned too though... but I can tell ya, my lung capacity came back, I can actually freaking run now, I don't stink anymore, my teeth are slowly getting better, and my skin has really really improved! Lovin them.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://onlinelibrary...4056.x/abstract

Another case of bad mainstream science journalism. They didn't give the reader enough information and warped the authors' "may suffer impairment" into a title making a defnitive statement.

There you go. Thanks Cybele. 73 people were studied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for all the ppl doubting the study:

Aims

Prospective memory (PM: remembering future intentions and activities) is critical to everyday remembering. This study compared a group of never-smokers who reported regular exposure to second-hand smoke (the SHS group) with a group of current smokers (the CS group) and a group of never-smokers who reported never having been exposed to SHS (the Non-SHS group) on objective PM.

Design

An existing groups design was employed to compare the SHS, CS and Non-SHS group.

Participants and setting

27 SHS, 27 CS and 29 Non-SHS were tested on objective PM. All participants were university undergraduates aged between 18 –30 years. All participants were tested individually in a laboratory setting.

Measurements

The Cambridge Prospective Memory Test (CAMPROMPT) was used to assess objective PM. Age, other drug use, mood and IQ were also measured as covariates in the study.

Findings

The Non-SHS group recalled significantly more time-based PM tasks than the SHS group (Means = 16.3 versus13.7, p <.001) and significantly more than the CS group (CS Mean = 11.6, p <.001); and the SHS group recalled significantly more time-based tasks than the CS group (p <.002). The Non-SHS group recalled significantly more event-based PM tasks than the CS group (Means = 15.2 versus 11.3, p <.002) with no significant difference between the Non-SHS group and SHS group (SHS Mean = 14.3, p =.234); and the SHS group recalled significantly more event-based tasks than the CS group (p <.001).

Conclusion

Non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke may suffer impairment in time-based prospective memory

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.04056.x/abstract;jsessionid=BDFA178192F8A000C9BE1A5FDD6EDF16.d03t04

This was a normal amount of ppl to study, the important factor is the statistical signifance. p <.001 and p <.002. This is VERY statiscal significant.

That is what gives the study merit here. So saying it is poorly executed and the results aren't worth anything is BS.

I don't expect ppl to understand all the research terms, but just blatantly posting that the study is false without even understanding it is annoying to say the least.

And how emotional everybody gets when the effects of second hand smoke or even first hand are being researched, it's not like I posted something about torture ok. Relax and take in the information.

What about first hand smokers, does smoking cause memory loss? I'm a smoker myself but I think memory loss is the least of my health concerns. It's bad, I know.

So it also concluded that non (second hand) smokers recalled more time based PM tasks than smokers.

If ppl were to find more memory related studies, i'd like to see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, my man, I never doubted this researching procedure. I was actually wondering if first hand smoke causes memory loss as well as second hand smoke.

i was putting that research in the reply for all the other posters here that were questioning it

the part in my post below the me -quoting you part - is meant for you. More specific i will repeat what was towards you:

So it also concluded that non (second hand) smokers recalled more time based PM tasks than smokers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say it's the nicotine that actually improves memory when you smoke. I dunno about that either. I couldn't find my keys when I was a smoker, I quit 7 months ago, with a nicotine replacement therapy, and I still can't find my keys. :blush: LOL

I've never quite figured out what it was about 2nd hand smoke that was so different from first hand.

I'm guessing here: exhaled smoke should have been somewhat filtered after it's been pillaged by the cilia in the smokers lungs. These are the fibers that trap the tar, many particles, and other nastiness that goes along with smoking.

Or do they consider second hand smoke to be the smoke emitting directly from the burning cigarette (which would then make it first hand smoke?)

It's just something I've always wondered about. LOL.

Oh and I'm pretty proud that I've been smoke free for 7 months. Thanks to a good quality ecig. The anti-smoking freaks have been trying to get those banned too though... but I can tell ya, my lung capacity came back, I can actually freaking run now, I don't stink anymore, my teeth are slowly getting better, and my skin has really really improved! Lovin them.

I don't know you, but, I'm very proud of you for quitting the cigarettes. :)

Second hand smoke is from the exhale AND directly from the cigarette which is not filtered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe non smokers can still stop complaining, nowsdays smoking is outside, and if you are a non smoker hanging around a smoker, dont blame the smoker. you have a choice, its not like smokers come up to people and hang around them to pass off their second hand smoke.

That's a pretty general assumption... Lol since there are literally millions of smokers around the world, I don't think you can say that smokers don't intentionally blow smoke into a non smokers way. Maybe not all smokers are as Considerate as you are... Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am surrounded by smokers in my family and I dont smoke so .... err I forget where I was going with this. :unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a normal amount of ppl to study, the important factor is the statistical signifance. p <.001 and p <.002. This is VERY statiscal significant.

That is what gives the study merit here. So saying it is poorly executed and the results aren't worth anything is BS.

Yes, the p value is statistically significant. That means nothing, however, if a study is poorly designed. Erroneous results can be obtained if there is bias or confounding by unmeasured variables. If you knew anything about study design, you would know this.

FYI: http://www.healthkno...ias-confounding

Again, I'm not criticizing the original study or defending smoking, just saying that the results were suggestive, not definitive as the ScienceDaily article suggests.

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't make a lot of sense because other studies have shown that smoking a cigarette can improve memory, like if you smoke right before a test. I do not see why when exhaled it would have the opposite effect. I would like to see some more study into this area.

They say it's the nicotine that actually improves memory when you smoke. I dunno about that either. I couldn't find my keys when I was a smoker, I quit 7 months ago, with a nicotine replacement therapy, and I still can't find my keys. :blush: LOL

I looked into these statements and found:

Weekend Smoking Can Damage Your Memory, Study Suggests

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120306072912.htm

Stopping Smoking Boosts Everyday Memory, Research Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110920095253.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.