There has been enough research to safely conclude that smoking while pregnant affects the developing fetus, but in what ways exactly, and to what extent are the questions we have to ask. The most commonly reported side effect of smoking while pregnant is a low birth weight baby. “Infants born to smokers were more than twice as likely to have low birth weight as were infants born to nonsmokers” (Effects). Prenatal smoking is thought to account for an estimated 20 to 30% of cases of low birth weight (primary), and some may wonder what actually classifies as low birth weight, why it’s dangerous, and how exactly smoking affects this outcome.
An infant is classified as having low birth weight if the baby weighs less than 2500g (5 ½ pounds). Most infants weigh around 3400g which is an average of 7 pounds. Why is having a small baby so dangerous anyways? Babies born with lower-than-average birth weight are more likely to get infections and have other health problems (Primary). Also, infants weighing less than 2500g are at a greater risk of death within the first month of life, as well as increased risk for developmental disabilities and illness throughout their life.
What exactly do we know about the way cigarettes affect a baby’s size and birth weight? Nicotine and carbon monoxide appear to have the most significant effects on a developing fetus. When nicotine is inhaled, the arteries inside the placenta constrict and tighten up, reducing the normal blood flow to the fetus. Carbon Monoxide effects the development of a fetus by reducing the adequate delivery of oxygen to fetal tissues (Pergament).
Decreasing the number of cigarettes smoked per day can lessen the risks of smoking, but it is important to encourage women to quit smoking all together in order to completely eliminate the adverse pregnancy outcomes such as low birth weight (Pergament).
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Reflection
So far, my research process is going pretty well. I have been able to find numerous sources about the health risks of smoking during pregnancy, and I’m learning a lot of useful information. Up until this point, I have developed a research topic, found two different sources and summarized them, and also located information about 2 important figures that have made landmark contributions in the study of health risks of smoking.
Most of my research has been done from the comforts of my own home. I try to avoid the long hike to the library, fighting campus traffic, and also parking 10 miles away (well not quite that far). I do access the library’s website though, so I feel some justification in boycotting the library building. When using the library search engine I tend to have a hard time searching for scholarly research articles and finding exactly what I’m looking for. I know the research is there, but I must not be putting in the right combinations of key words. In that case, I do a Google or yahoo search which provides hundreds of related sites. I do recommend this way to other students, but with caution. If a website is reputable, they will almost always have references listed at the end of the article. I just take these citations and cut and past the journal name into the library search engine to retrieve the original document, then I print it out for my own use. I have found this method to work very well in finding research journal articles because it saves me a lot of time, and I get less frustrated because I feel like I’m actually making progress, and not just sitting in front of my computer for hours getting no results.
Overall, the research process is going smoothly, however I have one worry. I’m afraid that I might get bored with my topic, not because it isn’t interesting but because I feel like there is only so much I can learn and there isn’t a lot of room for new discovery or approaching the topic from a different angle.
Most of my research has been done from the comforts of my own home. I try to avoid the long hike to the library, fighting campus traffic, and also parking 10 miles away (well not quite that far). I do access the library’s website though, so I feel some justification in boycotting the library building. When using the library search engine I tend to have a hard time searching for scholarly research articles and finding exactly what I’m looking for. I know the research is there, but I must not be putting in the right combinations of key words. In that case, I do a Google or yahoo search which provides hundreds of related sites. I do recommend this way to other students, but with caution. If a website is reputable, they will almost always have references listed at the end of the article. I just take these citations and cut and past the journal name into the library search engine to retrieve the original document, then I print it out for my own use. I have found this method to work very well in finding research journal articles because it saves me a lot of time, and I get less frustrated because I feel like I’m actually making progress, and not just sitting in front of my computer for hours getting no results.
Overall, the research process is going smoothly, however I have one worry. I’m afraid that I might get bored with my topic, not because it isn’t interesting but because I feel like there is only so much I can learn and there isn’t a lot of room for new discovery or approaching the topic from a different angle.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Public Views on Cigarettes and health, Changed
Today, “everyone knows how bad smoking is, but it’s actually worse.” This statement comes from a discussion out of the Surgeon Generals report on The Health Consequences of Smoking in 2004. The main job of the Surgeon General is to educate the American people, and provide the best scientific information available on how to improve
health and minimize the risk of illness and injury (Health). The Surgeon General has a long history in exposing the risks of tobacco use, and In 1964, Surgeon General Luther Terry released a groundbreaking study. Terry's study exposed the dangers of cigarette smoking and concluded that there was a causal relationship between smoking and three diseases. In releasing this information to the public, Terry knew he would have to call for a fundamental change in the way our country viewed tobacco at the time. In 1964, Smoking was quite popular and more than 42% of Americans smoked (Health). Up until then, people were generally un-aware of the health risks caused by cigarettes. A clear connection was made between cigarette smoke and health risks, and Luther Terry's report would become a stepping stone to new and future health discoveries.
Terry's report sparked an increased concern about tobacco that led to a broad-based anti-smoking campaign (Luther). Even after leaving the post in 1965, Luther Terry continued to play a leading role in the campaign against smoking. His report was responsible for passing the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 which mandated the familiar Surgeon General’s warning labels on cigarette packages. Terry also helped to obtain a ban on cigarette advertisements on radio and television which was put into effect in 1971 (Salter).
Another landmark event that affected the way we view cigarettes today was attributed to a man named Jeffery W
igand who was a top CEO at Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Wigand essentially exposed Big Tobacco and went public about inside information he knew about the company, and their scandal to illegally alter and raise nicotine levels put into cigarettes. He received death threats, and his coming out ultimately changed his life and the life of Big Tobacco. Wigand's confessions led to FBI investigations and as a result, tobacco companies ended up paying out billions of dollars in health costs (Salter). Jeffery Wigand has become a widely known figure in the fight for educating the public about the dangers of smoking.
These landmark events and two important individuals have made crucial contributions in informing the public the truths about tobacco use and cigarette smoking in our country today.
Works Cited:
Salter, Chuck. “Jeffrey Wigand: The Whistle-Blower.” Fast Company. (April 2002).
11 Feb. 2007.
<www.fastcompany.com/articles/2002/05/wigand_Printer_Friendly.html>
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking:
A Report of the Surgeon General, 2004. 9 Jan. 2007. Office of the Surgeon General.
5 Feb. 2007.
<http://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/news/speeches/SgrSmoking_05272004.htm>
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Luther Leonidas Terry (1991-1965).
4 Jan. 2007. Office of the Surgeon General. 5 Feb. 2007 <http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/history/bioterry.htm
Picture Citations:
Peradotto, Nicole. JeffreyWigand.com. 6 Feb. 2007.
< http://www.jeffreywigand.com/insider/index.php>
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Surgeongeneral.gov. 3 Jan. 2007. Office
of the Surgeon General. 6 Feb. 2007.
<http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/history/sglist.htm>
health and minimize the risk of illness and injury (Health). The Surgeon General has a long history in exposing the risks of tobacco use, and In 1964, Surgeon General Luther Terry released a groundbreaking study. Terry's study exposed the dangers of cigarette smoking and concluded that there was a causal relationship between smoking and three diseases. In releasing this information to the public, Terry knew he would have to call for a fundamental change in the way our country viewed tobacco at the time. In 1964, Smoking was quite popular and more than 42% of Americans smoked (Health). Up until then, people were generally un-aware of the health risks caused by cigarettes. A clear connection was made between cigarette smoke and health risks, and Luther Terry's report would become a stepping stone to new and future health discoveries.Terry's report sparked an increased concern about tobacco that led to a broad-based anti-smoking campaign (Luther). Even after leaving the post in 1965, Luther Terry continued to play a leading role in the campaign against smoking. His report was responsible for passing the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 which mandated the familiar Surgeon General’s warning labels on cigarette packages. Terry also helped to obtain a ban on cigarette advertisements on radio and television which was put into effect in 1971 (Salter).
Another landmark event that affected the way we view cigarettes today was attributed to a man named Jeffery W
igand who was a top CEO at Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Wigand essentially exposed Big Tobacco and went public about inside information he knew about the company, and their scandal to illegally alter and raise nicotine levels put into cigarettes. He received death threats, and his coming out ultimately changed his life and the life of Big Tobacco. Wigand's confessions led to FBI investigations and as a result, tobacco companies ended up paying out billions of dollars in health costs (Salter). Jeffery Wigand has become a widely known figure in the fight for educating the public about the dangers of smoking.These landmark events and two important individuals have made crucial contributions in informing the public the truths about tobacco use and cigarette smoking in our country today.
Works Cited:
Salter, Chuck. “Jeffrey Wigand: The Whistle-Blower.” Fast Company. (April 2002).
11 Feb. 2007.
<www.fastcompany.com/articles/2002/05/wigand_Printer_Friendly.html>
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking:
A Report of the Surgeon General, 2004. 9 Jan. 2007. Office of the Surgeon General.
5 Feb. 2007.
<http://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/news/speeches/SgrSmoking_05272004.htm>
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Luther Leonidas Terry (1991-1965).
4 Jan. 2007. Office of the Surgeon General. 5 Feb. 2007 <http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/history/bioterry.htm
Picture Citations:
Peradotto, Nicole. JeffreyWigand.com. 6 Feb. 2007.
< http://www.jeffreywigand.com/insider/index.php>
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Surgeongeneral.gov. 3 Jan. 2007. Office
of the Surgeon General. 6 Feb. 2007.
<http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/history/sglist.htm>
Peer Review Session #1
During our first peer review session, my group included Ann, Cody, Lindsay, and myself. We read over each others 2 page papers that covered important figures in our field; afterwards we had a discussion and gave feedback.
Ann’s research topic deals with End of Life Ethics, and in her 2 page paper talked about a nurse who first studied the rights and needs of dying individuals. Ann’s paper was clear, easy to read, and had a very nice flow. I didn’t find any major errors other than simple grammatical corrections. Overall, it was very well written and provided insightful information.
Cody’s research topic deals with Advertising, and his paper, “Ethics in Advertising,” focused mainly on Ben Franklin and the controversy over the things he printed and released to the public. I enjoy reading Cody’s work because he writes with an internal voice, as if he is talking, however that type of writing is not the most effective when documenting research. The only other corrections I found were the use of slash marks, and a few long sentences. The sentence structure was not “wrong” I just found that if they were shorter and more concise, the writing would be more effective and less confusing to the reader. Overall, the paper was very interesting and informative.
Lindsay wrote, “Founding Fathers of Complementary and Alternative Medical Treatment” which dealt with the origins of alternative medical practices. Her paper included a lot of information, which was interesting, but at times, was confusing. She used a lot of Chinese words that described ancient practices and books, but didn’t give an interpretation of their meaning which made it difficult to follow. I understood the basic idea, and Lindsay conveyed the main idea well, however I found myself simply skipping over all the words I didn’t understand because they were hard to decipher and all sounded the same. One last suggestion I had for Lindsey was trying not to repeat the same word (tomorrow) over and over. Overall, the paper included a lot of interesting information for example the origin of the well know symbol Yin and Yang.
Ann’s research topic deals with End of Life Ethics, and in her 2 page paper talked about a nurse who first studied the rights and needs of dying individuals. Ann’s paper was clear, easy to read, and had a very nice flow. I didn’t find any major errors other than simple grammatical corrections. Overall, it was very well written and provided insightful information.
Cody’s research topic deals with Advertising, and his paper, “Ethics in Advertising,” focused mainly on Ben Franklin and the controversy over the things he printed and released to the public. I enjoy reading Cody’s work because he writes with an internal voice, as if he is talking, however that type of writing is not the most effective when documenting research. The only other corrections I found were the use of slash marks, and a few long sentences. The sentence structure was not “wrong” I just found that if they were shorter and more concise, the writing would be more effective and less confusing to the reader. Overall, the paper was very interesting and informative.
Lindsay wrote, “Founding Fathers of Complementary and Alternative Medical Treatment” which dealt with the origins of alternative medical practices. Her paper included a lot of information, which was interesting, but at times, was confusing. She used a lot of Chinese words that described ancient practices and books, but didn’t give an interpretation of their meaning which made it difficult to follow. I understood the basic idea, and Lindsay conveyed the main idea well, however I found myself simply skipping over all the words I didn’t understand because they were hard to decipher and all sounded the same. One last suggestion I had for Lindsey was trying not to repeat the same word (tomorrow) over and over. Overall, the paper included a lot of interesting information for example the origin of the well know symbol Yin and Yang.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
