I don't know about that. My parents smoked. So did all four of us girls. One sister is child-less because she didn't want children. The other has one because she's single. I had four. And I smoked DURING my pregnancies too. While not a *lot* (I quit a few months into my 1st pregnancy, couldn't stand the smell), when I planned two of the pregnancies, I was pregnant a month after going off the birth control pill.

Don;t get me wrong, I'm not saying it's ok to smoke while pregnant. I'm saying the findings don't work with my family at all.

My oldest sister: 13 pregnancies. Only one of us had a miscarriage: the one with no kids. The one with 13 children, most of her kids are anywhere from 1 to 3 years apart in age.

I think they can tie just about anything to smoking that they want to just because not that many years ago, just about everyone smoked.

Problem is you can take any study and make it work for you. Not saying second hand smoke can't cause problems, but we all see the studies that seem to contradict one another. One day red wine, or is it coffee, is good for preventing cancer the next time, it's causing cancer. Who knows.

Possibly people that smoke may tend to be more anxious or have lower blood pressure or something and thus have a higher rate of becoming addicted to smoking -- but the anxiety or blood pressure gene trait is the actual problem that is passed along and is the real cause of the miscarriage and infertility, not the smoking. Studies like this usually don't take everything into account and aren't really reliable, IMHO. I like adopted out twin studies, got any of those - LOL.

How do I word this nicely??? Hum.....let me see.

Ok I'll give it a try, you see I haven't smoked in almost two years, I quit smoking because it was MY choice and I wanted to...but, and it's a big but....why is everybody and their dog on the case of smokers? Why can't some of you be against oh I don't know lets say drugs or something... If our law makers and younameit rights makers would come down as hard on the crack smokers and heroin dealers/buyers/takers maybe there would be a few clean streets where our kids could play in safety and maybe just maybe we could get a little normal perspective back on some of this stuff.

I like Diet Coke, but according to the latest buzz on the news it's causing holes in my brain.......geez you'd think somebody somewhere would just try for normal once in a while.

Zipper taking soap box with her as she moves on to another subject.

Let me see . . . how do I word this nicely?

It never occurred to me that smokers, ex or current, would take my post as an attack. I was simply passing along what I thought was an interesting study, more useful than most. I remember what it was like to be infertile . . and I also remember my mother's miscarriages. In fact, I cleaned up after one of them. I was eight years old.

But for those who prefer to think that I, along with the researchers at the University of Rochester, am maligning the poor, beleaguered smokers (ignoring the fact that I was one for 14 years), think whatever you want.

Another burden laid on the shoulders of (mainly fairly youthful) females, is it?

Takes a load off of my mind ...

...here I was beginning to fear that likely, to avoid infertility, I was going to have to eschew more than superficial contact with smokers!

ole joyfoul

alisande,

I don't think you have a personal vendetta with smokers, but I can not say the same thing about the people that did this research study. I don't know anything about this specific study, but generally studies (even at schools and even at hospitals done by reputable professionals and researchers) are often skewed because, well, they are paid for by someone and certain results are expected. I would guess that results can be played with, questions asked differently, or even tests can be totally redone when they donÂt have the results they want. How do you know, for example, that with this specific case they didn't already do this research study 50 times with totally different results, but only posted this one when it looked good? You don't know; and thatÂs why I have problems with most studies.

Hasn't everyone over the age of 20 been exposed to secondhand smoke for certain periods? I find a study like this almost laughable. And, from what I know first hand, it's very irresponsible... blaming people's mother's and father's. What if someone has an undiagnosised thyroid problem and keeps miscarrying and will continue to do so, because they now think it's because their parents smoked and donÂt get their thyroid checked? Almost everyone I know that has had a real fertility issue has tracked it to a real health problem. But, thatÂs another post.

I think people need to ask more questions and not believe things blindly that the media, or even researchers, put out. IÂm actually surprised there are any healthy babies born today with the amount women who either have themsleves or who know someone, or who have heard of someone who has smoked, drank coffee or soda, chewed sugarless gum, or used a scented body lotion or deoderant in their first trimester. ItÂs quit amazing anyone has survived! I think if you do some research on medical studies and how they are done, you would second guess a lot of these studies you read about. Of course, we know that cigarette smoking isnÂt good for you but even those results and studies were messed with for years...

Here is a link that might be useful: Bogus Science

Of course "they" are still finding smoking cigarettes causes everything...it's one of the last U.S industries around.....

(I'm a non smoker for 9 years and 3 months today!)

first of all this isn't the first study. while trying to find out who did the research, found one back in 2005. there are several versions of the news story but thought you might like to read this...

i plan on sending this on to my ds2 and dil (who knows ds is allergic to it) continues to smoke...

Here is a link that might be useful: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081205/hl_nm/us_smoking_fertility/print

and carla 35, here's more info on your article's writer...

Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.cancertutor.com/AboutMe.html

Oh, yeah--I'd put a lot of credence in statements made by someone who claims he can disprove Einstein's theories (and evolution, too, while he's at it).

Thanks for both links, Susan.

Absolute b.s. JMHO, of course.

no problem alisande...like dr phil always says every pancake has 2 sides, lol...i like to look at the second side real close, lol...

So, do you guys agree with that author that the research done was BOGUS that said lung cancer was not linked to smoking -- or do you NOT agree with him, and think that the research was right and that smoking is not linked to cancer? You do realize I posted a situation that was in reverse of what you would have thought, right? -and that in fact, almost everyone would agree with, right? So, you are in fact going off a on a guy you most probably agree with. Do you even know you are doing that? Maybe that pancake you're looking at is actually a waffle - better take a closer look - LOL

I was using that author's thoughts about the smoking/cancer research as an example of how Bogus research can be. Those lung cancer/cigarette research studies are pretty well known 'bought' research studies that have been discussed by thousands of people -some more crazy than others. I've posted another link about possible skewed research for more or less the same reasons -- because the study was 'bought' or paid for by a cigarette company --- maybe you can go off on that author too especially if you agree with him ;-) Time to flip that pancake...

Anyway, I have something to comment about from susan's link:

"Women who remembered their parents smoking around them were 26 percent more likely to have had difficulty becoming pregnant and women exposed to any secondhand smoke were 39 percent more likely to have had a miscarriage, Peppone's team reported".

Women who remembered their parents smoking around them... are also probably 15-20 years older than those that don't. (More 42 year olds had parents that smoked than 20 somethings). So, maybe it's age that is contributing to fertility and miscarriage issues, and not smoking. You would think that their sample would be using women of the same age. But, for some reason, I doubt it... I bet the women with 'issues' are also significantly older. Did they factor that in?

Bottom line, research studies are generally paid for by someone and certain results are expected. Questions can be asked in ways and information can be left off to come to almost any conclusion a researcher wants to come to. It's not certain that the findings are necessarily wrong; but they are often not the smoking gun that so many suggestible readers and viewers want them to be. It's important to remember that these studies are not facts, they are findings... often tainted...

Here is a link that might be useful: Conflict of Interest

old news and part of the lawsuit settlement i'm sure...of course they're funding research...they don't have much choice...lol...

to get back to the original post..it was just a matter of information a kt'er thought was interesting, and considering the dynamics of the readers/posters here, something of common interest.

Here is a link that might be useful: http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/psattmsa.pdf