Childhood asthma 'admissions down' after smoking ban

[Chippiewill]

There was a sharp fall in the number of children admitted to hospital with severe asthma after smoke-free legislation was introduced in England, say researchers.

A study showed a 12% drop in the first year after the law to stop smoking in enclosed public places came into force.

The authors say there is growing evidence that many people are opting for smoke-free homes as well.

Asthma UK says the findings are "encouraging".

Researchers at Imperial College in London looked at NHS figures going back to April 2002.

Presenting their findings in the journal Pediatrics, they said the number of children admitted to hospital with severe asthma attacks was rising by more than 2% a year before the restrictions were introduced in July 2007.

Taking that into account, they calculated the fall in admissions in the next 12 months was 12%, and a further 3% in each of the following two years. They say over the three-year period, this was equivalent of about 6,800 admissions.

The fall was seen among boys and girls of all ages, across wealthy and deprived neighbourhoods, in cities and in rural areas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21067532

Mounting evidence that the public enclosed smoking ban was beneficial.

[e5]

Saw this on the news, seems to have worked!

[Explorator]

Also saw it on the news. I remember my brother got an asthma attack off my mum smoking when he was about 5.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ban salt in restaurants and shops now to save the children and prevent heart disease!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! Long live the state.

Interestingly, the same arguments 'for the sake of the children' when applied to restricting the internet so we can keep children safe from pedophiles are dismissed by the same people who use children as the main argument for banning smoking, guns and the rest of it.

But hey, people are hypocrites so what can ya do other than point out their stupidity.

[Chippiewill]

Ban salt in restaurants and shops now to save the children and prevent heart disease!

Not the same, people don't go pouring salt onto other people's plates.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not the same, people don't go pouring salt onto other people's plates.

Salt within foods? fat within foods? most fat and salt, but especially salt, is contained within the food cooked itself.

Or how about the latest suggestion from the Labour Party, that cereals such as Frosties (high sugar content) ought to be banned?

I mean if it's for the children then it must be right yeah?

[The Don]

Salt within foods? fat within foods? most fat and salt, but especially salt, is contained within the food cooked itself.

Or how about the latest suggestion from the Labour Party, that cereals such as Frosties (high sugar content) ought to be banned?

I mean if it's for the children then it must be right yeah?

Get a grip and stop using idiotic comparisons

[Chippiewill]

Salt within foods? fat within foods? most fat and salt, but especially salt, is contained within the food cooked itself.

Or how about the latest suggestion from the Labour Party, that cereals such as Frosties (high sugar content) ought to be banned?

I mean if it's for the children then it must be right yeah?

Analogies are meant to be analogous. Give up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Get a grip and stop using idiotic comparisons

Not idiotic at all, indeed thats why we've got idiot Democrats in New York who have already banned table salt in restaurants along with the Labour Party here in the United Kingdom saying openly that it's considering a ban on the likes of Frosties as they're too sugary for children.

I don't come up with these comparisons remember - your side of the argument provide them for me.

As i've said time and time again, these sort of debates are the reason why I welcome internet regulation for the purpose of debate - because the self righteous (ie you) find themselves in such a hypocritical mess that they can't get out of it and just dismiss the comparison. The basis of this argument is, less freedom on something I don't like = good for children statistically so therefore it's right.

Well let's bring in internet restrictions, monitoring and ID cards - I mean, think of the children right?

..But no, howls of rage along the lines of "ITS NOT RIGHT THE STATE INTERFERE WITH THE INTERNET" will be posted in response, not one of you seeing the absolute hypocrisy in that just because you value the internet over smoking doesn't make smoking subject to your diktat.

[Kardan]

Not idiotic at all, indeed thats why we've got idiot Democrats in New York who have already banned table salt in restaurants along with the Labour Party here in the United Kingdom saying openly that it's considering a ban on the likes of Frosties as they're too sugary for children.

I don't come up with these comparisons remember - your side of the argument provide them for me.

As i've said time and time again, these sort of debates are the reason why I welcome internet regulation for the purpose of debate - because the self righteous (ie you) find themselves in such a hypocritical mess that they can't get out of it and just dismiss the comparison. The basis of this argument is, less freedom on something I don't like = good for children statistically so therefore it's right.

Well let's bring in internet restrictions, monitoring and ID cards - I mean, think of the children right?

..But no, howls of rage along the lines of "ITS NOT RIGHT THE STATE INTERFERE WITH THE INTERNET" will be posted in response, not one of you seeing the absolute hypocrisy in that just because you value the internet over smoking doesn't make smoking subject to your diktat.

I don't understand why you've brought children into it really. The article suggests that children have benefited from it, but I didn't realise the legislation was brought in to 'save the children'.

As for banning table salt, I'm not entirely sure how well that's going to work. Surely the fact that children have too much salt is based on the salt already within the food. I don't see many children pouring salt all over their dinner.