Skip to main content

Cigarette Smoking Can Make You Deaf

We know smoking is bad for health. We have known this since the 1950s when the link with lung cancer was firmly established.  Yes, it was back in the 1950s - 1950 to be precise -  five epidemiological studies were published, including papers by Ernst Wynder and Evarts Graham in the USA and Richard Doll and A Bradford Hill in England. All confirmed the growing suspicion, that smokers of cigarettes were far more likely to contract lung cancer than non-smokers.  The tobacco industry knew its product was toxic, yet it went on promoting it with adverts making it chic.  Smoking was and remains a major factor in the deaths of millions of people each year.  That is the shocking truth. 

But smoking impacts through more than cardiovascular health and cancer.  It can make you deaf.  Yes, did you hear me? Deaf.  That is the upshot of a recent study on a major cohort of women in the United States. 

There is little mystery surrounding the adverse effects of smoking on our overall health and wellbeing. A study published in The American Journal of Medicine sought to specifically investigate the relationship between smoking, quitting and the risk of hearing loss—analyzing data of 81,505 women from the Nurses’ Health Study.

The results showed that smoking was associated with a higher risk of hearing loss, compared to non-smokers and the severity of hearing loss correlated to the number of packs smoked per year.

So, here is the good news.  It was also found that among smokers that had quit, their risk of hearing loss decreased each year after quitting for a period of 10 to 14 years.

The study’s lead author, Brian M. Lin MD, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, says:

 “These new findings add to the known detrimental effects of smoking on people’s health as well as the benefits of quitting.”

There is one key take-home message: Don't be deaf to the risks of smoking on health. 

Ray says 'don't be deaf to the risks of smoking.' 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau