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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As