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.' 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...
2 comments
Read more