Secondhand Smoke Tied to Lower 'Good' Cholesterol in Teen Girls

Living with smokers may raise risk for heart disease, study suggests

By Robert Preidt

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, April 30 (HealthDay News) -- Exposure to secondhand smoke at home appears to lower teen girls' levels of the "good" cholesterol -- the substance that reduces heart disease risk, researchers report.

The new study included more than 1,000 male and female teens, aged 17, in Australia who had blood tests to check their levels of "good" high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. While "bad" low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol creates a build-up that can block blood vessels, HDL plays a positive role by clearing excess cholesterol from the bloodstream.

The researchers also examined information about smoking in the teens' households beginning before they were born, when their mothers were 18 weeks into their pregnancies. Forty-eight percent of the study participants had been exposed to secondhand smoke at home, according to the study in the May issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

"In our study, we found 17-year-old girls raised in households where passive smoking occurred were more likely to experience declines in HDL cholesterol levels," lead author Dr. Chi Le-Ha, of the University of Western Australia, said in a news release from the Endocrine Society.

"Secondhand smoke did not have the same impact on teenage boys of the same age, which suggests passive smoking exposure may be more harmful to girls. Considering cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women in the western world, this is a serious concern," Le-Ha added.

The findings suggest that exposure to secondhand smoke in childhood may be a more significant risk factor for women than men.

"We need to redouble public health efforts to reduce young children's secondhand smoke exposure in the home, particularly girls' exposure," Le-Ha stated in the news release.

The association seen in the study does not prove that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between secondhand smoke exposure in girls and low levels of HDL cholesterol.

View the original article here

Another Fracking Strawman, Up In Smoke

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, telling Reuters on Monday that state regulation of hydraulic fracturing isn’t enough:

"There are some who are saying that it's not something we ought to do, it should be left up to the states. That's not good enough for me because states are at very different level, some have zero, some have decent rules."

Bold, to be sure. So we wonder about the “some who are saying” in Salazar’s comment. Who’s he talking about? Perhaps EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who said this in an interview last fall:

"The vast majority of oil and gas production is regulated at the state level. There are issues of whether or not the federal government can add to protection and also peace of mind for citizens by looking at large issues like air pollution impacts, which can be regional. ... So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role. We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process."

Worth repeating: The chief of the federal agency charged with protecting the environment says they’ve got nothing indicating that there needs to be “specific federal regulation of the fracking process.” More Jackson, a few days later on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. I always say it doesn't have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in."

Now, about the last part of Salazar’s comment, that some states have “zero” hydraulic fracturing regulation. We’ve checked around, and it looks like the secretary succumbed to a bit of Washington hyperbole there. A 2009 report by the Groundwater Protection Council, funded by the Energy Department for its National Energy Technology Laboratory, didn’t detect any oil and natural gas-producing states with ZERO rules.

Meanwhile, state officials sure sound deserving of Jackson’s confidence.

Oklahoma Corporation Commission Chairman Dana Murphy, before Congress last fall:

"My fundamental point would be to encourage that the states are the appropriate bodies to regulate the oil and gas drilling industry. Protection of water and the environment and the beneficial development of the nation's resources of oil and gas are not mutually exclusive goals. Oklahoma is proof of that."

And Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer:

“Simply put, because of our long history of oil and gas development and comprehensive regulatory structure, Pennsylvania does not need federal intervention to ensure an appropriate balance between resource development and environmental protection is struck.”

And Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper:

“I was personally involved with 50 or 60 (fracked) wells. There have been tens and thousands of wells in Colorado … and we can’t find anywhere in Colorado a single example of the process of fracking that has polluted groundwater. … There is a lot of anxiety out there certainly with hydraulic fracturing. But often times that anxiety is not directly connected to facts.”

If Secretary Salazar is dissatisfied with state-centered regulation of fracking – which is closest to and most responsive to individual industry operations – he should check with Administrator Jackson. And also with officials in the states, who clearly take the responsibility to oversee fracking within their borders seriously.

View the original article here