The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why do Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) events peak at the weekend?  (Read 12345 times)

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5336
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
A rather disturbing finding that sudden infant death rates peak at the weekends - but why ?

"Despite the success of the 'Back to Sleep' campaign in cutting the numbers of cot deaths, these still remain high at weekends, reveals research in Archives of Disease in Childhood.

Researchers analysed the number and timing of cot deaths from national statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland over two time periods.

The first covered 1986 to 1990, before the 'Back to Sleep' campaign, advising parents to ensure their babies slept on their backs, was introduced. The second covered 1993 to 1998, after its introduction.

During the entire period, there were almost 13,000 deaths attributable to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), or cot death.

Overall annual numbers of cot death fell from 1718 in 1986 to 395 in 1998¯a fall of approximately 75%.

But deaths from SIDS peaked on Saturdays and Sundays, both before and after the campaign, the figures show, accounting for just under a third of the total number of deaths.

If anything, the weekend peak slightly increased after the campaign, rising from just over 31% to just over 32%, although this was not statistically significant.

The weekend peak was also much more obvious among babies aged 4 months or younger. In the second period, almost 4% more babies in this age group died at weekends than did babies aged 5 months or more.

The reasons for the weekend peak in cot deaths remain unclear, say the researchers. Parents may be less attentive to the needs of their infants over the weekend, it has been suggested."

Full reference : Higher incidence of SIDS at weekends, especially in younger infants Arch Dis Child 2004; 89: 670-2

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
« Last Edit: 11/12/2009 15:57:46 by chris »


 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
 
Back to Sleep Campaign

The U.S. "Back To Sleep" campaign was launched in June 1994 by the U.S. Public Health Service, American Academy of Pediatrics, SIDS Alliance, and Association of SIDS and Infant Mortality Programs, with endorsements by over 60 organizations. This campaign reflects the single most significant development in our medical understanding of SIDS to date: babies sleeping on their stomachs seem to be more likely to succumb to SIDS

Armed with this important new finding, outreach strategies and materials were developed targeting the parents of the nearly four million babies expected this year. Through promotion of feature stories and media coverage, the availability of a nationwide toll-free information and referral hotline, the production of television, radio, and print ads, and distribution of informational brochures, the U.S. Back To Sleep campaign has gained awareness and momentum. As of 2002, the National Center for Health Statistics reported a more than 50 percent drop in SIDS death rates and a decrease in stomach sleeping from 70 percent to 15 percent - crediting saturation of the Back To Sleep message and the resultant change in parental practice. This is the equivalent of sparing the lives of more than 3,500 American babies each year.

"The reduction in SIDS deaths is a direct result of the Back to Sleep Campaign," said Duane Alexander, M.D., director of the NICHD. "The campaign has proven successful in educating the medical field, parents, grandparents, and care givers about the importance of putting babies to sleep on their back to significantly reduce the risk of SIDS."

http://firstcandle.org/health/health_backto.html




A few years back SIDS (Cot Deaths) were determined using different criteria linking several other additional complications to SIDS statistically. The Statistics now have been somewhat refined by removing other contributory causes of SIDS, which in effect has shown a statistical reduction in the number of SIDS which has erroneously attributed the SIDS Foundation "Back To Sleep Campaign" to have been successful. If it is possible to reanalyse all of the deaths using exactly the same formula as used prior to the “back to sleep campaign” I suspect we might be in for a shock to realise that the figures used to show a reduction in SIDS have not changed that much if at all.

For the record and for the safety of children worldwide:

Published online May 2, 2005
PEDIATRICS Vol. 115 No. 5 May 2005, pp. 1247-1253 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2188) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/5/1247
Changes in the Classification of Sudden Unexpected Infant Deaths: United States, 1992–2001
Michael H. Malloy, MD, MS* and Marian MacDorman, PhD 
* Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
 Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Maryland
Background. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) makes up the largest component of sudden unexpected infant death in the United States. Since the first recommendations for supine placement of infants to prevent SIDS in 1992, SIDS postneonatal mortality rates declined 55% between 1992 and 2001.
Objective. The objective of this analysis was to examine changes in postneonatal mortality rates from 1992 to 2001 to determine if the decline in SIDS was due in part to a shift in certification of deaths from SIDS to other causes of sudden unexpected infant death. In addition, the analysis reviews the change in mortality rates attributed to the broad category of sudden unexpected infant death in the United States since 1950.
Methods. US mortality data were used. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) chapters "Symptoms, Signs, and Ill-Defined Conditions" and "External Causes of Injury" were considered to contain all causes of sudden unexpected infant death. The following specific ICD (ninth and tenth revisions) underlying-cause-of-death categories were examined: "SIDS," "other unknown and unspecified causes," "suffocation in bed," "suffocation-other," "aspiration," "homicide," and "injury by undetermined intent." The average annual percentage change in rates was determined by Poisson regression. An analysis was performed that adjusted mortality rates for changes in classification between ICD revisions.
Results. The all-cause postneonatal mortality rate declined 27% and the postneonatal SIDS rate declined 55% between 1992 and 2001. However, for the period from 1999 to 2001 there was no significant change in the overall postneonatal mortality rate, whereas the postneonatal SIDS rate declined by 17.4%. Concurrent increases in postneonatal mortality rates for unknown and unspecified causes and suffocation account for 90% of the decrease in the SIDS rate between 1999 and 2001.
Conclusions. The failure of the overall postneonatal mortality rate to decline in the face of a declining SIDS rate in 1999–2001 raises the question of whether the falling SIDS rate is a result of changes in certifier practices such that deaths that in previous years might have been certified as SIDS are now certified to other non-SIDS causes. The observation that the increase in the rates of non-SIDS causes of sudden unexpected infant death could account for >90% of the drop in the SIDS rates suggests that a change in classification may be occurring.

I have added this information so we can all see how statistics in SIDS has changed and how those changes have been misreported as relating to Back To Sleep Campaign.

I will deal with Chris's very important question in a follow on post and thank Chris for bringing this to my attention by posting this on the forum.


« Last Edit: 10/11/2007 08:33:37 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Raising the end of the cot.,Wednesday  7-Apr-1999
18:09:00,152.163.204.84 writes,I raised the end of all my children's
cots with bricks on the advice of my grandmother. When I questioned it
all I got was "we've never had a dead baby in our family".
Following family advice is just one of those things that you do. The
only benefit I have ever known it to have is to prevent cot death  but
then who's to say that we would have ever had one anyway? This aside
we always put our babies down on their backs  this as you may know is
the current advice to prevent baby deaths. It's interesting though as
the cause of cot deaths has never been established yet. Maybe it's
something to do with the nervous system? I just thought that I'd
mention this as I've never heard anyone else suggest raising the bed
end before.
,,
Re: Raising the end of the cot.,Thursday  8-Apr-1999
09:36:52,209.198.221.227 writes,Could you please send me more
information as I would like to give this a try.
,,stun...@hotmail.com
Re:
Re: Raising the end of the cot.,Thursday  6-May-1999
19:31:25,205.188.199.152 writes,  It only needs to be a folded towel
but it can't have too much depth otherwise the baby would slip down
under the bedding.
,,
Re: Raising the end of the cot.,Thursday  8-Apr-1999
17:33:05,212.228.66.3 writes,I would like to thank you for posting this
letter. It came as a surprise.
When I first worked out that humans should not be sleeping horizontally
I immediately realized that if my theory was correct it would eliminate
cot or crib deaths in one go.
I took my findings to the Foundation of the Study of Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome In London I presented a cast iron case to them  which
was backed up by the work of Leslie Munroe  who had identified River
Valley areas as high risk areas for cot deaths. He had shown the
certain areas in the UK had a 46% higher incidence of cot deaths when
compared to more elevated regions. His work was investigated by
Universities who tried to disprove his statistical evidence. They
couldn't and his work is now in the Statistical Collection at the
Open University in the UK.
The thing that drives me on the most is the knowledge that these
children slip away for the want of propping their beds up. The FSID are
neglecting their duty to investigate this work for whatever their
selfish reasons are.
I have made a prediction based on the increased annual rainfall in the
UK for 1998. I have predicted that cot deaths are going to rise
significantly for this year. We will not have the statistics from the
Government until August 1999. I hope to god I am wrong.
In order to investigate this further  I ordered a graph from the FSID
from 1986 to 1992  which showed all the cot deaths for each month. I
then ordered the rainfall statistics from England and Wales for the
same period and plotted them on the same graph.
I was not surprised when all the peaks and troughs matched with
sinister accuracy. I was surprised when the statistics followed a
downward trend from year to year ending up at their lowest in 1992
which happened to be a prolonged drought through the winter months.
The FSID ignored this.
If it is the last thing I ever do I will bring these people to book. I
await the 1998 statistics.
Carry Langford is the regional coordinator into the study for infant
death  she says; "I would really like to see it examined  you know
scientifically. I think that if he has a theory that might be relevant
to cot death  perhaps he ought to submit the proposal to our scientific
panel and see if he could get their opinion on it?
  My letter to the Cot Death Foundation
Dr Chantler FSID  Foundation For The Study  Of Sudden Infant Deaths
Syndrome  14 Halkin Street  London  SW1X 7DP
Tuesday 24th November 1998.
CC BBC TV  CC Westcountry TV.
Dear Dr Chantler
Many children have died needlessly since I first contacted the FSID and
spoke with you in person.  Since the early part of 1995 I have been
working with and helping people who suffer from serious illnesses
using exactly the same intervention that I proposed to you in 1995.
During my early attempts to gain publicity for my work and in doing so
raise awareness that horizontal bed rest and humidity are the primary
cause of cot deaths  I was informed by a reporter that publicity was
prevented due to advice from your foundation.
Whether this actually happened is of little significance now.  The
Foundations negligence ignorance  stupidity and contempt towards my
research has caused the deaths of these children and will continue to
do so as long as you keep promoting your "Back to HORIZONTAL Sleep
Campaign".
I have made a prediction that cot deaths will rise significantly in
1998 and you have confirmed receipt of this letter and prediction
which was also c.c.'d to the local BBC and Westcountry TV stations.
The paper which I sent you a copy of the abstract is merely an echo of
the many hundreds of published papers relating to the harmful effects
of horizontal bed rest on healthy and otherwise people.
Similar postural experiments with animals and space travel also support
the fact that gravity is of paramount importance to the well-being of
everything that lives here on Earth. Including YOU!
Furthermore the work of Leslie Munroe relating to high risk areas for
cot deaths and low-lying river valley areas proves that humidity and
moisture are a main consideration  in the onset of  statistically
significant elevations in the number of cot deaths. This alone should
give credence to my prediction for 1998.
I went to a solicitor on Monday 24th November 98  to see if it would be
possible to start legal proceedings against the Foundation for the
Study Of Sudden Infant Death. I was advised that there is no precedent
in law for making people listen  even if the lives of children are at
stake. Financially I stood to lose my home  as I have no moneys to
pursue this  even if I won I have nothing to gain financially! Yet I
was prepared to risk all to save the lives of these babies. Not to
mention the devastation it causes to the families.
The evidences I have accumulated  over all of these years  as you well
know is irrefutable. Yet a foundation which attracts funds for
preventing the loss of such innocence  has refused time and time again
to consider that advise of one man in a wilderness of hypocrisy  who
claims to hold the answer.
When my day comes  and it will! I will take no pleasure in exposing
your organisation for what you haven't done!
Sincerely
Andrew K Fletcher.
  ,Andrew K Fletcher,
Re:
Re: Raising the end of the cot.,Friday  9-Apr-1999
12:18:19,212.228.66.3 writes,  Reply to my letter and prediction from
THE FSID.
14 Halkin Street  London  SW1X 7DP
Telephone General Enquiries: 0171 2350965  International dial: 44 171
2350965  Email f...@sids.org.uk  Website: http://www.sids.org.uk/fsid/
Charity Number 262191
November 23 1998
Dear Mr Fletcher
This is to let you know that I have taken over from Dr Chantler as the
Medical and Scientific Advisor at the Foundation for the Study of
Sudden Infant Deaths. I would be grateful if you could address all
correspondence to me in future.
Dr Chantler has passed on a file of correspondence from you including
description of the physiological mechanism you suggest and your work on
raising the bed head in adult conditions. You may rest assured that all
material has been safely filed and was readily accessible for me to
read.
As I am sure you realise  the Foundation has to be extremely careful in
the advice that it gives to parents. The medical profession spent many
years advising parents to put babies to sleep on their stomachs  as
this was shown to be advantageous to sick premature babies.
Unfortunately it was quite incorrect advice for normal healthy babies.
So we are very anxious not to extrapolate from other conditions to baby
care advice. Your beds may be very successful for multiple sclerosis
sufferers but this doe not mean that the advice can be extrapolated to
babies. We could only publicise your theory if it was really
demonstrated to work.
This means carrying out properly controlled research and I am sure that
the Foundation would give proper consideration to an application for
our research funds. I understand that you have previously received an
application form but I would of course be pleased to send you another
one.
It is not possible for us to provide funding in any other way. This
would create many difficulties because the way we distribute our funds
is controlled since we are a registered charity.
I hope this makes it clear that we are not trying to prevent your
theory from being considered by the scientific community or the public
at large  but we are constrained as to how we may fund further
exploration of your work.
Thank you for all the time and interest that you have shown in this
issue
Yours sincerely
Dr Sara Levene  Medical and Scientific Advisor
********************************
  Comment from Andrew K Fletcher:
It is not possible to get funding from charities in the UK. All such
funding is channelled into universities and hospitals. The application
forms for funding prohibit individuals from obtaining funds.   I do not
have the will or funds any more to chase rainbows.
I have also learned in a letter from the FSID  that certain aspects of
my theory are being investigated. I have asked for an explanation and
details but neither has been forthcoming.
Ironically  history teaches us that every major breakthrough in science
has come from individuals working alone without support who are driven
by the truth.
To find out why  there is an excellent book written by Richard Milton
titled: Forbidden Science   Published by Forth Estate Limited  6 Salem
Road  London W2 4BU. Price £6.99  ISBN 1-85702-302-1 Richard is fully
aware of my findings  Andrew
,Andrew,
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
European Journal of Soil Science
Volume 48 Issue 1 Page 1-17, March 1997

To cite this article: L.J.A. MUNRO, E.C. PENNING-ROWSELL, H.R. BARNES, M.H. FORDHAM, D. JARRETT (1997)
Infant mortality and soil type: a case study in south-central England (with discussion)
European Journal of Soil Science 48 (1), 1–17.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.1997.tb00179.x

Next Article
Abstract
Infant mortality and soil type: a case study in south-central England (with discussion)
L.J.A. MUNRO11Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 4SF, UK, E.C. PENNING-ROWSELL11Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 4SF, UK, H.R. BARNES11Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 4SF, UK, M.H. FORDHAMaaDepartment of Geography, Anglia Polytechnic University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK & D. JARRETT11Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 4SF, UK1Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 4SF, UKaDepartment of Geography, Anglia Polytechnic University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
Summary
 
We have analysed the differences in infant mortality for 1981 to 1990 in areas of contrasting soil types in south-central England. The soils overlie rocks of varied lithology and hydrology, ranging from porous and permeable Chalk and limestones, to the generally wet and impermeable Oxford and Lower Jurassic Clays. The study area comprises 504 administrative wards, for each of which the soil has been classified as being predominantly'Wet', ' Intermediate' or 'Dry', depending on the degree of seasonal or periodic waterlogging. The soil classes used are those mapped by the Soil Survey of England and Wales and relate closely to the underlying geology. We find proportionately more infant deaths on the'Wet' soils, and a gradation towards lower infant mortality rates on the drier soils. Overall, infant mortality on the'Wet' soils is 31·9 percent greater than on the'Dry' soils, for reasons that remain unexplained. This relation between infant mortality and soil moisture remains after the effect of social class has been removed.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1997.tb00179.x
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Andrew, While your posts are interesting in their own rtight I don't see what they have to do with the question. Have I missed something about weekends there?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Yes, I believe you have missed something important, and will get on with explaining what it is you have missed. The previous posts were designed to familiarise readers with the connections between humidity and SIDS. And as ample time has passed since Chris posed the question, I think it deserves a little attention.

My own research identifies moisture loss from the lungs as being of fundamental importance to circulation and maintaining heart rate, it works on the principle that for every breath we take, we breath out warm moisture laden air, which is currently thought to be an unavoidable loss of water serving little purpose other than some heat regulation and assisting with gas exchange.

I am saying that vapour loss from the respiratory tract serves a more logical purpose by altering the density of the fluids with every exhaled breath and in doing so releases a pulse of concentrated or denser fluids back through the lining of the lungs where in turn dilute fluids are brought back to the surface of the lungs caused by the density flow. The tiny pulse of more concentrated fluids, which contain salts and other dense solutes flow through the heart and then are pulled down the artery generating a positive pressure in front and a negative tension dragging on the fluids that are behind them, causing a chain reaction on every molecule in the body and indeed providing negative tension in the venous return. The pulses of salts arrive at the kidneys where they are filtered and excreted in the urine. There is ample density in the urine to prove this connection and density changes relating to posture also prove this as mentioned previously using a hydrometer to measure changes in density due to changes in sleeping position. Blood that is filtered through the kidneys is less dense so is now drawn up in a flow and return system much the same as a simple density flow and return system in a domestic pump free central heating system.

I know it needs a longer explanation, but just stressing the importance of dryer air and its function in circulation and the lungs for now.

Leslie Munro identified that wet water logged soils in low-lying river valley and costal areas VASTLY, (not significantly) increases the incidence of SIDS. Munro believes that there is a connection with the soil. I believe it is a connection with the moisture content of the air. These areas are also proven to have a vastly increased incidence of multiple sclerosis, proven in a study on two river valley areas in France.

Also, a BBC documentary showing a family of robins living in such a valley became diseased and died out during each winter and the valley became repopulated again in the spring and summer, a bit like the canaries they took down the mines to test for gas. Except this gas is simply air but air that contains more water than normal resulting in the air we breath in being as moisture laden as the air we breath out, rendering density changes unattainable. Which causes respiratory failure and circulatory collapse, Even more of a problem in a young baby because of their inability to maintain body temperature, which again is important for moisture exchange because warm air contains more water than colder air and providing the body temperature remains higher there is still a density difference achieved, albeit reduced and less effective than a dryer climate.

Now, this brings me around to Chris’s Question, which I stated was a very important one.

At weekends, more people in the family are home, meals are cooked, washing machines are switched on along with central heating in the winter and we now have double glazing to make sure the water remains in the air rather than rolling down the dehumidifying metal framed single paned glass windows. So we have inadvertently created a very humid atmosphere, evident again by mould spores found in bedrooms and areas not well ventilated.

In river valley areas, mist hangs in the valley long after it has cleared elsewhere, it always forms first in the valleys. Drying washing outdoors is not an option here either so wet clothes are put on radiators or on clothes lines or clothes horses inside the home ready for work on Monday. Weekends are the rare times that the working people are able to eat a traditional cooked meal along with the good old British cuppa, again, adding copious amounts of water to the air in the home.

I have watched a number of videos relating to parents who have lost babies having researched this field for a number of years. They always mention the weather being either damp and cold or very humid and sticky.

Everyone at the weekend enjoys a bath or a shower and begins to wind down. The air in the home is now critically reaching dew point and indeed would be if it were not for those damned plastic double glazed windows. Baby begins to become tired due to the high humidity in the home caused by all of the additional water interactions with the family. Baby is allowed to go to sleep thinking baby needs rest when really baby needs to be kept awake until the air has cleared. Baby’s skin becomes cold and clammy as the body temperature is reduced by putting the baby horizontal, which again further compromises circulation. And just like the family of robins on the other side of the window, baby slips away and becomes another statistic for an unexplained sudden infant death.

I mentioned the changes in the way sudden infant death has enabled the charities to claim back to sleep has reduced the number of deaths because at the time I was compiling a very interesting graph myself relating rainfall to cot deaths, which eerily mirrored each other over many years, peaks and troughs dancing together over the weeks and months until the statistics changed. My graph reflected these changes, but if a new graph was compiled including statistics as they are collected now along with rainfall or even better humidity levels the same mirror dance would become evident once more!

I firmly believe I have solved cot death! I am not alone, Dr Chantler, former research advisor for the Foundation For Sudden Infant Death Research in London also believes I have solved cot death and indeed said so at her home in London where we met in order for her to gain an understanding of the importance of posture and humidity.

One other thing worth mentioning is feeding baby before placing horizontal causes sleepiness because density changes in the stomach contents counter act density changes in respiration by reducing the uptake of fluids from the gut and intestines.

Adults become tired after eating a large meal for the same reason. Sleeping after a large meal is considered a normal reaction but is it?

So to recap, High humidity = poor lung function, lethargy, sleepiness, core body temperature drop, further reducing the lungs capacity for water exchange, followed by increased localised humidity due to family activities in the home at weekends, coupled with living in High Humidity areas such as river valley and coastal areas leads to respiratory and circulatory collapse in healthy adults, let alone the elderly and the very young. But when the humidity is combined with horizontal bedrest and a meal there becomes a triple whammy.

Inclined bed therapy has been reported by many people now to have a profound impact on respiration, heart rate and function and circulation. IBT also maintains body temperature. Possibly by a greater uptake of food from the gut, but I suspect that the improved body temperature is brought about by additional friction from fluids as circulation improves.

What is more worrying is the increased use of vaporisers; http://www.kidskingston.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7147&sid=55d85dadea5221310ea57b178cd07a6f

Vaporising the air we breathe has been shown to shot down noisy children in hospital. My wife and I were at our son’s bedside following an accident a few years ago now. In a bed next to us was a child who when awake was screaming for help and becoming very agitated. His bed was walled in by high sides and a plastic padding. Above the sleeping area was a humidifier which when in use poured a visible mist plume into the cot for what appeared to be around 15 minutes. Immediately the child would become frantic and eventually subdued until falling asleep. I do not know what the Childs condition was, but I do know they were performing a very risky and harmful act, which looked like it was designed to make their lives more peaceful rather than assisting the child in any way.

“Humidity has long been a treatment to relieve the symptoms of croup, however there has previously been very little evidence-based research to confirm that it is an effective therapy and there can be risks associated with this type of treatment,” said the study's lead author, Dr. Dennis Scolnik, a physician in the Divisions of Emergency Services and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology and project director at SickKids, and an assistant professor of Paediatrics at the University of Toronto. “Patients can be at risk of burns from the steam and wheezing or electrolyte abnormalities can occur in infants. Because of these risks, we felt that it was important that the positive effects of humidification be substantial enough to warrant its ongoing use.”
A randomized trial of 140 children with moderate to severe croup between the ages of three months and 10 years of age was conducted between 2001 and 2004 in the SickKids Emergency Department. The study found that humidity did not result in a greater improvement in symptoms than a placebo.
“Even optimally sized water particles designed to deposit in the upper airway, where the inflammation occurs in croup, failed to bring about any improvement in the croup score,” added Scolnik. “Humidity may still have its uses in the very mild and very severe cases of croup who were not recruited in this study.” http://www.sickkids.ca/mediaroom/custom/croupupdate06.asp

« Last Edit: 11/11/2007 19:20:36 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile


The graph from my pre-internet research.
Clearly showing a link between humidity and damp weather and cot deaths during each yearly quarter, England and Wales 1985-1992 ages 28 days to 1 year. The greyed out area to the right shows the launch of reduce the risk campaign by the FSID The lower graphline represnets the quarterly average rainfall for England and Wales combined, 1986 to 1991 based on figures from the met office.

In advanced Human Biology: John Simpkins ISBN 0 7135 2769 2 there is another graph relating to sleep and body temperature showing a drop of two degrees from 36.7 down to 35.5 mouth temperature at 3.30 am
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/08/Newborn-Babies-Were-NOT-Designed-to-Sleep-Alone.aspx

 Shunning the Family Bed. Who Benefits Most?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
December 08 2009

bedsharing, bed-sharing, co-sleeping, cosleeping, family bed, SIDSAccording to Dr. Jay Gordon, babies sleeping on a safe surface with sober, nonsmoking parents respond to their parents, and the parents respond to them. The chance of SIDS occurring in this situation are close to zero. Babies in a crib or in a room away from their parents, on the other hand, will breastfeed less and are at greater risk of infections, including life-threatening ones.

The medical profession, as it often does, is approaching the entire idea of the family bed backward. A baby in the same bed with his or her parents is surrounded by the best possible surveillance and safety system. It must be the responsibility of the manufacturers and proponents of cribs and separated sleep to prove that such disruption is safe, not the other way around.

Newborn babies breathe in irregular rhythms and even stop breathing for a few seconds at a time. To put it simply, they are not designed to sleep alone.

Sources:

  Peaceful Parenting October 15, 2009
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"Clearly showing a link between humidity and damp weather and cot deaths during each yearly quarter, England and Wales 1985-1992 ages 28 days to 1 year. "
Indeed, there is a link.
It is generally called Winter.
If you look at overall death rates (rather than just cot death) you will find a similar association because people are more likely to die (from a number of causes) in Winter.
In particular you could find a link between people dying after falling on ice and high rainfall in the UK.
This does not mean that cot deaths cause icy pavements.

There really is a difference between correlation and causation.

And your talk of changing the density of body fluids by breathing is still unsuported (and unsuportable) by data.
The heart pumps about 5 litres of blood to the lungs each minute. During that minute the lungs process something like 20 litres of air. Assuming the air goes in at 20C and 50% RH and leaves at 37C and 100 RH it gains about 720mg of water so the blood looses this much.
So, in going through the lungs the blood looses about 1 part in 7000 of its water.
The density of blood is about 1.025 Kg/L so the change in density will be something like 0.025/7000. That's about 0.003g/litre.
Now let's see what effect that has on the pressure.
The blood runs from the heart to the lungs and back. After that it's probably fairly well mixed up so we need to look at the effect of the change in hydrostaic pressure at the heart due to the change in density and the difference in height between the lungs and the heart. Call it 10 cm (to be very generous- the heart and lungs are practically on the same level)and a density difference of about 3 parts in a million. The pressure difference is about 0.03 mm of water. Normal blood pressures are of the order of 100 mm Hg that's about 1300 mm of water.

Andrew,
do you really think that a difference of about 0.03mm of water against a background of 1300 mm of water will make any difference?

Just on the offchance that you do, do you realise that the difference caused by the heartbest is about 400mm of water?

The blood pressure changes by about 400 mm H2O with each heartbeat and you are saying that the change due to evaporation (ie about 0.03 mm H2O) makes a difference.

Had you thought that through?

Oh and there's another thing. A baby lying on its back has its lungs pretty near level with its heart. If the baby lies on its front nothing changes, they are still pretty much level. But the incidence of cot death does change. So cot death cannot be related to the effect of blood density changes as the blood goes through the lungs.

« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 20:58:55 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Good post BC thank you.

we are not talking about altering the density of the blood significantly but talking about the effect of exhalation of fluids from the water on the surface surfacant density which is released into the blood in tiny pulses with each exhale and the affect of introducing this back into the blood.

The winter link as you call it cannot be explaining the high percentage of deaths in river valley and low lying coastal areas, statistically proven by Munro and accepted by Universities. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119160739/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Returning to your point about insignificant density changes.

The Atlantic Conveyor System is an excellent example.

The surface water of the Atlantic is indeed insignificant to the massive volume of the ocean. Yet the evaporation from that insignificant surface water causes a massive flow and return system bigger than all of the rivers in the world combined and in doing so drives the weather.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8659
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Good post BC thank you.

we are not talking about altering the density of the blood significantly but talking about the effect of exhalation of fluids from the water on the surface surfacant density which is released into the blood in tiny pulses with each exhale and the affect of introducing this back into the blood.

The winter link as you call it cannot be explaining the high percentage of deaths in river valley and low lying coastal areas, statistically proven by Munro and accepted by Universities. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119160739/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Returning to your point about insignificant density changes.

The Atlantic Conveyor System is an excellent example.

The surface water of the Atlantic is indeed insignificant to the massive volume of the ocean. Yet the evaporation from that insignificant surface water causes a massive flow and return system bigger than all of the rivers in the world combined and in doing so drives the weather.


OK, so you are not talking about density.
On the other hand you wrote
"I am saying that vapour loss from the respiratory tract serves a more logical purpose by altering the density of the fluids with every exhaled breath and in doing so releases a pulse of concentrated or denser fluids back through the lining of the lungs where in turn dilute fluids are brought back to the surface of the lungs caused by the density flow. "

Which one do you mean?

The atlantic conveyor is driven, in part, by the difference in density between sea water and fresh water. That's a difference of about 2.5%
Also you may note that the atlantic is a bit bigger than a baby.

The changes in surfactant chemistry will be comparable with the changes in density- rather small. Also, the surfaces don't change much. The surface area of a lung is whatever it is.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums