The CBB
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/

Question about smoking/its effects on ones health
http://www.the-cbb.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4640

Author:  miss_maeve [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:38 am ]
Post subject:  Question about smoking/its effects on ones health

Does anybody know when it was actually discovered that smoking is bad for ones lungs? I know it was actively promoted as being GOOD for you at one point, but I'm having trouble finding out when opinions swung round to the other way.
More importantly, was it ever thought/proved during the published Chalet School years that tobacco is bad for you?
*has a cunning idea in mind*

Author:  JayB [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:06 am ]
Post subject: 

I think campaigns to raise public awareness of the risks began in the early to mid '70s. Certainly before 1978, because I remember refusing to buy cigarettes for my Dad when I was going to the shops, and he died in '78.

The risks of passive smoking weren't known, or at least acted on, until a good while later. I worked in an office where people smoked in 1987.

In any case, the risks weren't publicly known in EBD's lifetime. Although one could argue that Jem and Jack, as specialists in lung disease, probably should have had some idea of early research pointing that way!

Author:  Carys [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:12 am ]
Post subject: 

This website gives a short history of smoking http://www.helpwithsmoking.com/history-of-smoking.php
It states the 1950's as when the first warnings of the risks of smoking were made.

Author:  Róisín [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:13 am ]
Post subject: 

Some snippets from here:

Quote:
...Although physicians such as Benjamin Rush had claimed tobacco use (including smoking) negatively impacted one's health as early as 1798,[26] it was not until the early 20th century that serious medical studies began to be conducted. One of the true breakthroughs came in 1948, when the British physiologist Richard Doll published the first major studies that proved that smoking could cause serious health damage...

The rise of the modern anti-smoking movement in the late 19th century did more than create awareness of the hazards of smoking; it provoked reactions of smokers against what was, and often still is, perceived as an assault on personal freedom and has created an identity among smokers as rebels or outcasts, apart from non-smokers...

Pipe smoking, until recently one of the most common forms of smoking, is today often associated with solemn contemplation, old age and is often considered quaint and archaic. Cigarette smoking, which did not begin to become widespread until the late 19th century, has more associations of modernity and the faster pace of the industrialized world...


I put in the bit about the pipe because didn't Jem smoke one? And various Austrian fathers :lol:

Author:  miss_maeve [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:22 am ]
Post subject: 

Thank you Carys and Roisin.
One final question, or rather, a query on my own traumatised brain cells - 'Prefects' would have been set in, roughly, 1957, would I be right? (going on the age of the Triplets, although I know EBD's timelines were notoriously wobbly)

Author:  Alison H [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:31 am ]
Post subject: 

The triplets would have been 19 in the November following Prefects, making it 1958 if relying on their ages.

James I wrote about the ill effects of smoking on people's health in the early 1600s!

However, I would think that when EBD was writing there were no widespread campaigns about it being bad for you. People probably knew that it wasn't very good for you, but not to what extent, in the same way that we now know that eating and drinking too much of certain things isn't good for you but don't have the same "fear factor" with them that we do with smoking. Does that make any sense whatsoever :oops: ?

Two of my grandparents (born 1913 and 1915, so between Madge and Joey in terms of age) died of smoking-related diseases, but they started smoking at a time when it was pretty much the normal thing to do.

Author:  miss_maeve [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:36 am ]
Post subject: 

Alison H wrote:

However, I would think that when EBD was writing there were no widespread campaigns about it being bad for you. People probably knew that it wasn't very good for you, but not to what extent, in the same way that we now know that eating and drinking too much of certain things isn't good for you but don't have the same "fear factor" with them that we do with smoking. Does that make any sense whatsoever

Perfect sense, thank ye kindly.
Don't worry, this won't be a weepy, it's going to be a funny one - honest!

Author:  Carys [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:58 am ]
Post subject: 

I think there is a slight shift in EBD's attitude towards smoking towards the end of the series. In Reunion, which depending on how you look on the timeline of the series is set in either 1955 or 1963, you have Len stating that Joey and Jack have made the triplets promise not to smoke until they are 18 and that she (Len) does not intend to do so then either. By 1963 the ill-effects of smoking would have been publicised in greater detail and I wonder if this influenced EBD.
Interestingly I read somewhere that people with parents who smoke are more likely to smoke than those whose parents don't so if that's true then you'd expect a number of the Maynard children to smoke.

Author:  Róisín [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

And Roger Richardson refuses to smoke because he knows it will spoil 'his wind for rugger' or something like that.

Author:  Lesley [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

The epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll published a report in 1950 in the BMJ showing the link between lung cancer and smoking - he then went on to do a study of 40,000 doctors which proved the same - and, in his words, got the medical profession on his side as they realised it was not only killing their patients but killing them!

Apparently when he did the first study it was with the intention of disproving the theories - when his reaseach showed it proved it he stopped smoking the same day.

Back OT - Jem Russell and Jack Maynard would therefore have been aware of the research from 1950 - especially as they specialised in respiratory diseases.

Author:  Róisín [ Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

There was definitely a thread about this some time back, but I can't remember where. I've checked the Anything Else archives and there's nothing there. Some people went into a lot of detail and it was v. interesting.

Author:  tiffinata [ Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:34 am ]
Post subject: 

I think at some point people were encouraged to smoke when they had chest complaints in order to make them cough and loosen the phlegm.

I know in the late 80's a friend of mine with mental health issues was encouraged to smoke as an alternative to taking medication.

Author:  Pat [ Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

Róisín wrote:
And Roger Richardson refuses to smoke because he knows it will spoil 'his wind for rugger' or something like that.


My Dad never smoked because he played wing at football, and he said it slowed him too much after he'd tried it. He would have been playing in the 1920s as he was born in 1905.

Author:  Sugar [ Wed Jun 11, 2008 7:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

tiffinata wrote:
I know in the late 80's a friend of mine with mental health issues was encouraged to smoke as an alternative to taking medication.


It's still advised that people with mental health issues don't give up smoking. And a lot of people finds that it helps them as the chemicals in nicotine affect the neural transmitors and pathways.

Author:  Kathy_S [ Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:56 am ]
Post subject: 

While medical evidence was certainly growing in the 50s, I'm not sure to what extent EBD would have been aware of it. The tobacco companies were pretty effective at making claims to the contrary, and adding modifications (e.g. filters & menthol) that they claimed would negate any nasty effects. For a good collection of ads, see this link:http://lane.stanford.edu/tobacco/index.html

I'm pretty sure I mentioned in the mysteriously missing thread that my mother's doctor directed her to start smoking, for her "nerves." That would have been in the early fifties.

By the late 60s, anti-smoking campaigns had reached my local school system, complete with a "smoking machine" that showed gunk accumulating in transparent plastic lungs and movies with gory footage of affected lungs.

It's interesting to see how the portrayal of smoking has changed in GO books. Initially it seemed mostly a moral issue on a level with gambling and pool halls, e.g. when, in Rose in Bloom, Uncle Alec gives it up as a good example, and Rose swaps her earrings for promises from the cousins. Later, the primary argument seems to be that Nice Girls don't smoke. This concept had begun to break down somewhat by the time EBD was writing. So, it's still shocking if a CS girl tries it, but permissible among adults. Actually, I think EBD's objective in portraying mistresses smoking is part and parcel of her campaign to show them as the antithesis of "schoolmarmish."

Author:  Mrs Redboots [ Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Don't forget that almost everybody smoked during, and for several years after, the 2nd World War. Everybody except my father, who tried it and decided he'd rather swap his cigarette ration for other people's chocolate rations.....

Yet all three of their children smoked - I, at least, very heavily for 25 years (although I stopped 14 years ago, and yes, did nearly have a nervous breakdown, but managed not to!). I don't know how people _do_ smoke nowadays, when you only really can in the privacy of your own home and not even that if it's rented!

Author:  Carolyn P [ Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

I know I am coming late to this thread, but smoking is condemned in the Elsie books, not on moral grounds, but on health grounds and I seem to recall that James I/VI wrote a treatise against them, also on health grounds.

Of course these would have been without the scientific research, but the theory of smoking being bad for your health was around in some circles prior to the last century.

All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/