DEAR DR. BLONZ: I was intrigued by your breakdown of results to your health when you quit smoking. I was born in the 1950s to parents who smoked cigarettes. I lived 18 years in a smoke-filled environment, and probably because of that, have never touched a cigarette. What effect does that have on children’s health, both short- and long-term? Perhaps if parents understood that smoking around a newly developing human has consequences, they might reconsider such a nasty habit. -- D.D., via email

DEAR DR. BLONZ: I have a question about secondhand smoke. I quit 27 years ago, but my former wife kept on smoking until she died four years ago -- in the house, car, etc. How does this affect me? -- H., via email

DEAR D.D. AND H.: There is no safe exposure to tobacco smoke. Secondhand smoke -- that is, smoke inhaled by individuals nearby who aren’t doing the smoking -- is also dangerous. According to the CDC, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. This is especially true for infants, children, the elderly, and anyone with respiratory or immune system issues. There are risks for all exposed -- including pets.

A study in the October 2012 issue of the journal BMC Health Services Research reported that average annual medical costs (physician visits, physical therapy and hospital treatments) were considerably higher for children exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at home (whether indoors or outdoors) compared with those who were not exposed. It can cause numerous health problems in infants and children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). That should be quite sobering. For the complete list of risks from secondhand smoke, visit tinyurl.com/j2j4gsf.

But it does not stop there: There is even a risk from “thirdhand smoke.” This risk refers to exposure and possible inhalation of the smoke particulates that settle on skin, clothing and other surfaces. Thirdhand smoke is responsible for the telltale odor on objects, clothing, furnishings and areas where smoking has taken place. The odorous particles responsible can be inhaled when they become airborne (see article at tinyurl.com/zqj3nyt).

Smoking is an addiction with sticky tentacles in many aspects of our health and well-being, not to mention our pocketbooks. We become addicted not only to the chemicals in the smoke, but also to the act of smoking and the behavior adjustments it requires. All this makes it oh-so-difficult to quit, especially if you remain among others who have yet to pull the plug. I have great respect for anyone who has been able to successfully cast aside this dark force affecting their health, and the health of those around them.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: I have arthritis, and except for pain relief, medical science has been unable to help me so far. I have heard of herbal supplements that could help, but when I bring up the topic with my medical doctor, I get a blank stare and rejection. Why is there always plenty of information on drugs, but precious little on alternatives? Science seems to move way too slowly when investigating new concepts, and hardly at all when investigating herbs. -- S.T., Oakland, California

DEAR S.T.: Funding is a key factor in determining what gets studied, since many scientists depend upon research grants from federal and private institutions to keep their laboratories in operation. These monies, from which a university takes a cut for its operating expenses, cover items such as salaries of research assistants, equipment and other costs connected with the research. Grant applications include a collection of the theories, preliminary findings and previous publications assembled in a format dictated by the funding agency. There are always more requests than money, and once submitted, funding agencies review and prioritize the applications. If a request receives a low funding priority, the applicant must look elsewhere for their research dollars if, indeed, “elsewhere” exists.

The big picture associated with this sobering reality is that we must maintain a pro-research stance and keep funding coffers flush if we want to foster scientific advances. It also helps explain the generally conservative nature of science. When new frontiers are considered, initial results may not be clear. This might lead to a reluctance to investigate new ideas. If a scientist cannot secure research funds, it limits the progress of their research efforts. This delays experimental results and the completion of scholarly publications, both of which can affect their ability to attract grants in the future.

Equally important is the need for researchers to show progress at their institution. In essence, a new professor can find themselves without secure employment (tenure) if they don’t publish. Aware of this reality, some scientists focus their research on topics with a higher likelihood of financial support. In some instances, funding can come from private sources, earmarked for particular types of research. Given that private funders are less likely to support research that makes them or their products look bad, it’s not surprising that research reporting beneficial effects from a food or product has been supported by companies involved with that substance.

The source of the funding does not automatically compromise the integrity of the research. This would more likely be the case when studies are conducted at a major university, as they tend to have policies that prohibit funding agencies from exerting overt pressures on the conduct of the research and how the findings are reported. That’s the ideal, at least. There’s additional assurance if the results appear in a quality peer-reviewed journal, as this would signify that the findings have been critically examined by other experts in the field.

It is also important that breakthroughs are then confirmed by independent researchers at other institutions. All this is meant to provide perspective on why research tends to move slowly with new theories, trends or products.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: Weight loss products typically promise wonderful things and many offer free trials, although the “shipping and handling” are there to recover costs. I have replayed some of the ads and detected “squiggle” words that didn’t really promise anything -- only saying what might occur to some people. Who is in charge of what can be said in these advertisements? -- M.Q. Scottsdale, Arizona

DEAR M.Q.: We are affected not only by what is said, but in the way a concept is communicated. Certain words or phrases function as qualifiers. Think of it as the difference between saying “A causes B” and “A may cause B.” The responsibility falls on the listener (or reader) to interpret what’s going on. When strung together with skill, these types of statements can bring forth an aura of belief that appears as solid as truth.

This is the bread and butter of advertising, law and science, as well as politics. One gets to speak of possibilities without addressing probabilities. That seed of potential is planted, a clever context provided, and the listener is lured into the land of certainty. Those with such skills find work in sales, politics and public relations.

Examples of “squiggle” words and phrases include: may, could, might, has been known to, possibly, chance, potentially, conceivably, plausible, seem to, we believe, in my opinion, and feasible. All of these communicate some level of likelihood without citing objective evidence.

In my experience, I have seen dubious claims associated with substances and devices. But just because a product or method is unproven does not mean it’s false; it only signifies that it has not been tested. The key is what follows: An objective scientist will test the concept, while those of a lesser stripe go directly to the public to make money, making use of “squiggle words” to state their case. The consuming public gets caught in the middle, being forced to play the game of “Who do you trust?”

It is an unfortunate fact of human nature that when we want something to be true (or false), and we hear information that supports that desire, we tend to let down our guard and welcome the information. I always encourage consumers to be alert and informed. In my experience, people tend to have more knowledge and be more critical when they go to purchase an automobile or major appliance than when it comes to matters that relate to their health. It certainly doesn’t have to be that way.

As individuals choosing commercial products, we are the ultimate decision makers. But luckily, there are agencies that act on our behalf and help us make informed decisions. On the national level, we have the Federal Trade Commission (tinyurl.com/jn2f74h), and on the state level, we have our attorneys general, who are charged with overseeing misleading advertising claims in the media and on product labels and websites. Private attorneys bring cases to represent classes of individuals victimized by questionable promotional claims.

As effective as these consumer protection efforts can be, the overflow of dubious advertisements in our newspapers, online, on the air, and flooding into our email accounts means we are forced to serve as the ultimate protectors of our best interests.

Send questions to: “On Nutrition,” Ed Blonz, c/o Universal Uclick, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO, 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.