4 ms·

I have two responses to this article: (1) My ancestors participated in a multitude of activities which I find misguided or dangerous. It is a logical fallacy t

I have two responses to this article: (1) My ancestors participated in a multitude of activities which I find misguided or dangerous. It is a logical fallacy to say: “a practice happened for a long time, therefore it’s positive.” (2) If you drink or smoke (??) your odds jump from 1:16,000 to 1:150????? We need a better explanation of that jump. A LOT of people smoke or drink. This headline is dangerous by giving the impression that these studies were wrong. They weren’t wrong, it just might be an overstated risk for some demographics. They give an analogy of dying in a car accident. I face less risk of dying in a car accident than some people for good reasons: I work from home, don’t drink much, good income, etc. But I still wear a seatbelt! It doesn’t make sense for me to say that my instincts tell me not to wear a seatbelt and my demographics check out so it’s no big deal. In short, come on NPR. This is shoddy and dangerous journalism, even if the premise ends up being validated.

jacobolus 8y ago
Substantial drinking makes people sleep much more deeply, similar to severe sleep deprivation. (Someone who just pulled 2 all-nighters in a row should also probably not co-sleep with an infant.) For example, people who fall asleep with their arm draped over the back of a chair, and remain asleep even though their nerve is pinched, can end up with severe damage to the radial nerve, in some cases requiring months for the nerve to heal. This gets the name “saturday night palsy” because of the association with alcohol use: the pain would ordinarily cause a sober and well rested person to wake up and shift around. Basically, someone who is substantially drunk has a much higher chance of rolling over and crushing the infant without waking up. We’re talking about getting very drunk here though, not sipping a glass of wine with dinner.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  > (Someone who just pulled 2 all-nighters in a row should also probably not co-sleep with an infant.) Which is a cruel irony, given some infants' sleep habits - or lack thereof.
- joshschreuder 8y ago
  That is quite intuitive. What is the explanation for smokers though? As far as I’m aware there is no or limited impact on sleep for smokers, at least not in making sleep more deep (otherwise I suspect we may see more smokers!)
  - szemet 8y ago
    I've found this: http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=18903 http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=18903 "babies who sleep with smoker parents suffer from ‘third hand smoke', in other words, the harmful smoke particles that impregnate their parents' skin, clothes and hair"
runarberg 8y ago
Your seat belt analogy is invalid. Driving past a certain speed is always life threatening. Even if you driving on a non-life threatening speed, you share the road with other people that might be, worse, these people might be drunk even though your sober. Wearing a seat belt is a low cost highly effective way to reduce the risk of dying while in traffic. The reduction is significant. Usually parents share beds with their infants in a low risk and controlled environment. If the parents get drunk one night, it is easy for them to postpone the practice that particular night. Always putting the baby to the crypt is a high cost low yield way of reducing the risk of SIDS. The risk reduction is puny. A more apt analogy would be if you always drive on your own private road no faster then 15 km/h, except once a week where you drive 120 km/h on the motorway. Your car has a 5 point seat belt and is a pain to put on. A sensible person, and a sensible advice is to put the seat belt on that one time a week when you drive on the motorway.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jacobolus 8y ago

Substantial drinking makes people sleep much more deeply, similar to severe sleep deprivation. (Someone who just pulled 2 all-nighters in a row should also probably not co-sleep with an infant.) For example, people who fall asleep with their arm draped over the back of a chair, and remain asleep even though their nerve is pinched, can end up with severe damage to the radial nerve, in some cases requiring months for the nerve to heal. This gets the name “saturday night palsy” because of the association with alcohol use: the pain would ordinarily cause a sober and well rested person to wake up and shift around. Basically, someone who is substantially drunk has a much higher chance of rolling over and crushing the infant without waking up. We’re talking about getting very drunk here though, not sipping a glass of wine with dinner.

pavel_lishin 8y ago
> (Someone who just pulled 2 all-nighters in a row should also probably not co-sleep with an infant.) Which is a cruel irony, given some infants' sleep habits - or lack thereof.
joshschreuder 8y ago
That is quite intuitive. What is the explanation for smokers though? As far as I’m aware there is no or limited impact on sleep for smokers, at least not in making sleep more deep (otherwise I suspect we may see more smokers!)
- szemet 8y ago
  I've found this: http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=18903 http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=18903 "babies who sleep with smoker parents suffer from ‘third hand smoke', in other words, the harmful smoke particles that impregnate their parents' skin, clothes and hair"

runarberg 8y ago

Your seat belt analogy is invalid. Driving past a certain speed is always life threatening. Even if you driving on a non-life threatening speed, you share the road with other people that might be, worse, these people might be drunk even though your sober. Wearing a seat belt is a low cost highly effective way to reduce the risk of dying while in traffic. The reduction is significant. Usually parents share beds with their infants in a low risk and controlled environment. If the parents get drunk one night, it is easy for them to postpone the practice that particular night. Always putting the baby to the crypt is a high cost low yield way of reducing the risk of SIDS. The risk reduction is puny. A more apt analogy would be if you always drive on your own private road no faster then 15 km/h, except once a week where you drive 120 km/h on the motorway. Your car has a 5 point seat belt and is a pain to put on. A sensible person, and a sensible advice is to put the seat belt on that one time a week when you drive on the motorway.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]