PEDIATRICS Vol. 98 No. 3 September 1996, pp. 513
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wall, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Zoref, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wall, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Zoref, L.

Letter To The Editor

Michael A. Wall MD1, Herbert Severson PhD1, Judy Andrews PhD1, Ed Lichtenstein PhD1, and Leslie Zoref PhD1

1 Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, OR 97201

Two studies have been published in which the major purpose was to reduce infant exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) by moving the source of the smoke away from the infant.1,2, Neither study showed a reduction in mean infant urine cotinine levels although Greenberg and associates did find a reduction in reported smoke exposure and a reduction in persistent respiratory symptoms in lower socioeconomic level children. One may interpret the data of Greenberg et al to mean that mothers in the intervention group knew the right thing to say in response to a survey.