Or not if this study is correct.
1. 80 epidemiological studies of lung cancer among lifelong nonsmokers have been published.
2. The overall evidence shows no statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer in relation to ETS exposure from parents in childhood, or in social situations, or to nonspousal ETS exposure at home.
3. The overall evidence shows that lung cancer risk among nonsmoking women is significantly associated with having a husband who smokes (with a similar association seen in nonsmoking men in relation to smoking by the wife, though based on far less data).
There is also evidence of a dose-response relationship,1 with risk higher if the husband smokes more cigarettes per day or for a longer period of time. However, there are a number of reasons why this association and dose-response relationship cannot be interpreted as indicating a causal effect of ETS exposure including:the association is weak and is not statistically significant in the great majority of studies: over 80% show no statistically significant association between smoking by the husband and the development of lung cancer;
It goes on with a lot more elucidation, ending with this final bullet point before the data part.
Taken as a whole, the epidemiology does not support the claim that ETS causes lung cancer in non-smokers.
I’m sure the nanny state and the Fascists over at ASH don’t want you to know this. So I’m telling you instead.
I know you love windmills - so if you haven't seen it - you'll appreciate this I think
ReplyDeleteLung Cancer a Different Disease in Smokers and Nonsmokers
ReplyDeletePHILADELPHIA — Lung cancer that develops in smokers is not the same disease as lung cancer that develops in people who've never touched a cigarette, a new study finds.
There are nearly twice as many DNA changes in the tumors of people who have never smoked than in the tumors of people who smoke, which suggests the cancer of "never-smokers" is different from smokers' cancer, said Kelsie Thu, a Ph.D. candidate at the BC Cancer Research Center in Canada.
"We think this finding provides evidence that never-smoker and smoker lung cancers are different, and suggests they arise through different molecular pathways," Thu told MyHealthNewsDaily. "Never-smokers might be exposed to a carcinogen, not from cigarettes, that causes their tumors to have more DNA alterations and promotes lung cancer development."
http://www.livescience.com/11090-lung-cancer-disease-smokers-nonsmokers.html
Harleyrider
I thought that Doll's work to prove that smoking caused ( or could cause ) lung cancer was by comparing the rates in smokers v. non-smokers in the same household.
ReplyDeleteHumans have been exposed to smoke since the invention of fire. Most fires were open and in enclosed spaces to make matters worse. (Carbon monoxide poisoning was a problem even back in the Roman times)
ReplyDeleteIts only in very recent times that humans have lived in an smoke free environment.
Yes, traditionally we were exposed to wood smoke, not tobacco. Smoke is smoke. Its the tar, carbon monoxide, high amounts of free radicals, and all the other nasties that is important regarding health.
If passive smoking was so toxic humans would be extinct by now.
Biology is so complicated that passive intake of smoke may be beneficial and act as a mild anti-fungal, anti-septic. What if the rise in asthma is because humans are not being exposed to low levels of smoke?