If so this should frighten the living daylights out of the Antismoking fake charities such as ASH.
The question to be asked is this:
Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?
I’ve written this post as the WHO have just come out of the closet and admitted that outdoor air pollution is maybe the main cause of lung cancer.
A major environmental health problem
Air pollution is already known to increase risks for a wide range of diseases, such as respiratory and heart diseases. Studies indicate that in recent years exposure levels have increased significantly in some parts of the world, particularly in rapidly industrializing countries with large populations. The most recent data indicate that in 2010, 223 000 deaths from lung cancer worldwide resulted from air pollution.
The most widespread environmental carcinogen
“The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances,” says Dr Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Section. “We now know that outdoor air pollution is not only a major risk to health in general, but also a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.”
However a research scientist came up with a study in 1998 which if was true should have turned the prevailing orthodoxy on it’s head about cigarette smoking.
Here is a few facts from her work:
- tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
- that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
- that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
- that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
- and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
And even more damning is her summary.
"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".
Over to you ASH.
