new study on second hand smoke & lung cancer

I know this will stir up some of the militant smokers here but I think it deserves to be noted especially with the new Ohio smoking ban. From many posts, on the Toledo Talk message boards there seem to be a few people who think that second hand smoke is a myth so I figured to post this, not because I think it would change their minds, because I don't think it will, but I can hope that maybe it might.
Second hand smoke is not just a harmless biproduct of a bad habit.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Up to 20 percent of women who develop lung cancer have never smoked, U.S. researchers found in a study that suggests secondhand smoke may be to blame. A survey of a million people in the United States and Sweden shows that just 8 percent of men who get lung cancer are nonsmokers.

"I have a lot of patients who have never smoked," said Dr. Heather Wakelee of Stanford University in California, who led the study.

"And because of the stigma, people are embarrassed to speak out about their disease. They feel like as soon as they say they have lung cancer, everyone judges them."

She said it is not clear why women may be more likely to get lung cancer even if they have never smoked.

"There is a lot of controversy over whether women are more susceptible to smoking at all, whether direct or secondhand smoke," Wakelee said in a telephone interview.

Writing in Friday's issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Wakelee and epidemiologist Ellen Chang said they tracked the incidence of lung cancer in more than 1 million people aged 40 to 79. All had taken part in various studies of diet, lifestyle and disease, some going back into the early 1970s.

Some groups were mostly white women, such as an ongoing nurse's study, while others included ethnically diverse groups, Wakelee said.

Among women who never smoked, the lung cancer incidence rate ranged from 14.4 per 100,000 women per year to 20.8 cases per 100,000. In men, it ranged from 4.8 to 13.7 per 100,000. Rates were about 10 to 30 times higher in smokers.

This would translate to about 20 percent of female lung cancer patients having been nonsmokers and 8 percent of males, they said. That compares with American Cancer Society estimates of about 10 percent to 15 percent for all lung cancer patients.

"That estimate has been thrown about without any hard data to support it. This data sort of supports it," Wakelee said.

Chang said that because more men smoke than women, women may be more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke, even when they are classified as never-smokers.

"We know that secondhand smoke does increase the risk of lung cancer so it's likely that a lot of these cases we observe are attributable to that," she said in a statement.

Smoking is by far the leading cause of lung cancer, but radon, asbestos, chromium and arsenic are also associated with lung cancer.

The American Cancer Society projects that lung cancer will be diagnosed in 213,000 Americans in 2007 and kill 160,000.

Weill Cornell Medical College last week said it was starting a lung cancer study of 5,000 people working in industries with a high degree of secondhand smoke exposure, such as flight attendants, restaurant workers and entertainers.;_ylt=Am38Tb1mXW...

No votes yet

The ban is good for the state of ohio, and the businesses in the long run. Everyone will adjust. It's only a matter of time.

the bans are bad for this state and this country. it's just another invasion of the freedoms/ rights this country once appreciated.

...brought to you by a nonsmoker.

There is no right to smoke. As a smoker, I recognize this.

that's not the "right" which concerns me. this agrument has been played out on these boards, so i'm not getting into it.

i will say it's the rights of a private property owner that are being stripped.

and, please, do not tell me the voters don't see it that way. clueless mob rule is hazardous to this country's health.

i'm done.

I know some of them will want to throttle me, BUT the issue happens to be smoking right now. I'm a closet smoker - and I am trying to quit - but the 'right to smoke?' That's hugely a secondary issue.

If you look at the legislation and simply remove the word 'smoking' from it and insert another issue, such as freedom to religion,disciplining your child, being overweight, hell - getting up after 6:00 a.m. - any of the these 'social evils' you will see what is actually afoot here.

It is a handy issue, most people cannot argue that smoking is a nasty habit - but once THIS issue gets through we've created a fill in the blank situation where any small special interest group can ride in on the coat tails of THIS legislation and start curtailing personal liberties.

Tell me if this makes any sense to you?

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

There is no right to smoke. As a smoker, I recognize this.

There is no law saying you can't smoke now is there?

Epidemiologists James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, who were published in the British Medical Journal, studied 118,000 Californians from 1959-1998, and concluded:


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Actually the right to smoke is an implied right of the right to privacy. Just like the right to have an abortion is an implied right.



Just a snippit of the article.You can find the rest at the link above.
However, the American Cancer Society blasted the study -- and Enstrom -- for misusing its own data in an attempt to "confuse the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke." And former U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond, MD, is expected to join other medical experts in calling the study "bogus" in a news conference on Friday

And this interesting tidbit about that study:

The tobacco industry funded the study as part of an ongoing campaign to publish studies that question the dangers of secondhand smoke. "It views secondhand smoke as one of the most dangerous components against it, since it's what causes cities and states to restrict public smoking," says Thun. "And it actively seeks out this kind of research to confuse the public."

In fact, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 that found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems were funded by tobacco companies. In that review, researchers examined 106 studies conducted in those 15 years; two in three indicated secondhand smoke does contribute to lung and heart disease.

I know you're a rabid smoker-hater, but you're way off base on this particular study. This was how it was DISCREDITED here by the usual suspects owned and operated by RWJF-the Cancer, Heart, and Lung associations-that it was paid for by the evil empire. Here's the TRUTH-the usual suspects WITHDREW THEIR FUNDING from this study once it became clear that the results weren't going to come out like they wanted. The researchers then turned to a few of the tobacco companies and asked if they would be interested in providing funnding-they said ok, and did so-FOR THE LAST TWO-THREE YEARS of the study!!! I find it really funny how any horseshit or lies, no matter how ridiculous, are GOSPEL when stated by the usual suspects, but if a tobacco company is involved in a study, you feel it's horseshit.


In World War 2 we fought the Nazis. Today we're afraid of cellphones, smokers, and cheeseburgers. It's about at the end, people.


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.