Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lung cancer due to passive smoking - a review
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health ^ | Volume 74 Issue 4 (2001) | F. Adlkofer

Posted on 09/06/2001 2:11:47 PM PDT by Max McGarrity

Stiftung VERUM, Pettenkoferstrasse 33, 80336 Munich, Germany e-mail: prof.adlkofer@verum-foundation.de Tel.: +49-89-5309880; Fax: +49-89-53098829

Received: 23 August 2000 / Accepted: 4 December 2000

Abstract Objectives: Even from the scientific literature it is difficult to conclude whether the increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), as reported in many epidemiological studies, is based on sound data from reliable studies, or rather on passionate assertions derived from unsound investigations. To shed some light on this matter the differences between cigarette mainstream smoke (MS) - inhaled by the smoker- and ETS - inhaled by everyone exposed-, the concentration of ETS under real life conditions, the internal dose of toxic compounds due to ETS exposure, and the risk of lung cancer as found in epidemiological studies are discussed.

Results: MS and ETS differ considerably in their physical, chemical and toxicological characteristics because of the different conditions under which they are generated, the dilution in air, and the degree of ageing. Based on toxicological data, a very low internal dose of potentially genotoxic compounds can be measured in people after ETS exposure. The epidemiological data suggest a slightly increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers chronically exposed to ETS. However, it is equally well known, that none of these studies is free from bias and confounding effects.

Conclusion: The average intake of toxic and genotoxic compounds due to ETS exposure is that low that it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain the increased risk of lung cancer as found in epidemiological studies. The uncertainty is further increased because the validity of epidemiological studies on passive smoking is limited severely by numerous bias and confounding factors which cannot be controlled for reliability. The question of whether or not ETS exposure is high enough to induce and/or promote the carcinogenic effects observed in epidemiological studies thus remains open, and the assumption of an increased risk of lung cancer due to ETS exposure is, at present, more a matter of opinion than of firm scientific evidence.

Key words Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) · Internal dose of ETS · Lung cancer · Toxicological data · Epidemiological data Acknowledgements The author, who has studied the biological effects of environmental tobacco smoke for 20 years (1976-1995), when he was director of the scientific department of the German Cigarette Manufacturers' Association (VdC), wishes to thank his former co-workers Dr. Wolf-Dieter Heller and Dr. Gerhard Scherer for their comments on the manuscript. In addition, the assistance of Mrs. Hannelore Kianfar with the manuscript is gratefully acknowledged.-->

Article in PDF format (232 KB)  


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 09/06/2001 2:11:47 PM PDT by Max McGarrity (madmax@revolutionist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Puff_list
bump
2 posted on 09/06/2001 2:17:33 PM PDT by Lanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PUFF_LIST, BUTTS, SMOKERS, LOUNGE
Of course, naysayers will point out the researcher's link to "Big Tobacco," the Great Satan of this Holy Crusade against Smokers, and never admit that the "studies" they tout so loudly were funded by the anti-tobacco coalition, but this is good information anyway. Particularly when backed up by the nonpartisan (and certainly not tobacco funded) Congressional Research Service. So now we have the EPA saying that the "proof" that secondary smoke causes heart disease "may be a figment of Stan Glantz's imagination," and numerous studies showing it doesn't cause lung cancer or asthma...so why are the 'banwagons' still rolling? Could it be....money? Power? Of course it is!
3 posted on 09/06/2001 2:17:44 PM PDT by Max McGarrity (madmax@revolutionist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
Just got back from Harrah's Casino in Atlantic City; cigs are $7 a pack...
4 posted on 09/06/2001 2:45:34 PM PDT by motzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: motzman
I quit when cigarettes got to ten dollars a carton. Man, think of the money saved in the last twenty years. But if I didn't think they would kill me, and were a lot cheaper, I'd start smoking again today.
5 posted on 09/06/2001 6:07:19 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
Your obsession with smoking is clinical, I think. I wish I could find the silver bullet to allow me quit tomorrow. So far, I've had no luck doing it on my own. The drug is too powerful. It's a waste of money and a waste of life. Why do you insist on defending the indefensible? Why don't you admit it's a bad thing to do instead of latching onto all this phoo-phoo science?
6 posted on 09/06/2001 6:13:19 PM PDT by Glenn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motzman
Jeez! That's a buck more than I spend for a CARTON of MYOs (make your own).
7 posted on 09/06/2001 7:59:54 PM PDT by Max McGarrity (madmax@revolutionist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
Your obsession with smoking is clinical, I think. I wish I could find the silver bullet to allow me quit tomorrow. So far, I've had no luck doing it on my own. The drug is too powerful. It's a waste of money and a waste of life. Why do you insist on defending the indefensible? Why don't you admit it's a bad thing to do instead of latching onto all this phoo-phoo science?

Glenn, I have no "obsession" with smoking, and if there wasn't a concerted effort to FORCE me to quit, I'd have quit long ago. As it is, I only smoke a couple cigarettes a day, and sometimes go a week or two without any. If you want to quit smoking, get your ears back and do it instead of whining that you can't.

"I've had no luck doing it on my own. The drug is too powerful." Bullsh**! You haven't set your mind to quitting because for whatever reason, YOU DON'T WANT TO.

Defend the "indefensible"? Gee, that's a line right out of the anti-playbook, a quote. I'll tell you what's indefensible: An ornery bunch of jacklegs who never worked an honest job in their lives extorting BILLIONS of dollars from smokers who can't afford it and using that money to create hatred and inequity with lies and corruption. THAT's what's indefensible! And you seem to be right on that bandwagon. How can you call yourself a Freeper and not realize you don't have the RIGHT nor the AUTHORITY to tell others what they can do with their lives! Whether YOU like it or not!

8 posted on 09/06/2001 8:09:10 PM PDT by Max McGarrity (madmax@revolutionist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
Nice find, Max.
Yes, some others will tout the link to 'Big Tobacco' but that's just them wanting to keep the money and the power.
9 posted on 09/07/2001 5:39:20 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson