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

To: Alter Kaker
Here's a list of studies and their associated risk findings.

Keep in mind that most epidemialogical studies discount a risk percent if it is lower than 2.00 and most researchers would prefer a risk percent of 3.00 or more before they draw a cause and effect conclusion.
I count 94 studies that have statistics associated and 14 that have a risk of 2.00 or more.

Would you care to compare some more studies? Or perhaps some articles that tend to show just how biased a lot of studies on ETS are?

TABLE I

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER
AMONG NONSMOKERS MARRIED TO SMOKERS


Author Year Location Sex of
the subject		 Number of
lung cancers		 Average Relative Risk Relative Risk
fluctuation (min/max)
(95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 1 1981 USA
F
153
1.18
(0.90 - 1.54)
Chan 1982 Hong Kong
F
84
0.75
(0.43 - 1.30)
Correa 1983 USA
F
M
22
8
2.07
1.97
(0.81 - 5.25)
(0.38-10.32)
Trichopoulos 1983 Greece
F
77
2.08
(1.20-3.59)
Buffler 1984 USA
F
M
41
11
0.80
0.51
(0.34-1.90)
(0.14-1.79)
Hiramaya 1984 Japan
F
M
200
64
1.45
2.24
(1.02-2.08)
(1.19-4.22)
Kabat 1 1984 USA
F
M
24
12
0.79
1.00
(0.25-2.45)
(0.20-5.07)
Garfinkel 2 1985 USA
F
134
1.23
(0.81-1.87)
Lam W 1985 Hong Kong
F
60
2.01
(1.09-3.72)
Wu 1985 USA
F
29
1.20
(0.50-3.30)
Akiba 1986 Japan
F
M
94
19
1.50
1.80
(0.90-2.80)
(0.40-7.00)
Lee 1986 UK
F
M
32
15
1.00
1.30
(0.37-2.71)
(0.38-4.39)
Brownson 1 1987 USA
F
19
1.68
(0.39-6.90)
Gao 1987 China
F
246
1.19
(0.82-1.73)
Humble 1987 USA
F
M
20
8
2.20
4.82
(0.80-6.60)
(0.63-36.56)
Koo 1987 Hong Kong
F
86
1.64
(0.87-3.09)
Lam T 1987 Hong Kong
F
199
1.65
(1.16-2.35)
Pershagen 1987 Sweden
F
70
1.20
(0.70-2.10)
Butler 1988 USA
F
8
2.02
(0.48-8.56)
Geng 1988 China
F
54
2.16
(1.08-4.29)
Inoue 1988 Japan
F
22
2.25
(0.80-8.80)
Shimizu 1988 Japan
F
90
1.08
(0.64-1.82)
Choi 1989 Korea
F
M
75
13
1.63
2.73
(0.92-2.87)
(0.49-15.21)
Hole 1989 Scotland
F
M
6
3
1.89
3.52
(0.22-16.12)
(0.32-38.65)
Svensson 1989 Sweden
F
34
1.26
(0.57-2.81)
Janeric 1990 USA
F
M
144
44
0.75
0.75
(0.47-1.20)
(0.31-1.78)
Kalandidi 1990 Greece
F
90
2.11
(1.09-4.08)
Sobue 1990 Japan
F
144
1.13
(0.78-1.63)
Wu-Williams 1990 China
F
417
0.70
(0.60-0.90)
Liu Z 1991 China
F
54
0.77
(0.30-1.96)
Brownson 2 1992 USA
F
431
1.00
(0.80-1.20)
Stockwell 1992 USA
F
62
1.60
(0.80-3.00)
Liu Q 1993 China
F
38
1.66
(0.73-3.78)
Du 1993 China
F
75
1.09
(0.64-1.85)
Fontham 1994 USA
F
651
1.29
(1.04-1.60)
Layard 1994 USA
F
M
39
21
0.58
1.47
(0.30-1.13)
(0.55-3.94)
Zaridze 1994 Russia
F
162
1.66
(1.12-2.46)
Kabat 2 1995 USA
F
M
67
39
1.08
1.60
(0.60-1.94)
(0.67-3.82)
Schwartz 1996 USA
F
M
185
72
1.10
1.10
(0.72-1.68)
(0.60-2.03)
Sun 1996 China
F
230
1.16
(0.80-1.69)
Wang S-Y 1996 China
F
82
2.53
(1.26-5.10)
Wang T-J 1996 China
F
135
1.11
(0.67-1.84)
Cardenas 1997 USA
F
M
150
97
1.20
1.10
(0.80-1.60)
(0.60-1.80)
Jöckel-BIPS 1997 Germany
F
M
53
18
1.58
1.58
(0.74-3.38)
(0.52-4.81)
Jöckel-GSF 1997 Germany
F
M
242
62
0.93
0.93
(0.66-1.31)
(0.52-1.67)
Ko 1997 Taiwan
F
105
1.30
(0.70-2.50)
Nyberg 1997 Sweden
F
M
89
35
1.20
1.20
(0.74-1.94)
(0.57-2.55)


The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed. In the Swartz (1996), Jöckel-BIPS (1997) and Nyberg (1997) studies, relative risk and confidence interval data were reported for the sexes combined. These data were separated based on the respective number of cases by sex, assuming the same relative risk for each sex.


TABLE II

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NONSMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN THE WORKPLACE

Author Year Location Sex of
the subject		 Average Relative Risk Relative Risk
fluctuation (min/max)
(95% confidence interval)
Kabat 1 1984 USA
F
M
0.68
3.27
(0.32-1.47)
(1.01-10.62)
Garfinkel 2 1985 USA
F

0.93
(0.55-1.55)
Wu 1985 USA
F
1.30
(0.50-3.30)
Lee 1986 UK
F
M
0.63
1.61
(0.17-2.33)
(0.39-6.60)
Koo 1987 Hong Kong
F
1.19
(0.48-2.95)
Shimizu 1988 Japan
F
1.18
(0.70-2.01)
Janerich 1990 USA
F & M
0.91
(0.80-1.04)
Kalandidi 1990 Greece
F
1.70
(0.69-4.18)
Wu-Williams 1990 China
F
1.10
(0.90-1.60)
Brownson 2 1992 USA
F
0.79
(0.61-1.03)
Stockwell 1992 USA
F
no statistically
significant association
Fontham 1994 USA
F
1.39
(1.11-1.74)
Zaridze 1994 Russia
F
1.23
(0.74-2.06)
Kabat 2 1995 USA
F
M
1.15
1.02
(0.62-2.13)
(0.50-2.09)
Schwartz 1996 USA
F & M
1.50
(1.00-2.20)
Sun 1996 China
F
1.38
(0.94-2.04)
Wang T-J 1996 China
F
0.89
(0.46-1.73)
Jöckel-BIPS 1997 Germany
F & M
2.37
(1.02-5.48)
Jöckel-GSF 1997 Germany
F & M
1.51
(0.95-2.40)
Ko 1997 Taiwan
F
1.10
(0.40-3.00)
Nyberg 1997 Sweden
F & M
1.60
(0.90-2.90)


The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.

TABLE III

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN CHILDHOOD

Author Year Location Sex of
the subject		 Average Relative Risk Relative Risk
fluctuation (min/max)
(95% confidence interval)
Correa 1983 USA
F
no statistically
significant association
Garfinkel 2 1985 USA
F
0.91
(0.74-1.12)
Wu 1985 USA
F
0.60
(0.20-1.12)
Akiba 1986 Japan
F & M
no statistically
significant association
Gao 1987 China
F
1.10
(0.70-1.70)
Koo 1987 Hong Kong
F
0.55
(0.17-1.77)
Pershagen 1987 Sweden
F
1.00
(0.40-2.30)
Svenson 1989 Sweden
F
3.30
(0.50-18.80)
Janarich 1990 USA
F & M
1.30
(0.85-2.00)
Sobue 1990 Japan
F
1.28
(0.71-2.31)
Wu-Williams 1990 China
F
0.85
(0.65-1.12)
Brownson 2 1992 USA
F
0.80
(0.60-1.10)
Stockwell 1992 USA
F
1.70
(1.00-2.90)
Fontham 1994 USA
F
0.89
(0.72-1.10)
Zaridze 1994 Russia
F
0.98
(0.66-1.45)
Kabat 2 1995 USA
F
1.63
(0.91-2.92)
Sun 1996 China
F
2.29
(1.56-3.37)
Wang T-J 1996 China
F
0.91
(0.56-1.48)
Jöckel-BIPS 1997 Germany
F & M
1.05
(0.50-2.22)
Jöckel-GSF 1997 Germany
F & M
0.95
(0.64-1.40)
Ko 1997 Taiwan
F
0.80
(0.40-1.60)


The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.


TABLE IV

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER AMONG
NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN NON-HOME/NON-WORKPLACE SETTINGS

Author Year Location Sex of
the subject		 Average Relative Risk Relative Risk
fluctuation (min/max)
(95% confidence interval)
Garfinkel 2 1985 USA
F
1.42
(0.75-2.70)
Lee 1986 UK
F
M
0.61
1.55
(0.29-1.28)
(0.40-6.02)
Janerich 1990 USA
F & M
0.59
(0.43-0.81)
Stockwell 1992 USA
F
no statistically
significant association
Fontham 1994 USA
F
1.50
(1.19-1.89)
Kabat 2 1995 USA
F
M
1.22
1.39
(0.69-2.15)
(0.67-2.86)


The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.


160 posted on 08/16/2006 10:44:24 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]

To: Just another Joe

That's a bizarrely selective listing of study findings. Why not use the results from the full list of 708 studies I cited?


166 posted on 08/16/2006 10:49:30 AM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]
To: Just another Joe

I'm not overly impressed with studies on smoking from China.

Love living there and love the people intensely.

But nonsmokers in the cities are incredibly compromised lung-wise. The soot from the coal bricks used in cooking etc. is thick in the air. Blow one's nose and the tissue is coal black.

On top of that . . . bureaucrats are known for twisting realities to suit whatever they think their boss wants.

But, hey, I'm confident that smokers will not be the least bit bothered by twisted facts on the consequences of second hand smoke.

Control away on those kids lungs!
/sar


220 posted on 08/16/2006 3:08:14 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

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