"Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer: Experts
Wed Jun 19,10:28 AM ET
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Billions of people around the world who are exposed to secondhand smoke may have an increased risk of developing lung cancer because passive smoking causes the disease, health experts said on Wednesday.
A comprehensive review of medical studies by researchers at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) showed passive smoking causes cancer and that chemicals and gases in tobacco contribute to cancer of the stomach, liver, kidney, uterine cervix and to myeloid leukaemia.
"Involuntary smoking--breathing in secondhand smoke--is carcinogenic to humans," said Professor Jonathan Samet, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and a member of the IARC group.
Although the concentrations are not as high, passive smokers are breathing in the same carcinogens as smokers.
"There is elegant evidence ranging from what can be measured in air to what can be measured in the body fluids and urine of non-smokers to show that those carcinogens are being breathed in. They are being absorbed into the body," Samet told a news conference.
"To my knowledge it is the first time an organisation with global sweep has reached that conclusion," he added.
IARC, an extension of the World Health Organisation (WHO), is based in Lyons, France. Its findings on smoking are based on an independent analysis of more than 50 medical studies by 29 experts from 12 countries.
The scientists said they found no increased risk from secondhand smoke for childhood cancers but they did not know what impact long-term exposure to tobacco smoke would have on children as they grow older.
ASTOUNDING PROPORTIONS
An estimated 1.2 billion people worldwide smoke cigarettes, cigars, pipes or bidis--tobacco rolled in a leaf--and expose billions more non-smokers to the carcinogenic chemicals, according to Samet.
Marsha Williams, of the British anti-tobacco campaigning group ASH, called for urgent action.
"Passive smoking is quite clearly more than just the nuisance many of the world's tobacco companies would have us believe. People are harmed and killed by it and it is time industry, government and smokers themselves woke up to this fact," she said in a statement.
The scientists also found evidence that in addition to causing 90% of lung cancer cases, smoking also contributes to cancers of the stomach, liver, kidney, uterine cervix and a type of leukaemia--but that it is not linked to breast or prostate cancer ( news - web sites).
Samet said scientists are only beginning to see the full picture of what happens when a generation begins to smoke at an early age and continues to smoke throughout their adult lives.
"We're still learning about just how damaging cigarette smoking is. We found that cancers beyond those that we had previously listed as caused by smoking can now be added to the list," he said.
Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. Carbon monoxide, ammonia, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide are among the potentially toxic ones.
About one half of persistent smokers will be killed by a tobacco-related disease and half of those deaths will occur in middle age.
They couldn't have the sheeple like you believing that SHS was harmless, so they convened a group of "experts" at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), people whose make their money from being anti-tobacco just a surely as Phillip Morris makes their money selling tobacco, to tell credulous twits like you that it was OK to look down on and abuse 25% of your fellow citizens without giving property owners a CHOICE on whether or not to go smoke-free.
Repeat for emphasis:
IT IS NOT ABOUT SMOKING OR NOT SMOKING! IT IS ABOUT THE RIGHT OF ADULT PROPERTY OWNERS MAKING A PERSONAL DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW A LEGAL ACTIVITY ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY!
Get the picture?
You ignored everything I said in my post, even though I was addressing specific things you brought up. As I will do with this one.
Are you aware of the fact that what you are posting is only a regurgitated press release. The study has not been released to the public yet, and will not be for several months. Not even an abstract of it has been released, and that is not going to be released for at least another month.
All this so-called study is only a meta-analysis of other so-called studies on this issue. Until such time as the entire study is released no one can draw any conclusions regarding the conslusions of the study.
It will be very interesting to see just what studies and what criteria were used in doing this meta-analysis. I am most particularly interested in seeing if they used their own comprehensive study. The IARC conducted the longest lasting, most comprehensive study ever done on ETS at the behest of WHO. The study was not released immediately because it did not show the expected (read desired) results. It wasn't until a member of the team leaked it to a British newpaper that the results came out. IARC and WHO immediately went on defensive and denied what the press report said about the study.
You see there was only one statistically significant fact that came out of that study and they didn't like it. The IARC study showed that children exposed to tobacco smoke of others had a 22% LESS chance of getting lung cancer later in life. None of the other findings of the study came into the realm of statistical significance.
The highly touted EPA study was no different than this latest purported study by WHO & IARC. Just a meta-analysis of other studies. The EPA findings, however, were invalidated in Federal Court for numerous reasons. Not only did the EPA "cherry-pick" (judge's words, not mine) which studies they used, they then proceeded to change the criterion for confidence levels in the studies from 95% to 90%, automatically doubling any perceived increase in risk. As bad as all that was, the most grievous (IMHO) violation of the EPA is they violated their own Radon Act rules and regs. The EPA declared ETS a class A carcinogen using their powers under the federal Radon Act. However, they violated all the tenets of that act.
I hope you have an understanding now of why I believe awaiting the release of this latest "study" from the IARC is neccessary before drawing any conclusions about their press release and the rantings of highly paid anti-smoker lobbyists from ASH.
I have addressed your comments to me - I would appreciate the same courtesy from you. But I will iterate: What gives you the right to walk into my friend's bar and demand she cannot smoke on her own property???
If that's your view, I assume you would support an effort to criminalize cigarrettes. If not, I'd certainly like to hear why not.