Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Women smokers 'face higher risk of lung cancer than men'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 May 2009
WOMEN may be more vulnerable to the cancer-causing effects of smoking than men, research suggests.
Scientists who studied 683 lung cancer patients found that women tended to be younger than men when they developed the disease.

This was despite the fact that on average they smoked significantly less than men.

Dr Martin Frueh, from St Gallen C
anton Hospital in Switzerland, said: "Our findings suggest that women may have an increased susceptibility to tobacco carcinogens."

The research was presented yesterday at the first European Multidisciplinary Conference in Thoracic Oncology (EMCTO) in Lugano, Switzerland.

Dr Enriqueta Felip, from Val D'Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona, Spain, who co-chaired the meeting, said there was a growing awareness that smoking was riskier for women.

"In the early 1900s, lung cancer was reported to be rare in women, but since the 1960s it has progressively reached epidemic proportions, becoming the leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States," she said.

"Lung cancer is not only a man's disease, but women tend to be much more aware of other cancers, such as breast cancer."

But another study found that women were likely to live longer than men after having lung tumours removed.

Irish researchers led by Dr Bassel Al-Alao, from St James's Hospital, Dublin, checked the progress of 640 patients who had surgery for lung cancer over a ten-year period.

They found that survival after surgery was typically 2.1 years for men and 4.7 years for women.

About 90 per cent of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking.

The habit is also thought to contribute to a wide range of other cancers, including those of the mouth, gullet, pancreas, stomach, bladder and kidney.

More than 38,000 new cases of lung cancer are diagnosed each year in the UK.

The disease is one of the most lethal cancers, claiming 34,500 lives a year.

It is the most common cause of death from cancer for both men and women, and the second most common cancer affecting men after prostate.

In 2007, the latest year for which figures are available, there were an estimated 9.5 million smokers in the UK.

The meeting also heard that cancer vaccines and targeted therapies were beginning to offer new treatment options for patients with early lung cancer.

One group was trying to identify patients suitable for a vaccine that could be effective in 30 per cent of cases.

Studies have shown that the vaccine can help to prevent cancer re-occurrence after surgery. But it only works in patients with a lung cancer-linked protein called MAGE-A3.

"Personalising therapy is the key strategy for longer and better survival in lung cancer," said Professor Paris Kosmidis, from Hygeia Hospital in Athens, Greece, who spoke at the meeting.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 May 2009 9:39 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 04/05/2009 00:49:36

I think that this would be realized by most of us!

Women being the 'fairer sex', and in general weighing less than us Men, more the fragile creature in many ways.
Funny it is!, in general and if they do not smoke, they will outlive us Men! Don't you think?

2

Starkravingsane,

Edinburgh 04/05/2009 12:18:07
But most youngsters would prefer to be thin than healthy. Sorry, but true.
It's reverse psychology. Most smokers talk about how much weight they put on when they gave up - ergo if you smoke it keeps the weight off. So young girls take up smoking to 'keep the weight off'.
It's very simple really.
So basically, if you could invent a tablet that takes away your sense of taste, you'll encourage people to lose weight, and perhaps even encourage lassies to use that instead of fags!
Until then, they'll sook and blaw with the best sailor, convinced that with every puff, they'll lose a pound!
3

Joe Macdelta.,

04/05/2009 15:08:53
#2 correct me here, if young women smoke, then they wont put weight on, It doesnt work in Paisley, have a look sometime.
4

english charlie,

04/05/2009 17:29:18
Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution. Women should do less shopping.
5

mandyv,

banitland 04/05/2009 19:26:19
In the 1900s, there were more horse and carts than cars, lorries ect. Google diesal dangers, cancer.
More women drivers on the roads in the last 30 years also. Nothing to do with that though is it, just the smoking.

Let us all know what causes the 10% of lung cancers, you might just find you have a real answer for the other 90%.
6

mandyv,

banitland 04/05/2009 19:30:32
Oh BTW, another "new study"
http://www.textually.org:80/textually/archives/2009/05/023470.htm
Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. The Independent reports.
The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.
7

Media at One,

04/05/2009 20:08:21
First line of the article.

Women "MAY" be more vulnerable.

Until the article says "woman ARE more vulnerable" it's a crock of sh!t
8

Rollo Tommasi,

05/05/2009 07:19:24
So let me get this straight, Chas & Mandy.

You're saying we should believe epidemiological evidence when it covers risks to health from pollution.

But for some reason we should treat the very same kind of epidemiological evidence as invalid when it deals with risks to health from second hand smoke.

9

english charlie,

05/05/2009 08:16:18
Rollo. You appear to doubt that air pollution kills. I lived in London when smogs were common there and in other big towns. I have no doubt that air pollution kills.
10

Rollo Tommasi,

05/05/2009 11:19:45
Chas: My position is entirely consistent.

Epidemiological evidence shows that air pollution kills. I accept that. So do you.

Epidemiological evidence also shows that second hand smoke kills. I accept that too. Yet somehow your trust in epidemiological evidence, which is strong when it comes to air pollution, suddenly wanes over SHS.

You should consider the consistency of your own position.
11

english charlie,

05/05/2009 11:55:12
Rollo. People drop down dead because of air pollution, but not with passive smoking. FACT.
12

Rollo Tommasi,

05/05/2009 13:52:34
Chas: You're claiming "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution".

Most of the claimed deaths arise from lung cancer, bronchitis, emphysema and other respiratory diseases. These diseases have many causes - smoking is a key cause.

How do you know that air pollution has killed these people, other than from the results of epidemiological studies?
13

english charlie,

05/05/2009 14:58:58
Rollo. You said 'Epidemiological evidence shows that air pollution kills. I accept that. So do you'.
Now you question it. Make up your mind.
People drop down dead because of air pollution, but not with passive smoking. FACT.
14

Rollo Tommasi,

05/05/2009 16:24:18
Wrong Chas. I am not doubting that air pollution kills. I am questioning your logic.

Make up your mind. Do you accept that epidemiological studies present valid evidence? Because if you don't, you have no grounds for making your claim that "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution".
15

english charlie,

05/05/2009 16:42:50
Rollo. I have not seen the 'epidemiologicl studies' and I do not need to, as common sense will tell, even you, that exhaust fumes kill. It would not surprise me if such numbers die due to exhaust fumes in London. Does it surprise you?
16

Rollo Tommasi,

05/05/2009 18:14:42
But you said more than "exhaust fumes kill". You said "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution".

How did you reach such a precise figure?
17

english charlie,

05/05/2009 19:04:07
Obviously not an exact figure. You admit that air pollution kills, so what are you on about?
18

Rollo Tommasi,

05/05/2009 19:12:33
Oh, so suddenly it's not an exact figure after all, is it? Even though yesterday the figure was exact enough for you to claim that "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution".

Here's a simple question for you. Should we believe the results of epidemiological studies into the risks of air pollution?
19

english charlie,

06/05/2009 07:38:47
see #15
20

Rollo Tommasi,

06/05/2009 08:11:35
As I've already said , your post 15 doesn't answer my question. It doesn't explain why you claimed that "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution".

So let's try again. Should we believe the results of epidemiological studies into the risks of air pollution?
21

english charlie,

06/05/2009 09:19:55
You keep asking the same question and I keep giving you the same answer.
So let's try again. Does air pollution kill or not?
22

ChrisC,

SouthWest 06/05/2009 10:12:21
Most amazing correlation is that many chemicals are polluting our world in greater amounts but we're told that the lower use if tobacco products has led to more smoking realted illness. Strange?
Surely there's a better correlation between increased levels of Formaldehyde and other nasty chemicals in baby products and increased health problems for younger women. Maybe we don't look for this sort of cause when 'the good guys', the Pharmaceutical Companies, make the products. Could there be a strong positive correlation between increased levels of Pharma funding, the approval of their products and the demonising of non-pharma products containing similar chemicals?
23

tug f wilson,

06/05/2009 12:09:53
I saw some stats yesterday which are very interesting,Lung Cancer rates in Europe and China,
Smokers in Europe about 25%
Smokers in China about 60%
Lung Cancer rates,
Europe 56.5% per 100,000
China 25.1% per 100,000
so even a fool can see something else is going on here apart from smoking,as far as the Epidemiological evidence is concernerd did not our own HSE tell us that as far as SHS studies results were concerned,SHS could Not be raised to a level that could cause specific diseases,so there goes the SHS Myth,but smoking is a choice, smoke or not,you can only harm yourself.
24

soapy1,

Rainworth 06/05/2009 12:57:37
The HSE did indeed say that, until they mysteriously changed horses in midstream, their comments were moderated to make them more in line with current thinking. The HSE by way the back the use of airconditioning and filtration in the event of a nuclear, biological or chemical war, substances that kill in minutes like tabun and vx, or days/weeks radiation and Anthrax, so who thinks air conditioning and filtration wont work in a pub?

The same aircon that is in cars, planes, government bomb shelters they filter out particles that are microns smaller than cigarette smoke, so you are in more danger walking down the street than from alleged SHS, so the comment about reducing time spent shopping is perhaps not so flippant after all!

So armed with the knowledge that technology is already in place that defeats far worse fates than cigarette smoke what is the point of frightening the public and legislating against something for which there has been a solution to for over 50 years!
25

Nitro,

uk 06/05/2009 13:13:40
As usual with all smoking articles with an anti smoking message you have to read between the lines, the optimum word in the article is "may" this is not in any way conclusive.

Lets look at cigarette packets, the government were all in favour of the various pictures of various ailments that you are supposed to get from smoking, but under the freedom of information act were forced to admit that they did not know if the graphic pictures were caused by smoking.

In todays paper there was an article about youngsters being against tobacco displays, guess who is behind the research yes Cancer Research UK another government funded stakeholder body so it does not count.



26

Rollo Tommasi,

06/05/2009 13:29:13
Chas: Have you called your F2C chums to bail you out because you're struggling?

You made the claim that "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution". As far as I can see, that figure was produced (at least in part) on the basis on epidemiological evidence into harm from air pollution. I don't see any other way you could have produced your "over 30,000 people" claim.

I've allowed you plenty of opportunities to clarify your position. But all you can do is squirm and wriggle and try desperately to change the subject.

So, should you ever try to argue that epidemiological evidence is invalid in future, I shall remind you of how you have used epidemiological evidence yourself on this board.
27

Rollo Tommasi,

06/05/2009 13:32:01
Tug: I don't know anyone who says that only smoking is responsible for lung cancer. But it is the biggest single factor.

For your info, the World Bank notes that “recent major studies from China, and emerging studies from India, indicate that although the overall risks of persistent smoking are about as great as in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the pattern of smoking-related diseases in these nations is substantially different.” So, for example, IHD mortality is much higher in the UK (20%) than China (8%). But COPD mortality in China is much higher (14% vs 5%). And 3% of Chinese deaths are attributable to TB, as opposed to a figure too small to be recorded for the UK. (http://www.who.int/whosis/mort/profiles/mort_wpro_chn_china.pdf; http://www.who.int/whosis/mort/profiles/mort_euro_gbr_unitedkingdom.pdf)

So you would be misguided to look at lung cancer alone as the barometer against which to measure the threat of smoking to health.
28

Rollo Tommasi,

06/05/2009 13:40:19
Tug, Soapy and Nitro roam off into random moans, none of which are related to this article.

And yet again, they misquote HSE. Let me repeat once again that HSE has CONSISTENTLY said "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban."

What the bit Tug tries to remember actually said was that HSE could not state precisely that X amount of exposure to SHS would increase a person's risk of specific disease by Y%.
29

english charlie,

06/05/2009 13:47:00
Rollo. You said 'So, should you ever try to argue that epidemiological evidence is invalid in future, I shall remind you of how you have used epidemiological evidence yourself on this board'. This is a downright lie. I have never said this and I have said all along that pollution kills and you even agreed. In future stick to facts and not lies.
30

soapy1,

Rainworth 06/05/2009 14:47:11
My response was in fact related to another matter brought into play by another party, it has absolutely no bearing upon your debate with Chas, so how you can justify saying Chas has brought anyone in displays an extraordinary lack of faith in your own abilities, that is neither my fault nor my responsibility.

Now on what grounds do you object to ME expressing MY opinion on a matter not relating to a matter you are discussing with someone else?

That you would stoop to besmirching people for executing their right to free speech surprises me as until now I had regarded you as an honourable and decent person.

You have done your cause a strong diservice this day and I would hope that these are not your true colours that you have just nailed to the mast for if so you stand foresquare with the other thugs, bullies and bigots that make up a significant part of the anti smoking movement.
31

tug f wilson,

06/05/2009 18:21:08
Why do the HSE feel the need to protect people from something they cannot prove is harmful in the first place?,but we do know pollution is a killer,as far as this article is concerned the words May and Suggests do not come under Epidemiological facts or evidence but to an anti-smoker they are close enough to be called proof.
32

Rollo Tommasi,

06/05/2009 18:45:32
Chas: I stand by my comments.

It is YOU who is lying. Despite your protests, you have said a lot more than just "pollution kills". You said "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution", even if you now desperately try to pretend you didn't say it. It's there, in black and white, in post 4.

I have asked you how you arrived at that figure. The only basis I can think of involves at least some use of epidemiological evidence. If I am wrong, all you have to do is explain to me how the figure was produced.

In the meantime, I stand by my claim.
33

Rollo Tommasi,

06/05/2009 18:54:09
Soapy - So are honestly you telling me that Chas did not retreat to his F2C buddies (either on your forum or by email) and encourage you to join in this debate? It's funny how you guys only started 2 days after the article was published and yet you published your comments within minutes of each other.

I'm not attacking you personally for making your remarks. I'm simply commenting - with good reason - that the remarks by you, and (to an extent) Nitro and Tug have nothing to do with this story. And also that, in the case of HSE, you've got your facts wrong.

Is that really worth you getting so edgy over?
34

english charlie,

06/05/2009 18:54:37
Rollo you said 'The only basis I can think of involves at least some use of epidemiological evidence'. Stop thinking and get your facts right. I did not say I got the information from 'epidemiological evidence'. Unless you are going to stop telly porkies don't bother to comment. NOBODY likes or believes a liar.
35

english charlie,

06/05/2009 18:55:34
should read 'telling' not 'telly'.
36

Rollo Tommasi,

06/05/2009 19:08:17
Chas: You say "I did not say I got the information from "epidemiological evidence".

That's right. You have not said how you got the information at all, or on what it is based. That is what I keep asking you for.

If you keep refusing to explain the basis for your "over 30,000" figure, I must assume that it is based at least in part on epidemiological evidence - because I simply do not know how else it could be calculated.
37

english charlie,

06/05/2009 19:24:18
Rollo. Stop thinking and assuming. I don't know how the figure was arrived at. You AGREED with me that air pollution kills. AIR POLLUTION KILLS. Do you now disagree?
38

Rollo Tommasi,

06/05/2009 19:34:44
If you want me to stop assuming, you know what to do....

Tell me how the "over 30,000" figure was arrived at and prove to me that epidemiological evidence played no part.

Until you do, I shall continue to assume that epidemiological evidence was involved.
39

tug f wilson,

06/05/2009 22:31:10
Post 7...thanks for spotting the magic word MAY in the story,at least it shows we read it which is more than i can say about Rollo who seems hell bent on turning every story to SHS, which we all know is of no danger to anyone,still if you choose to smoke you may only harm yourself but traffic fumes will kill us all.
40

Rollo Tommasi,

06/05/2009 22:56:44
Tug appears to have lost all sense of reality.

The person who has tried to turn this story to SHS is not me. When was the first reference made to SHS? In post 23, by a certain Tug F Wilson in his very first post on this board.

And as for your comment about references to “may”, did you not see the following statement in the article?

“About 90 per cent of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking.”

No sign of any “may” there.
41

Tag,

07/05/2009 00:55:49
English Charlie
You seem very certain about your 30,000+ deaths/year from air pollution, this figure being derived through epidemiology.

Can you name 3?

I seem to recall this was the tactic used by your pro-smoking cronies to try to discredit epidemiology, when it provided evidence that smoking and passive smoking was harmful. I hope you can see what a naff technique it was back then, but you can't have it both ways anymore, can you?
42

soapy1,

rainworth 07/05/2009 00:57:26
I would question the prudence of comments about people e-mailing or calling in the cavalry, or even co-incidental timing, it makes you sound paranoid but as always you are free to choose.

“About 90 per cent of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking.” an intersting quote it is however not a fact, it is not carved in stone and brought down from the Mount of Olives after discussions with burning bushes (which incidentally allegedly produces as many carcinagens as tobacco).

It is an scientific opinion, given the propencity for scientists to change their minds with the weather not a very safe one.

As I stated previously the technology has been widely available to deal with smoke for over 50 years, in fact the air quality has been proved to be superior to 'fresh' air with all it's traffic pollution.

Consider this, the increase in the numbers of deaths due to cancer escalated after World War II when the car became widely available to the public, before that cases had been reported as far back as the Pharoahs but nowhere near todays figures. It has been long known that the burning of any organic fuel produces the carcinagens as tobacco, if you add chemical additives to fossil fuels you create an whole new set of carcinagens for example fire suppressants in petrol, diesel avgas, avpin avtur, avcat, parrafin JP4,JP5,and even more recently JP6. (it is sometimes useful to relatives who are Fire Prevention Officers who specialise in petrochemical and have the responsibility for a major international airport!)
which significantly produce ever more complex chemical cocktails and carcinagens.

Of course you will counter that you do not see many cars or planes in pubs, this is true but you find them in the open air contributing far more carcinagens than cigerettes ever will, as stated earlier air conditioned pubs have higher quality air than the air outside. You will argue that motor transport is essential for living, is it not ironic that mankind survived for millen
43

soapy1,

07/05/2009 00:59:28
You will argue that motor transport is essential for living, is it not ironic that mankind survived for millenia without them and with far fewer cases of cancer?

so when you start to pull all the other factors involved with cancer and I have restricted the scenario to petrochemicals, there are many more factors out there, you get a completely different picture far more accurate than the sterile picture that the anti smoking lobby would have us believe.

Finally I use the the word allegedly for good reason, I feel that opinion is not proven fact just as epidemiology does not provide proven fact at best it is a guesstimate at worst manipulated figures.

44

english charlie,

07/05/2009 07:25:43
Rollo. You can assume as much as you like, but believe me AIR POLLUTION DOES KILL.
I'm going away for a few days, so in the mean time keep assuming, if it keeps you happy.
45

english charlie,

07/05/2009 07:28:22
Tag. You must learn to read. I've already told Rollo that 30,000 cannot be an exact figure. If you don't believe that AIR POLLUTION KILLS, then you need help.
46

Rollo Tommasi,

07/05/2009 07:53:05
Good news Chas. I don't need to assume any more. I've found the source of your "over 30,000" claim.

Here's a news story about it, from 2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4283295.stm.

And here are relevant parts of the underpinning research, undertaken by the European Commission and WHO (another body I didn't realise you liked so much...).

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/air/cafe/pdf/cba_methodology_vol1.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/air/cafe/activities/pdf/e83080.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/air/cafe/pdf/working_groups/2nd_position_paper_pm.pdf

And guess what? All 3 papers DO refer to epidemiological studies - even to meta-analyses of research.

So now I can say with conviction - you HAVE used epidemiological evidence as part of your own arguments.
47

Rollo Tommasi,

07/05/2009 07:54:47
Tag - I love the irony of your "Name 3" argument! I wonder if you get any replies.....
48

Rollo Tommasi,

07/05/2009 08:31:38
Soapy: Whether consciously or not, I’m afraid you are displaying the hypocrisy which is so prevalent within the pro-smoking lobby.

Your lobby refuses to accept that smoking or passive smoking kill if there is any possible suggestion that another factor could be causing these deaths. Even in your latest posts you try to belittle the statement that smoking causes 90% of lung cancers as “scientific opinion”. It is much more than that. It is professional judgment based on hard and clear evidence.

And yet in the same post you argue about the dangers of petrochemicals. But the only bases you have for saying this are that lung cancer cases have risen as the use of motorised vehicles has increased and that some of the elements in fuel are carcinogenic. What you say is true. But they do not prove that pollution causes lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. That is a guess on your part.

Other factors have changed in recent years. Our exposure to radio and microwaves has increased. We are eating more. We live more sedentary lives. How do you know that these factors are not more to do with increasing levels of respiratory disease than traffic pollution?

And consider this too. People’s life expectancy increased substantially during the 20th Century. A person born in 1900 could only expect to live for 45 years on average if male (50 if female). These were the people typically dying at the end of WW2. Average life expectancy has increased greatly since then. So the biggest reason for the increase in respiratory diseases since 1945 is that more people have been living long enough to contract these diseases.

As for your arguments about carcinogenic elements in fuel, it is epidemiological evidence which tells us how great a risk to health these are. That is why I accept that air pollution is harmful.

So when you are criticising epidemiological evidence, just remember how much you rely on it to justify claims you yourself are making.
49

english charlie,

07/05/2009 10:21:25
#46. How do you know that I got the information from those studies? More assumptions. Try using facts and not assumptions.
Bye for now.
50

banhater,

UK 07/05/2009 13:30:45
I see Rollo is at it again.
This guy never declares his interests. Is this because he is a stooge of the Pharnmaceutical industry either directly or indirectly? He spouts all the usual rubbish that you get from the Anti-smoking charities that use either tax payers or Big Pharma money to spew out their viscious propaganda. Rollo's points about smoking or second hand smoke are about as objective as the views of Tobacco companies. The only difference being his backers have more money, state sponsorship and are allowed to buy advertising space for nicotine alternatives in the papers that print articles about smoking.
51

soapy1,

rainworth 07/05/2009 13:34:07
You claim that I am guilty of hypocrisy, you then go on to raise other issues that may be responsible for cancer, do you condemn them, do you campaign for a ban on them too No of course you do not, your only interest appears to be kick the smokers, yet you condemn me as hypocritical?

You talk about my lobby, is my lobby destroying an entire industry along with 10’s of thousands of lives? Does my lobby promote bullying, victimisation, hatred against a section of our community? Put children at physical risk by denying them loving homes? All of these things and more central and local government have done in the name of the anti smoking lobby, not the people of this country but the anti smoking lobby!

Scientific fact? Facts by their very nature are stable, scientists change scientific fact every day making them unstable, therefore they are not facts but opinions subject to change. Given the nature of science which is to allegedly increase knowledge there can never be a scientific fact only ever scientific opinion Just as is the case with medicine.

It is equally a scientific guess that they do not, the only difference is I do not have a scientific reputation to guard! So on the basis of this debate there is no cause for cancer as neither side actually know! We merely guess and guesswork like opinion can never be a basis for legislation.

Indeed life expectancy, population and the number of cars have increased since 1945, so have cancer rates the two are linked strangely enough though the numbers of smokers has been consistently dropping since 1945 too yet smoking is the only alleged cause of cancer to be pursued vigorously!

Before WWII a significant number of the population exercised more, physical education was the norm in our schools where as today it is not so yes it is possible that a more sedentary lifestyle has an impact on cancer.

Unfortunately Epidemiologic evidence is far too open to manipulation to be of any use, any discipline that uses numb
52

soapy1,

07/05/2009 13:36:16
Unfortunately Epidemiologic evidence is far too open to manipulation to be of any use, any discipline that uses numbers can be affected by the parameters imposed upon it therefore you can make studies say any thing you like just by altering the parameters on those grounds alone the evidence should not be trusted as it generates reasonable doubt, something that some people would like to go away!

It is actually chemical analysis that dictates whether a substance is harmful, that dictates what dosage is harmful. Anyone who thinks that number crunching has anything at all to do with chemical composition and properties really does need to re-evaluate their position, even then the results of such analysis is opinion as further research is likely to disprove any original findings.

In reality science is just a series of best guesses dressed as fact, the worst possible basis for conducting life or enabling legislation.
53

Rollo Tommasi,

07/05/2009 18:17:24
Chas - Something to think about when you return.

I've found research which refers to the very same number of deaths that your claim did. It uses epidemiological evidence in reaching its conclusions.

I've found no other research which concludes a similar number of deaths.

I've obviously found the right study, as you refuse to deny it and have consistently failed to tell me if you had another study in mind.

I am therefore sure that you have used epidemiological evidence as part of your own arguments.
54

Rollo Tommasi,

07/05/2009 18:33:08
Soapy: No hypocrisy on my part. I use evidence to work out whether something is harmful or not. A simple link is not just evidence. So it is not enough to point to a link between more vehicles and more lung cancer and say that one must be a cause of the other. There needs to be some evidence. Epidemiological studies provide that evidence.

Science is not “guesswork”. Read a few scientific studies for yourself to see how much thought and attention goes into them and how detailed their results are.

The lung cancer curve follows a very similar shape to the smoking prevalence curve – following about 30 years after the curve. Lung cancer rates are already falling off.

And you are deluded if you think that smoking is the only cause of cancer which is taken seriously. What about reduced air emissions? What about public funds to reduce exposure to radon gas? What about vaccinations against HPV, which is almost always present in cervical cancer cases?

You’re right that toxicology plays a valuable part in scientific research. It helps to tell us the way in which a substance can be harmful to health. But it does not tell us the likelihood of people succumbing to harm from that substance. That is where epidemiology comes in. And it is an absolutely valid and important scientific tool.

Pretending smoking and passive smoking don't cause harm does not make you right. And that is all you have to convince yourself - pretence.
55

soapy1,

Rainworth 07/05/2009 19:45:26
If it is such a ‘naff’ technique why are you using it? Never mind it’s a rhetorical question. I should thank you for opening a door for me, for those who are not aware, the law says that it is illegal to use smoking or traffic pollution as a primary cause of death, cancer is considered to be a death by natural causes, an act of nature, not violence, not an accident, not misadventure or suicide, not pollution and not smoking so as Tag knows very well you will never find a death certificate that states that. You may find a comment in the secondary causes that smoking or indeed other causes may have contributed to cause of death but it not the de facto causation so the law says that neither smoking nor traffic pollution kills. Anyone who claims otherwise is in fact lying to you.

So Tag, take an educated guess as to how many people are killed each year by tobacco or traffic pollution, add, subtract, divide or multiply by its square root, if you have got the right answer then it is 0.

So does that really prove that air pollution does not kill?

The safe argument is that smoking, traffic pollution and a host of other factors may contribute to death by cancer which is what the law says.

Of course the anti smoking lobby will disagree, it weakens the scientific opinion that their argument and the Health Act 2006 depends on. It is the one big stick they depend on to beat John Q public with, to admit that would also anger their big pharmaceutical employers as it would cut their profit margins which is all they actually care about, the development of drugs like Chantix which is shunned and condemned by the teamsters unions, the pilots associations, the United States Navy as having too many psychological side effects to be safe in those occupations ( it has come to light that Chantix alters thought patterns that drive some of the recipients to violence, mood swings and suicide not good traits for pilots in aircraft carrying 500 plus passengers!) Allegations that
56

soapy1,

07/05/2009 19:46:23
Allegations that Nicorette gum causes mouth cancer are also extremely worrying yet the anti smoking lobby insist that they should be used. It makes you wonder just who are the real killers here.

So are you suggesting that the introduction of JP6 which prolongs the life of aero engines, but does very little to reduce the pollutants is a cure, That HPV does have bad effects as some of your vaunted scientists are claiming, makes its use questionable at best and I can read every scientific text ever written but that does not make them fact and not opinion, to tell the public that this is so on Monday then oh well its this on Wednesday is not fact, it has never been fact and never will be fact, the only fact is that scientists do not know what they are talking about or they would not be continuously changing their minds.

The whole world can see I am not a scientist, in fact I am just an average man of the street I express my opinion simply not in a language designed for insiders to understand, I realise that someone who thinks they are smarter, better or if they intimidate me enough I will back down. Wrong, I am that little still voice, the quiet doubt festering in a perfect scientific universe, like cancer there is no cure for me. Get used to me Rollo, get used to others like me, the little people who when they have had enough of being dictated to by a minority who believe that their opinion gives them the right to ride roughshod over the little man who will force changes in the system just as science made religion defunct so will the little man do to science and their acolytes

How much power do the churches wield today? Very little, the same will be true of science, the church has found that the little man does not want their lives run for them, so will science but not before the politicians learn it, and they hold the purse strings.

Remember Rollo those who ignore history do so at their peril, those who do not ignore history and fail to act are doomed.
57

Rollo Tommasi,

08/05/2009 01:01:22
Soapy: I agree with you on your first point, as I am sure will Tag. The “name 3” line of arguing is nonsensical, as you rightly say. Tag described it as a “naff technique”. He raised it in the context of Chas’ claims over air pollution deaths to show how ridiculous a line it is – because many of your F2C chums have tried to argue that passive smoking is not harmful to health unless we can “name 3” people proven to have died as a result.

Perhaps you can explain to your F2C buddies just how ridiculous a line of argument it is??
58

Rollo Tommasi,

08/05/2009 01:10:19
Soapy: On your other points you seem to be defensive because Tag and I are challenging your views. I don’t recall trying to deny your right to speak. But if you do make comments, you have to accept that people like us may disagree with you.

Your argument about Big Pharma seems to be a kneejerk reaction rather than a proper consideration of what I have said. I have not tried to defend Big Pharma. In fact, the best way of avoiding adding to their profits is not to smoke at all. Like I said in my previous post, you are deluded if you think that smoking is the only cause of cancer which is taken seriously. Others are too. (And by the way, HPV is a virus which has been identified as a cause of cervical cancer).

You don’t have to believe in science. But simply arguing that air pollution must be a cause of lung cancer because there are more cars than before and more lung cancer than before is not a good argument. You are not showing a causal link between the two.

And I have to ask you this. You demand proof that smoking and passive smoking kill. Yet you refuse to believe anything which might provide that proof. What kind of proof would you accept? Just supposing exposure to SHS does increase people’s risk of heart disease and lung cancer and causes thousands of premature deaths in the UK each year, how would the expectations of proof that you require be able to pick that up?
59

soapy1,

Rainworth 08/05/2009 14:15:42
I am glad that you concede that smoking does not kill, that cancer is a natural death, It is however regrettable that the scientific community which is unable to make up its mind whether their theory is correct or not should present it as fact, it not a fact but an opinion and as such is not viable or fair as a basis in law. Any law should be fair to all citizens, it should not be biased in favour of science, charities, or industry as the Health Act 2006 clearly is.

Add to that that the research carried out goes through charities paid for out of the public purse by scientists paid for by in part by pharmaceutical companies. There is no tolerance for comment by either the tobacco industry nor independent parties, if so much as one penny of public, pharmaceutical or tobacco money funds research then that research is bought and paid for and as such is useless, given the volume of reports that do not see the light of day because they do not prove their paymasters point of view means science is not neutral as it should be but means it is some else’s hired gun. That is not acceptable proof, the number of cases where scientific evidence has falsely imprisoned people ruining their lives with never a word of apology from these much vaunted intellectuals. If they can get allegedly proven science wrong whether by accident or design why would anyone wish to believe it? They are simply not independent enough for credibility.

Science does not tolerate any deviation from whatever line is paying the most that day, it ostracises it own members for daring to contradict the mantra of the day, How many pharmaceutical companies have released drugs that cause as many problems as they claim to cure or control? How many times must grieving parents suffer because someone in a white coat blames them for the loss of a baby to natural causes either directly or indirectly? Can you in all conscience justify such a cruel and callous act?

Science can and does, are they then any better th
60

soapy1,

08/05/2009 14:16:31
Science can and does, are they then any better than mercenaries? Like mercenaries they are wheeled out by a minority who claim to have the interests of the majority in mind but never do, who have a king sized chequebook and pay handsomely to put a despot in charge of a country or enable despotic and divisive laws, it is no different to the ’dogs of war’ in Africa, and just as immoral.

Even some scientists are conceding that Epidemiology is a flawed discipline, that it is bringing science into disrepute and I am happy to concede that at least some of them do indeed have a conscience, that they are looking to the common good and not the next published paper, massive grant or Nobel Prize!

No doubt they will find themselves ostracised, vilified by their peers as others before them just as smokers are.

Is that really what you are advocating? Do you really believe that because a scientist says something that it is carved in stone like the ten commandments of Moses? That a bought opinion should be rule of law no matter what the cost?
Do you really support science cruelly labelling the parents of SID’s victims as irresponsible, not caring for their children or worse still implying they are murderers?
That the same is true of smokers? For to condemn one is to condemn the other!
Your unswerving loyalty to all things scientific says that you do and in that respect makes your viewpoint no different to the Third Reich’s view of anyone who disagrees with their policy.

Before you climb upon your charger screaming about how you are not a National Socialist I will make it perfectly clear, I do not consider you to be a National Socialist I do however draw a comparison between both your line of thought and theirs, there are however others who will consider that I do not go far enough, that I should condemn you out of hand in the same way that smokers are condemned and vilified.
Fortunately for both you and I RoE prohibits such action for now.

You crow that I appe
61

soapy1,

08/05/2009 14:17:13
You crow that I appear to be on the defensive, consider this:

Rorkes Drift a defensive action by an inferior force who won and was instrumental in the defeat of the Zulu Nation less than two days after a spectacular victory by them after decimating an entire British army at Isthluanda.

Little Big Horn, a defensive action where Lt. Col. (Bvt. Maj. Gen.) George A Custer was defeated by the Sioux nation. Subsequent to that event the Sioux Nation were defeated at Wounded Knee ending the Indian wars. Paradoxically the Native Americans are the only people who are exempt from U.S. smoking legislation!

Thermypolae a defensive action where King Leonidaes with 300 Spartan and 1000 Athenian troops were beaten by 1000,000 Persian troops under King Xerses. While this defeat resulted in the sacking of Athens in less than year Persia lost their war having been forced to retreat following defeat at Salamis. This action at Thermopolae bought valuable time which saved the fledgling democracy that we enjoy today.

The common denominator is all of these defensive actions had a direct and decisive effect on the course of the war of their day irrespective as to who won or lost.

As I said those who ignore history do so at their peril, those who do not but fail to act are doomed.
62

Rollo Tommasi,

09/05/2009 01:52:11
I’m sorry to say this Soapy, as you obviously give a lot of lot to these matters, but I do think your perspective is utterly warped and full of contradictions

For a start, you seem to be suggesting that natural causes of death, such as cancers, cannot be caused by external factors such as smoking. That is clearly ridiculous – and it reveals the first contradiction in your argument. You yourself were arguing in an earlier post that air pollution can kill. While you didn’t say it, the ways that air pollution kills is through seemingly “natural” causes of death such as lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema. Surely both smoking and air pollution are external factors which can cause such diseases.

You then claim the Health Act 2006 (don’t you mean the Smoking, Health & Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005? This is a Scottish site you’ve stumbled onto) is “biased in favour of science, charities, or industry”. I wholeheartedly disagree. It is actually biased in favour of public health – in particular, ensuring that people come to less harm through the actions of other people in smoking around them. That is a noble cause and one I wholeheartedly support.

From here your contradictions become even greater. As in previous posts, you are trying to argue that the weaker the evidence for something is, the more you should believe it. You belittle my use of scientific evidence, in an attempt to “prove” my arguments are wrong. Yet you also argue that air pollution is a cause of lung cancer, based on nothing more than a link between numbers of vehicles on our roads and numbers of lung cancer deaths.

In your latest round of posts, you accuse me of being held in thrall by science. That is absolutely wrong. I carefully consider scientific studies based on their own merits. I am quite happy to criticise scientific studies, whether they try to belittle the risks to health of smoking or passive smoking (e.g. Enstrom & Kabat) or if they argue that these present high ris
63

Rollo Tommasi,

09/05/2009 01:54:21
(Contd.): I am quite happy to criticise scientific studies, whether they try to belittle the risks to health of smoking or passive smoking (e.g. Enstrom & Kabat) or if they argue that these present high risks (e.g. Pell).

In contrast, it is YOU who is showing the dogmatic and bloody-minded attitude, by trying to taint all research as being influenced by Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. That is a truly ignorant comment. And if you bothered to reach several scientific studies for yourself you should be able to the lengths most researchers go to in order to ensure their studies are objective, impartial and stand up to scrutiny. You are a slave to your prejudice that no science has any value.

I find your analogies of military battles interesting. An interesting feature of great military battles is the influence of great leaders in securing victory, often against the odds. The successful leaders were those who ignored their prejudices and took an open-minded and insightful approach to deciding upon strategy and tactics. Your side has lost the debate about whether smoking and SHS are harmful to health because your arguments were built upon blind prejudice.

That is a lesson of history which the pro-smoking lobby has ignored to its peril.
64

soapy1,

rainworth 09/05/2009 11:32:24
Are you implying that I am mentally unstable Rollo , I mean warped, really! Is that the best you can do? Why not insane? By trying to paint me as mentally deficient you insult every person in this country who suffers from a psychological illness, those same people who are ruthlessly denied simple pleasures in life by the anti smoking lobby. The same applies to the terminally ill and the aged; no compassion is shown to them either by the Smoking, Health & Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 or the health Act 2006. What does it matter if someone who is terminally ill smokes? They are dying and a small act of mercy or compassion makes their passing easier, you seek to deny them even that, yet you call me warped.

From the moment you are born you are dying, cells deteriorate, mutate or just plain die, they always have done Rollo it is natural law, no man made law, charity or scientist can stop it! That is true fact you are born and you will die, far better to live what time you have to the full than be victim to fools who think they will live longer if they do this or that, hands up all those who wish to spend their last years like the baby they were born as, being fed, changed and washed, like it or not greater numbers of our senior citizens are reduced to that yet a minority of fools actually want this, they yearn for the indignities that go with it and worse still they want it for everyone. Who pays for it, in less than 20 years there will be more pensioners than young people paying taxes to support them, what happens then Rollo, What happens when your chickens come home to roost?

You speak of weak evidence does James Hanratty ring any bells Rollo they hung him for the phrase “let him have it Chris” no one has ever proved whether he meant give him the gun or shoot him and nor will they, only one person knew what he meant for certain and they hung him! Worse still he did not even fire the gun!

If I am bloody minded and dogmatic and just one person wins their libe
65

soapy1,

09/05/2009 11:34:02
If I am bloody minded and dogmatic and just one person wins their liberty then it is worth the label, it is better by far to fight for liberty, to defeat bigotry, corruption, disreputable divisive legislation than to cower in corner or like you support it,
Goering, Von Ribbentrop, Striecher Eichman all supported similar measures, the world said it was a crime, they were hung for their crimes the world supported that.
You are in no danger of hanging Rollo, nor would I wish for you to do so even if you were but this war that been declared against a minority in society will lead only to disaster, for all of us! Already questions are being asked even in parliament in the back rooms some politicians are asking if they have not already gone too far with this tragic legislation, some are wondering if by hanging on to this legislation they will have their high salaries and perks in a year, given the PM’s lacklustre performance at PMQ’s he would appear to be one of them, the political will for this will die, questions are beginning to be asked about the wisdom of involving charities and science in politics, and not just in the UK!

You say that I am a slave to prejudice, are you not equally a slave to yours? Is not your devotion to science equally enslaving, indeed you are not so enslaved that you dare not admit the harm done by your cause, you dare not admit the trauma caused to grieving parents by scientific opinion, you dare not admit that scientists do not have the answers they pretend to have. Like the Spanish Inquisition who believed to challenge the church was the most heinous crime, that of heresy, do you believe anyone who challenges science is a heretic? It is no different to the Romans who believed if you were not Roman you were a barbarian, or indeed our own if you were not British then you were a Fuzzy Wuzzy or other such label (just as you label me warped).

Ask yourself Rollo is your stance against a minority of citizens any different to the stance of
66

soapy1,

09/05/2009 11:36:37
Ask yourself Rollo is your stance against a minority of citizens any different to the stance of the National Socialists against Homosexuals, Gypsies, the mentally and physically disabled, political or ideological opponents and of course the Jews, are these acts of parliament any different to the Nuremburg race laws, do they not seek the same end, the denormalisation of sections of our society?

ASH make no bones about it, they shout it from the rooftops, their leader may not have a silly moustache and cowlick, their supporters may not march through our streets in jackboots but they are every bit as vile, every bit as evil, I actually have some small sense of what it was like for Churchill out in his wilderness years, he saw the National socialists for what they were, no one listened to him either, he too was dismissed, The National Socialists wrote him off as a cigar smoking drunken sot! Don’t you just love irony?

To think that allegedly sub human drunken smokers like Churchill and Stalin could defeat the pure whiter than white antismoking National Socialists, (incidentally Roosevelt also Smoked, I cannot say that he drank excessively, I do not know). Make no mistake Rollo the same fate awaits the anti tobacco lobby, their victories are Pyrrhic victories Just as the early war victories of the National Socialists were.

If you consider my views to be prejudiced so be it, if it is prejudice to fight for freedom, to fight unjust laws, to stand for those who are unable, whether physically or through fear, then I will wear your label with pride.

I do not see the need to convince you to change sides; you are far too valuable to me where you are!
The message I send will eventually seep down to the people who really matter, and it is not you or I, we merely lay out our point of view, we are advocates of opposing ideals you and I, personally I have the utmost respect for any person who does what we are doing, I believe you have nothing personal against me, I kn
67

soapy1,

09/05/2009 11:40:43
I know I have no personal grudge against you, I merely oppose your ideals as you oppose mine.

Indeed this is the kind of debate that would have taken place in a pub over a beer and a smoke, that this can no longer happen is part of the price of this legislation, along with pub closures (I accept that recession and poor business models also have their part) the increase in unemployment figures followed by tax increase after tax increase to cover the shortfalls but hey Rollo is this not what you people wanted, an end to smoking?
68

Rollo Tommasi,

09/05/2009 20:44:04
Soapy – Perhaps you should read my words more carefully before you jump to such highly charged conclusions. I did not describe you as warped or mentally unstable. I described your perspective as warped and full of contractions. And in all of your 4 pages of postings, you have said NOTHING to deal with any of the contradictions in your perspective which I pointed out.

You continue to show the utter selfishness of your F2C brigade. All you think about is the effect of smoking laws on you. You completely fail to understand that laws were made with the interests of other people in mind. The laws were not introduced to inconvenience you. They were brought in to protect other people from the effects of your smoking in enclosed public places on them. Provided other people aren’t harmed by your smoking in enclosed public places, then your right to smoke remains unhindered. That is REAL FREEDOM for all UK citizens – not the “let’s have complete freedom for us smokers and to hang with the effects it has on other people” nonsense you are fighting for.

So don’t give me your “minority rights” nonsense. Nobody is denying you your right to smoke. But – whether your group is a minority or majority – if you engage in something which needlessly places the lives of other people at risk, then it is right that the law should take steps to provide other people with reasonable protection from the effects of your actions. The smoking laws are therefore the actions of an enlightened democracy – not the Nazi state you like to portray.

You are almost certainly right that you will never change my mind and I will never change yours. I have already shown how I have exercised my judgement in an open-minded way on the basis of the quality of evidence I see. You have still not given any indication that you too can be open-minded.

In particular, I note how you have not explained to me how, just assuming that passive smoking does kill thousands of people in the UK each yea
69

Rollo Tommasi,

09/05/2009 20:44:21
In particular, I note how you have not explained to me how, just assuming that passive smoking does kill thousands of people in the UK each year, you would ever allow yourself to accept that. You are fixated on a bloody-minded refusal to acknowledge anything which could suggest that YOUR actions in smoking in front of other people could, little by little, be contributing to the early deaths of some of them.
70

soapy1,

10/05/2009 10:43:56
Could it be we are now seeing your true colours, could it be the truth in the last post, is it that the comparisons, worry you? Is it possible that others beside me may feel the same way? So give me a reason why your logic reference smoking should not apply to the motor car? Bearing in mind that the more additives in petrol, the more carcinogens it produces so we have already ruled out any alleged improvement in petrol. Why the opposition to electric cars? They would cut pollution, would save lives would they not? Every driver in Great Britain are (by YOUR STANDARDS not mine YOURS) also killing the population with their pollution, if it is true that there is no safe limit to the carcinogens in cigarettes then it is equally true of petrochemicals by YOUR STANDARDS Rollo. There is no way to prevent petrochemicals killing people and that is before we get to a tiny minority of idiots on the road who murder and maim innocent victims on our roads, yet you call me a killer stop being a hypocrite. Are you seriously trying to convince people that a minority at ASH have the right to tell a nation of over 60,000 000 how to live their lives? A charity that is not elected who has no lawful mandate to formulate legal policy for that is what they are doing, that is what I am fighting.

I can sit at home with my smokes, brew my own beer for 25p a pint socialise with friends, I could let it all go over my head, and it really does not make a lot of difference to me personally. It does to pensioners for example, who maybe go to bingo once a week, what about them Rollo is that how you pay back a generation who bled so that you can do this to them, some of them sit alone at home lonely, neglected, a number of them smoke, most do not but the effects of the smoking ban do not differentiate between them and when the local Bingo hall closes then they all suffer equally even the ones you allegedly protect with your ban, how does that help them Rollo?
Lorraine Adolphe, Barry Collen
71

soapy1,

10/05/2009 10:45:39
Lorraine Adolphe, Barry Collen, and Lawrence Walker three pensioners who died of hypothermia, their ‘crime’ was to go outside for a cigarette, there were no staff around at the homes where they lived to let them back in, they died as a direct result of a smoking ban, were it not in place they would be alive today! Do me a favour Rollo, justify their deaths! Did they deserve to die because they were smokers Rollo? Can a law that allows this to happen, a law you support without reservation, be described as humane? This is the ‘NONESENSE’ YOUR PHRASE NOT MINE that I am fighting for!

Incidentally, Rollo the law in regard to death certificates in the United Kingdom specifically EXCLUDES SMOKING as a cause of death only the primary cause is admissible under law. SMOKING HAS NEVER, DOES NOT NOW, NOR WILL IT EVER KILL ANYONE! This particular act of law cannot be amended by parliament.

Like all Moral questions you will shut them out as you have done all the others, as the Nazis did before you, you will spout the ‘party line’ as the Nazis did before you. You will try to force your will onto those who wish for free choice just as the Nazis did before you. You will lose; just like the Nazis before you it is inevitable just as the tide rises and falls!

I do not blame you for being afraid of being thought of as a Nazi I would be ashamed too, but if that is your desire continue embracing Nazi doctrine, if not then retire from the field, like I said I do not need you to change your mind, You are of more use to me as you are.

You are naturally aware the science used by ASH was conducted by the Nazis’ paid for in part by Adolf Hitler personally to further his political aims historical fact Rollo. That the father of British anti smoking willingly collaborated with the Nazis in this research shows how deeply rooted in Nazism this persecution is! Perhaps you also endorse the hypothermia trials in the camps, how about the typhoid experiments do you endorse those too? All par
72

soapy1,

10/05/2009 10:49:20
All part and package of scientific exploration Rollo, Mengele was a scientist, his research into Typhoid, and his experiments on children really benefited mankind do you support that branch of science as well?
If you say that branch of science is wrong then why cannot the anti smoking science branch be wrong too, it was the same type of scientist that carried out that research, Mengele’s by other names, do you honestly support that Rollo, can you not see that any science related to it is the fruit of the poisoned tree?

My arguments apply equally to any attempt to restrict what people eat, what they drink what they do, my arguments are anti prohibition Rollo this is not about smoking, this is about liberty for all. I hope you will forgive me if I do not present Strat and tacs 101 for you but I am just a mite busy ending a war someone else wanted, it is your tax pounds at work, after all the tax payer paid for my tuition! So now you can add Arrogance to my ever growing list of ‘sins’, after all Montgomery, Rommel, Wellington, Napoleon, Custer, Grant, Sheridan and Sherman were all arrogant men, all in the right circumstances were brilliant General officers!

Pointing out what I do or do not respond to does not change the moral aspects of this ban; it is an area that you have elected to fight in. I will think none the worse of you if you strike your colours and put and end to the damage that is being wrought to your cause, even your Right Honourable friend has the sense not to walk into a minefield. I offer you this opportunity to strike your colours, your position is beyond defence, any further attempts at resistance will only damage your cause further, I offer you 48 hours grace to consider whether to retire with honour or see this through to it’s inevitable conclusion, bear in mind that what tarnishes you tarnishes those associated with you, for my part I am operating under independent command, under my own ensign. Please, do not come back with ‘nuts’ it
73

soapy1,

10/05/2009 10:50:27
it is a tired and worn out cliché!
74

english charlie,

10/05/2009 10:59:50
Rollo. You are not the only person who take assumptions as proof.
A member of the Lords was asked how many people have died through smoking. He said that he couldn't give a figure because if a smoker died of a 'smoking related' illness it was assumed that he/she died because of smoking.
It is the same with passive smoking.
The Legal interpretation of 'Epidemiological studies' is that it can only go to prove that an agent could have caused, but not that it did cause, an effect in any particular case:

All assumptions.
75

Farnham,

10/05/2009 20:02:02
There is clearly an issue behind this debate, and it is obviously the smoking ban. If anyone would like to discuss it, they can do so here :

www.uksmokingban.forumotion.com
76

Rollo Tommasi,

11/05/2009 11:50:46
Soapy – I have read some well-argued posts from you in the past. But what you have now typed out is just a tirade of nonsensical rage. I really thought you were above that. And in all of your 4 pages, you do not even begin to deal with any of the contradictions and inconsistencies I pointed out in my last post. In fact, you throw new contradictions into the mix. Your whole position is based on a confusion of illogicality and hypocrisy.

In case you hadn’t noticed, air pollution levels are strictly controlled nowadays – in terms of vehicle emissions, factory emissions and electricity production. Likewise smoking is not banned – just controlled to limit the risk to harm for other people.

You talk of the “minority of idiots on the roads who kill and maim innocent victims on our roads”. I hate these idiots too Soapy. So here’s the next contradiction in your argument: Why do you care so little about deaths from passive smoking when passive smoking kills many more people in the UK each year than these idiots do?

Your constant references to Nazism are both tiresome and totally hypocritical. To the Nazis, the deaths of Jews, gypsies and people with disabilities did not matter. In your world, it appears that the people who die from passive smoking do not matter. So you’re displaying a very Nazi-like attitude. Here’s another flaw in your argument: Belief in passive smoking is no more a product of Nazi Germany than a belief in a strong aviation industry – in which the Nazis invested heavily. If you are trying to make links between Mengele and me, what does that make you – Herman Goering?

As for your comments about pensioners, you are applying even more double standards. You claim to be concerned about their welfare, yet you have no regard for the thousands of pensioners who die prematurely – let alone the thousands of younger people who die before even reaching pension age - because of exposure to SHS.

I had to look to find who you meant by the pension
77

Rollo Tommasi,

11/05/2009 11:51:08
I had to look to find who you meant by the pensioners who died. It seems they died of hypothermia in the depths of Canadian winter (not the UK, you note). It seems they chose to go outside – nobody forced them too. It was the addictive nature of nicotine which drove them outside for the sake of another puff, when they could have stayed safe and warm inside. So if you want to blame something for their deaths, blame smoking.

Then bizarrely, you argue that passive smoking cannot be a cause of death because it does not appear as a primary cause on death certificates. Oh the hypocrisy!!! Do the death certificates of the 3 people you referred to mention the smoking laws as a cause of death? Absolutely not! But that doesn’t stop you from trying to blame the laws for their deaths!!

Exposure to SHS is a factor behind lung cancer and heart disease as causes of death – in the same way are drunk driving and reckless driving are factors behind road traffic accidents as causes of death. Even though none are a primary cause of death, all of these – exposure to SHS, drunk driving and reckless driving – are hazardous to health.
78

Rollo Tommasi,

11/05/2009 11:55:29
Oh, so you're back Chas. There is no such thing as the legal interpretation you refer to.

But speaking of things legal, you have hardly been telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in this debate, have you? If you had, you would have admitted where you found the info behind your claim that "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution".

Your refusal to explain proves the source you quoted used epidemiological evidence in its calculations.

Case closed, methinks.
79

soapy1,

11/05/2009 14:56:28
You claim to of be of a scientific mind yet you seem completely unable to grasp the concept that by changing the chemical composition of products natural or otherwise you alter its properties often for the worse although only supposed benefits are ever promoted.

If I did not care about pensioners why would I bother digging up easily available details of pensioners who died as direct result of legislation not choice, they obeyed the law remember, they died because they were law abiding citizens! The law robbed them of free choice! That you blame them for dying because they obeyed the law shows contempt for the pensioner that is way beneath anything the Nazis could dream of on their best days!

Hypothermia is not restricted to Canada Rollo there are cases every year in the United Kingdom too it is just as prevalent here!

You clearly are unwilling to accept any comparisons that show other causes that needlessly kill our citizens, how you can be taken seriously if all you do is condemn smoking as the killer of society and pay lip service to everything else. You use a discipline of science which is more and more condemned by scientists to prove your case.

Of course you object to my comparisons to the Third Reich, they are just that, comparisons to historical fact, an immovable argument! No more no less it is precisely because the argument is immovable and so valid that you use emotive terms and name calling to discredit them, you do more to validate my position than I could ever dream of and it would be ill-mannered of me not to thank you so Thank you Rollo.

If you share a similar outlook to Mengele that is your right Rollo and I would defend even that to the death, I do not however have to condone it, it is the principle of freedom that I defend including your right to emulate Mengele should you wish to do so.

You refuse stubbornly to accept anyone who indulges in a legal pastime, smoking in comfortable surroundings with their peers. It has been sai
80

soapy1,

11/05/2009 14:58:19
You refuse stubbornly to accept anyone who indulges in a legal pastime, smoking in comfortable surroundings with their peers. It has been said time and time again that the answer does not lie in divisive legislation but in facilities for smokers operated and run by smokers a concept of liberty you appear to be unable to comprehend, how does that simple solution impact on non smokers after all they do not need to enter the premises do they? They would be safe going to non smoking establishments wouldn’t they? The anti smoking argument falls apart right there even without the fraudulent science and epidemiology!

Lung Cancer due to passive smoking - a review

"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. "

http://tinyurl.com/26e9uh

Your science at work Rollo it denies every word you utter, do you claim this as ‘fact’ too? If so are all the other alleged facts lies? Can you spin that into a positive anti smoking statement Rollo? It was written by one of your much vaunted scientists Rollo is it fact as you maintain or is it opinion like every other scientific statement? It claims to be opinion, it claims all epidemiology is opinion, it says it does not even qualify as evidence, who is right Rollo science? Or science?

No doubt the author will be ostracised by the scienti
81

soapy1,

11/05/2009 15:00:51
No doubt the author will be ostracised by the scientific community as is anyone who dares disagree with mainstream science historically the Nazis did exactly the same there it is again Rollo yet another comparison based on historical fact! Call it it hypocrisy if you will it does alter the situation they are historical fact Rollo and there is no counter argument to historical fact, it happened and there are comparisons to it today. Calling it hypocrisy only delays the inevitable. In less than a year the idiots who started this will be gone, possibly including your Right Honourable friend and you Rollo will be highly instrumental is his demise, if he is smart he will cut you loose as the liability you are rapidly becoming although to be honest I suspect his fate like the others is sealed already.

You mention my hypocrisy over the three pensioners their cause of death is rightfully hypothermia, the fact still remains have the legislation that said they cannot smoke inside not been in place they would not of had to go outside to smoke, they would have had to of broken the law those facts are unalterable, the law has a responsibility for the safety of all citizens Rollo not just the ones you deem worthy but all of them, separate facilities as I have said will provide that safety for smokers and non smokers alike, the safety that your science, your law and your values deny them.

When drunk drivers, power corporations and the others are treated equally with smokers you may have a point, but they are not, smokers are vilified way beyond any other alleged causation of cancer, as always profit is placed over life.
82

english charlie,

11/05/2009 19:20:29
Rollo. Have I lied about where I got the 'info behind your claim that "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution'? NO.
'Your refusal to explain proves the source you quoted used epidemiological evidence in its calculations'. NO. Just another assumption on your part.
'Case closed, methinks'. Too much thinking and assumptions, methinks.
83

Rollo Tommasi,

11/05/2009 20:02:54
Chas: In legal parlance, you have not "told the whole truth" - and quite deliberately so too. A court would certainly judge from that kind of behaviour that you were deliberately withholding what you didn't want to admit.

You're not just hypocritical. You're cowardly too.
84

english charlie,

11/05/2009 20:28:43
Rollo. The law still allows anybody the right to silence. If you want to know the truth, not that you believe in the truth, I can't remember where I saw the information.
You are the hypocrite. You believe that people die of passive smoking, but question people dying from air pollution.
I am no coward. Unlike you, I don't like telling lies.
85

Rollo Tommasi,

11/05/2009 20:39:15
Well Soapy. I’m glad to say that in your latest volume of posts, you have at last started offering a few reasonable and arguable points, as I’ve come to expect from you in the past. However, too many of your points continue to veer towards the ridiculous.

Your more reasonable points surround choice. I’ve no problem in principle with allowing smoking provision in certain pubs, just as long as the safety of staff and punters is assured. Problem is, I don’t know how. I don’t know how you decide which pubs should be “smoking” and which “non-smoking”. Remember there is very little public demand for publicans to be able to choose for themselves. I also don’t know how you make smoking rooms work properly. We are told there are supposedly some super-duper ventilation systems available nowadays. But these things only work effectively if they’re maintained regularly and thoroughly and if they’re kept switched on. Past experience tells us that publicans have never been good at maintaining and using fans in the past. And smoking rooms are hardly a viable option for many of the small, traditional pubs which have been suffering most of late. Ironically, the biggest gainers would be the large city centre bars like JDW’s which already have separate rooms. Hardly the best way of saving our pub industry.

As for care homes, it might interest you to know that care homes in Scotland already are able to offer smoking provision if the owners so choose.

Now onto your more ridiculous points. It is nonsense to suggest that the Canadian smoking laws killed those pensioners. Those people were not forced outside. They chose to go outside because their urge to smoke was so great. Shouldn’t you be firing your anger at the tobacco manufacturers for producing such addictive products in the first place?

I remain staggered that your supposed interest in pensioners only applies to people like the ones you referred to. You have continuously failed to express any kind of con
86

Rollo Tommasi,

11/05/2009 20:39:45
I remain staggered that your supposed interest in pensioners only applies to people like the ones you referred to. You have continuously failed to express any kind of concern for the thousands of people in the UK who die prematurely as a result of exposure to SHS. That is really, really callous.

Your continuing use of Nazi terminology is cheap and hardly worthy of a proper debate. As I have already shown with analogies that could be used about your position, it is easy to apply Nazi terminology to a whole host of positions.

The research study you quote is interesting. I see the author worked for a good 20 years for the tobacco industry in Germany. Be that as it may, a couple of points stand out for me.

The first is that I have not been able to read the full article. Have you? But I very much doubt that the research Adlkofer undertook was as detailed and rigorous as other analyses of available evidence, such as the 2002 IARC Monograph, the 2004 SCOTH report and the 2006 US Surgeon General’s report. Are you really trying to tell me that we should place greater weight on the summary abstract of Adlkofer’s article than on these detailed and thorough investigations? If so, why???

Secondly, and ironically, for all Adlkofer’s pro-smoking background, his conclusion is actually closer to the line I’m taking than to your line. At least his conclusions recognise that SHS may be harmful to health. It is a million miles away from your claim in post 71 that “SMOKING HAS NEVER, DOES NOT NOW, NOR WILL IT EVER KILL ANYONE!” So you’ve actually shot yourself in the foot by quoting him.

And your final claim that “smokers are vilified way beyond any other alleged causation of cancer” is absolute nonsense. All major causes of cancer are taken seriously. It just so happens that smoking is the biggest cause of many different types of cancer.
87

Rollo Tommasi,

11/05/2009 20:47:15
Well Chas, thank you for - at long last - answering the question about where the reference was.

Excuse me for questioning your answer, though. First, to say that air pollution kills "over 30,000" people each year is an unusually precise figure to quote when you don't remember where you read about air pollution deaths. So I smell a rat.

If I were to register for the F2C forum, would I find the source of this claim mentioned on it????

Secondly, it shows you are posting before checking on your facts. That doesn't exactly give much cause to have faith in other points you make.

Let me assure you that, from a bit of googling, I've only found one reference to air pollution killing over 30,000 people in the UK each year. That came in the BBC news website article I quoted above. And yes, the figure was built on the results of epidemiological evidence.

And, to remind you yet again, I have said that I accept that air pollution kills. You must be very forgetful if you can't remember me referring to that before.
88

english charlie,

11/05/2009 21:20:27
Rollo. '30,000 an unusually precise figure'? You do come out with some rubbish.
Are you saying that you have NEVER looked on the F2C web site?
I didn't say that you didn't accept that air pollution kills. I said that you questioned it. If you accept it, why do insist with where it came from?
89

Rollo Tommasi,

11/05/2009 23:58:14
Like I said at post 14 - I am not questioning that air pollution kills. I am questioning your logic.

And the one source which matches the figure you quoted came from a study which used epidemiological evidence.
90

soapy1,

Rainworth 12/05/2009 00:48:49
The answer to that is simple the landlord decides which clientele he /she desires if they smoke logic dictates it will be a smoking pub, with smoking staff and a smoking clientele, the same applies to non smoking pubs the ratio should sort itself out according to ratios in the district. Your support for separate facilities is noted and thanked especially as it negates the need for legislation regarding pubs and clubs!
The air conditioning systems that you note have been in use for over 50 years Rollo they always were an option! There was never a need for legislation at all, some pubs already had them installed including some of the smaller ones!

It is well publicised that the Scottish Assembly fully intend to end that situation, but of course you are already aware of that, again separate smoking/no smoking areas with matched staff would and the reception area between with good quality a/c works well here too! No doubt pettifogging objections will be raised on this issue too

Should we contact the bereaved relatives of these North Americans and ask if they appreciate your implication of suicide? (if you had bothered with adequate research you would know one was a U S citizen) that is what you are implying that they knowingly went out in sub artic temperatures to smoke by choice?
They went out there knowing that if they did not they were breaking the law, like all good law abiding citizens they were fearful of the consequences of breaking that law, that is not free choice is it?
Smoke inside and become a criminal or smoke out side and die from hypothermia. Those are the only choices you offer, they were damned both ways, and all for exercising a legal pursuit.

Every one who smokes is aware of the alleged risks, every one who smokes has weighed up those alleged risks, and everyone who smokes accepts those alleged risks. Non smokers who choose to be around smokers also know the alleged risks by being around smokers they also accept the alleged risks, their
91

soapy1,

12/05/2009 00:50:46
their choice Rollo, it is not your choice to make, not yours not the governments and certainly not an unelected charity!

Lawfully speaking they do not die from SHS a point you continue to deny it is not legal cause of death that is why there no deaths from SHS The law says that not me!

If you find the legitimate comparison of today’s conditions with historical fact distasteful then you should consider campaigning in another area, if you choose to espouse Nazi ideology as proven historically then you should be prepared to be criticised accordingly if you are not then you should reconsider the areas you campaign in, your choice Rollo.

The research study quoted presents legitimate reasonable doubt as to the veracity of epidemiology. The fact that you present a case while admitting that you have not even read the entire article demonstrates slipshod methodology which even if you now read the full article and comment prejudices the reader as you should have got it correct first time. The SCOTH report is next to useless owing to the numbers of prejudiced members and as for the 2006 Surgeon Generals report there are holes so large that I could conn USS Nimitz through it! And that is before it was found that the Surgeon General was corrupt. Hardly compelling evidence Rollo.

As pointed out above “SMOKING HAS NEVER, DOES NOT NOW, NOR WILL IT EVER KILL ANYONE!” is a legal viewpoint not a scientific one, as such it bears no relationship to the study.

Your final paragraph goes beyond absurd, when comments like smokers stink, smokers should die slowly and horribly, get cancer and the like are persistently in use without a single comment of condemnation from you or anyone else in the antismoking lobby then smokers are definitely vilified and you are guilty by association by not condemning such comments! Or are you justifying these comments with the comment; “All major causes of cancer are taken seriously. It just so happens that smoking is the biggest cause of m
92

soapy1,

12/05/2009 00:54:01
many different types of cancer” Once again a legitimate historically accurate comparison can be made to the Third Reich where it was not only acceptable but encouraged to vilify sections of the community.

93

Rollo Tommasi,

12/05/2009 08:37:36
Soapy: You're perfectly entitled to criticise my posts. But at least have the decency to try to understand the points I'm making when you do. Trying to make your arguments by deliberately misinterpreting my points is a cowardly way to debate.

On smoking/non-smoking pubs, you deliberately ignore my points. (1) The public does not want the law to leave it to the landlord to choose. (2) Experience tells us that ventilation systems in pubs are totally ineffective - they're either not switched on or not maintained properly.

Canadian deaths: Why do you again ignore the 3rd option - they did not have to have a cigarette at that time at all? What kind of hold does tobacco addiction have over people if they felt the uncontrollable need to smoke at that time - even if it meant going outside?

Research report: Utterly, utterly bizarre comments. I didn't read the full Adlhofer article because I couldn't get the link to work. Have you read it? I'm pretty sure you haven't because you have made NO comment about what Adlhofer says.

And your arguments about SCOTH and the US Surgeon General are worse than useless. You complain that SCOTH are tainted because their members were "prejudiced". That's absolute rubbish - especially when you are trying to sell me an article by Adlhofer who has been connected with the German tobacco industry throughout his career! Why is he not "prejudiced" in your mind? And actually the 2006 US Surgeon General's report is thorough, well researched and well respected. He is absolutely not corrupt. You may be thinking about the 1992 Surgeon General's report - which was a very long time ago (and he was not corrupt either). And I see you totally ignored the 2002 IARC monograph too.

Your comment about SHS not killing anyone is utterly ridiculous, as you would soon find out if you bothered speaking to a medical doctor. You've not bothered dealing with my points about how reckless driving or drunk driving can be considered causes of deat
94

Rollo Tommasi,

12/05/2009 08:38:41
You've not bothered dealing with my points about how reckless driving or drunk driving can be considered causes of death when they're not referred to on a death certificate. You've also not explained how you can blame smoking laws for the deaths of the Canadians when their death certificates would not have referred to it. But - hey - why let fact get in the way of a prejudiced rant??

I do not recognise my comments in your last paragraph at all. It is deliberate and emotive misinterpretation and does not deserve a fuller response.

I don't mind continuing a debate with someone who is prepared to debate properly. But if all you can do is blindly repeat points without acknowledging my counter-arguments and deliberately misinterpreting other points I make, then you are just not worth debating with. It just shows up the paucity of your arguments.
95

english charlie,

12/05/2009 11:24:03
There must be many reports. Here is one with no mention
epidemiological evidence.
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/region/london/news/24-04-2009-air-quality-PM10-London.html
Does epidemiological evidence prove that 3,000 die every year from air pollution in London?
96

soapy1,

12/05/2009 11:53:57
What you mean Rollo is that you have no creditable response to my points and are now throwing a tantrum,

I am am not bothered whether or not you choose to debate with me I have actually got the points I wanted to get across while youv'e been chasing everything else, thanks for your time.

Incidentally who are you to dictate when foreign nationals smoke? don't you get enough grief from us without inviting foreigners too, guess what the Nazis tried that too and look what happened to them!

Please do treat this post as rhetorical seeing as you do not want to talk to me any more!

Have a nice day!
97

Rollo Tommasi,

12/05/2009 19:50:46
Chas – How wrong you are – the figures ARE based on epidemiological evidence.

Your press release refers to 3,000 Londoners dying of air pollution, based on a report referred to in this press release: http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release_a.jsp?releaseid=21899.

The 3,000 estimate is based on the results of this previous report, referred to in the London Assembly press release: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/spatial-assessment-of-pm10-and-ozone-concentrations-in-europe-2005-1

If you read that, you will find it says at page 20 “The health impact assessment is performed according to standard population attributive principles (WHO, 2001).”

Here is the 2001 WHO report in question. As you can see, its results are built on epidemiological evidence. http://www.euro.who.int/document/e74256.pdf

Basically Chas, you lose.
98

Rollo Tommasi,

12/05/2009 20:01:08
Soapy: I'm quite happy stopping. You're not going to persuade me. Based on your ridiculous comments on this board, I'm clearly expecting too much to think that you might be prepared to consider issues in a reasonable way.

I don't know if there is anybody reading these posts who is genuinely undecided on this issue. If there is, I'm quite happy to let them compare my comments with the nonsense you've been spouting (including in your latest post - but you're not going to get a rise from me on your stupid comments about foreign nationals or Nazis).
99

english charlie,

12/05/2009 20:29:50
Rollo. I did not say that I got the information from that site. Yet another assumption on your part. I repeat, epidemiological evidence is based on assumptions.
You also assume that I lose, but basically Rollo, you lose.
Does epidemiological evidence prove that 3,000 die every year from air pollution in London?
100

Rollo Tommasi,

12/05/2009 20:42:44
I didn't say you did get the info from that site. A poor assumption on your part.

I was showing you how those different figures are also based on epidemiological evidence.

Face it, you've quoted numbers of deaths from air pollution. Death certificates won't tell you who has died from air pollution. Toxicological evidence can't tell you how many people will die from it. The numbers you quote must have been calculated using epidemiological evidence.

Like I said, you lose.
101

english charlie,

12/05/2009 21:25:00
'The numbers you quote must have been calculated using epidemiological evidence'. Yet another assumption. I repeat epidemiological eveidence is based on assumptions. You will never win with assumptions.
102

soapy1,

12/05/2009 23:52:55
I just did Rollo thank you, have a nice day!
103

Rollo Tommasi,

13/05/2009 07:50:14
Assumptions, Chas? Really? Read this and weep...

"Epidemiology is crucial in providing the data for the assessment of consequence". (http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/54/3/145?ijkey=0928c9b28d58e5c523e5e95ff59bf7c4f50dbe29&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)

Or how about this:

"Epidemiologic studies are crucial to the estimation of numbers of deaths attributable to air pollution". (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/153/11/1050)

You quoted an estimation of numbers of deaths attributable to air pollution (over 30,000 in the UK each year). That figure must have been calculated using epidemiologial evidence.
104

english charlie,

13/05/2009 07:53:34
Rollo. I have had nearly 70 years of passive smoking and nearly fifty years of actual smoking. If I contracted lung cancer and died, what would be the cause of my death?
105

soapy1,

13/05/2009 11:34:11
Under Law it would be DEATH BY NATURAL CAUSES, LUNG CANCER AND NOTHING ELSE! secondary causation is not actually relevant to legal causation but an indicator.

As no foul play, foolish or deliberate act are involved then misadventure, murder and sucicide are ruled out. No amount of posturing or spin will change that legal definition. Does that help Chas?
106

Rollo Tommasi,

13/05/2009 16:48:54
Chas: If you died of lung cancer, the primary cause of your death would be lung cancer.

But we’re not talking here about primary causes of death. We are talking about factors which make it more likely that somebody will die from diseases such as lung cancer.

To take the example you offered, nobody dies from air pollution as a primary cause. Air pollution is a risk factor behind lung cancer, emphysema, etc. Those diseases are the primary causes of death.

But something doesn’t become safe just because it’s not a primary cause of death. Just like air pollution, drugs overdoses, reckless driving, exposure to high levels of radon and exposure to SHS may not be primary causes of death – but all are harmful.

By the way, your silence in response to my post 103 is deafening. You have quoted figures made using epidemiological evidence.
107

english charlie,

13/05/2009 17:28:04
Rollo. But what would have been the cause of my lung cancer?
108

Rollo Tommasi,

14/05/2009 08:32:23
Chas - How can you possibly expect me to answer that question when (a) you don't have lung cancer and (b) I know nothing about your lifestyle - and therefore how far you have been exposed to different risks (e.g. whether you've smoked regularly; family history of lung cancer; exposure to air pollution; exposure to radon gas)?

Smoking is the most important causal factor behind lung cancer. But whether it was the only factor behind someone's death from lung cancer or other factors were also involved will depend on the circumstances and lifestyle of each person who died.
109

english charlie,

14/05/2009 09:09:18
Rollo. I told you that I have been exposed to second hand smoke for nearly seventy years, including over 20 years of exposure to my father's 60 a day habit. I have smoked regularly for nearly fifty years. I have been exposed to air pollution in London for over 20 years including riding a bike in smog. My father suffered from lung cancer. Is it miricle that I haven't got lung cancer? If I got lung cancer what would be the cause?
110

Rollo Tommasi,

14/05/2009 23:49:46
Chas: There is no way of telling from looking at a person’s body how they got lung cancer. But medical professionals know what factors make it more likely that a person will get lung cancer, by looking at the lifestyles and circumstances of thousands of people who succumbed to the disease and identifying patterns from these results.

Interestingly, you accept that some of these factors are real (e.g. air pollution). But you refuse to accept other factors (e.g. smoking/exposure to SHS). (which you don’t). However, for ALL of these factors (including the ones you accept) medical professionals use epidemiological evidence to build up their understanding.
111

english charlie,

15/05/2009 08:38:44
'There is no way of telling from looking at a person’s body how they got lung cancer'.
WELL DONE
But if a smoker get lung cancer it is ASSUMED that it was caused by smoking.
112

Rollo Tommasi,

15/05/2009 08:49:27
Chas - Research shows that around 90% of UK lung cancer deaths involve smokers. So there is no doubt that smoking is not just a cause of lung cancer, but also the largest single cause.

Air pollution is also recognised as a cause of lung cancer - but it does not feature in as many deaths.

113

english charlie,

15/05/2009 10:30:19
Rollo. Let's ASSUME that the 90% is correct. Is that just current smokers or does that figure include past smokers and 'passive smokers'? If smoking causes lung cancer why does only a small proportion of smokers get lung cancer?
114

soapy1,

rainworth 18/05/2009 12:01:02
Rollo:

just two quick questions,

What percentage of victims contract cancer through smoking?

What percentage of victims contract cancer through breathing polluted air?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.