Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer: Experts
GoddessXena
Wed Jun 19,10:28 AM ET
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Billions of people around the world who are exposed
to secondhand smoke may have an increased risk of developing lung cancer
because passive smoking causes the disease, health experts said on
Wednesday.
A comprehensive review of medical studies by researchers at the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) showed passive
smoking causes cancer and that chemicals and gases in tobacco contribute
to cancer of the stomach, liver, kidney, uterine cervix and to myeloid
leukaemia.
"Involuntary smoking--breathing in secondhand smoke--is carcinogenic to
humans," said Professor Jonathan Samet, of Johns Hopkins University in
Baltimore, Maryland, and a member of the IARC group.
Although the concentrations are not as high, passive smokers are
breathing in the same carcinogens as smokers.
"There is elegant evidence ranging from what can be measured in air to
what can be measured in the body fluids and urine of non-smokers to show
that those carcinogens are being breathed in. They are being absorbed
into the body," Samet told a news conference.
"To my knowledge it is the first time an organisation with global sweep
has reached that conclusion," he added.
IARC, an extension of the World Health Organisation (WHO), is based in
Lyons, France. Its findings on smoking are based on an independent
analysis of more than 50 medical studies by 29 experts from 12
countries.
The scientists said they found no increased risk from secondhand smoke
for childhood cancers but they did not know what impact long-term
exposure to tobacco smoke would have on children as they grow older.
ASTOUNDING PROPORTIONS
An estimated 1.2 billion people worldwide smoke cigarettes, cigars,
pipes or bidis--tobacco rolled in a leaf--and expose billions more
non-smokers to the carcinogenic chemicals, according to Samet.
Marsha Williams, of the British anti-tobacco campaigning group ASH,
called for urgent action.
"Passive smoking is quite clearly more than just the nuisance many of
the world's tobacco companies would have us believe. People are harmed
and killed by it and it is time industry, government and smokers
themselves woke up to this fact," she said in a statement.
The scientists also found evidence that in addition to causing 90% of
lung cancer cases, smoking also contributes to cancers of the stomach,
liver, kidney, uterine cervix and a type of leukaemia--but that it is
not linked to breast or prostate cancer ( news - web sites).
Samet said scientists are only beginning to see the full picture of what
happens when a generation begins to smoke at an early age and continues
to smoke throughout their adult lives.
"We're still learning about just how damaging cigarette smoking is. We
found that cancers beyond those that we had previously listed as caused
by smoking can now be added to the list," he said.
Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals in the form of particles and
gases. Carbon monoxide, ammonia, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide are
among the potentially toxic ones.
About one half of persistent smokers will be killed by a tobacco-related
disease and half of those deaths will occur in middle age.
JL
GoddessXena <thego...@hatesspam.com> wrote in message
news:3D10ACED...@hatesspam.com...
> Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer: Experts
> Wed Jun 19,10:28 AM ET
>
> By Patricia Reaney
>
> LONDON (Reuters) - Billions of people around the world who are exposed
> to secondhand smoke may have an increased risk of developing lung cancer
> because passive smoking causes the disease, health experts said on
> Wednesday.
>
Just an innocent kind of newbie question -- this was news to these experts?
I thought this was very old news, if you see what I mean.
Jean
Two weeks, three days, 21 hours, 45 minutes and 17 seconds. (see? Newbie)
358 times I said NO, saving £71.63.
Time spent doing other stuff: 1 day, 5 hours, 50 minutes.
rosie@readandpost
Diane M
as bad as the article below makes it sound. For one thing, they
concluded that smoking does NOT increase the risk of breast or
prostate cancer (not THAT seems like a headline to me). Given that
these are the most common cancer killer's in the U.S., I find this
encouraging (at least I haven't increased my risk of *something*).
They also confirm that quitting smoking reduces the risk of disease no
matter what age you quit, although the benefits are greatest if you
quit by the early 30's. It states at the bottom of this article that
25% of smokers will die of smoking related illnesses in "middle age".
Readers should know that "middle age" is defined in the monograph as
between 35 and 69 years old. Make what you will of that. Please -
read the monograph. It's loaded with interesting and useful stuff.
http://www.iarc.fr/pageroot/PRELEASES/pr141a.html
There are about 6 billion people on the planet. Most of them will die
of malnutrition, contagious diseases, war, or AIDS. The implication
that "billions" are threatened by second hand smoke is offensive to
me. The vast majority of people alive today will not live long enough
to die of "smoking related" diseases, whether related to second hand
smoke or not. It's not enough to read a few news articles and assume
that they are telling you the entire story. Newspapers sell
sensation, not information.
Diane M.
Mikey S.
posted:
>This time the monograph is available for our reading. It's not quite
>as bad as the article below makes it sound. For one thing, they
>concluded that smoking does NOT increase the risk of breast or
>prostate cancer (not THAT seems like a headline to me). Given that
>these are the most common cancer killer's in the U.S., I find this
>encouraging (at least I haven't increased my risk of *something*).
>They also confirm that quitting smoking reduces the risk of disease no
>matter what age you quit, although the benefits are greatest if you
>quit by the early 30's. It states at the bottom of this article that
>25% of smokers will die of smoking related illnesses in "middle age".
>Readers should know that "middle age" is defined in the monograph as
>between 35 and 69 years old. Make what you will of that. Please -
>read the monograph. It's loaded with interesting and useful stuff.
>http://www.iarc.fr/pageroot/PRELEASES/pr141a.html
>There are about 6 billion people on the planet. Most of them will die
>of malnutrition, contagious diseases, war, or AIDS. The implication
>that "billions" are threatened by second hand smoke is offensive to
>me. The vast majority of people alive today will not live long enough
>to die of "smoking related" diseases, whether related to second hand
>smoke or not. It's not enough to read a few news articles and assume
>that they are telling you the entire story. Newspapers sell
>sensation, not information.
All that being said (and I agree with you, Diane, the bias and hype
are tools of both or all the competing interests, the WHO, the media,
Big T, etc., and I don't particularly take any of them at their word)
there is nothing wrong with becoming more conscious of our personal
surroundings and taking steps to minimize our own risks as we see
them. I find myself 'disliking' the smoke-filled rooms I once
enjoyed, because I can *feel* it affecting my "health" (which is
hardly scientific and basically a stupid way to conduct one's life),
but I will still frequent them just as I still frequent the spots
under the burning sun, though I know that might kill me, too. If
there is a good way to die I haven't heard of it, yet. I refuse to
live inside a bio-tent or under the yoke of the thought/health police.
Take care,
Mike
--
In her mind, clumps of tumors bloomed; soft pink lungs
took on the appearance of charred firewood; grotesque
tubers, oozing blood and spore jelly, spread like
mushrooms across an unsuspecting lawn; arteries withered
like the tendrils of parched orchids; clots resembling
rotten tomatoes or the brains of diseased monkeys choked
the organism, each clot emitting faint wisps of smoke from
a combustion that would not die until the organism died.
Leigh-Cheri grunted in disgust.
--Tom Robbins, Still Life With Woodpecker