Scientific Evidence Portal
Never Smoker Lung Cancer Risk from Exposure to Particulate Tobacco Smoke | A. Arundel, T. Sterling, J. Weinkam
Article Published: 1987
Type: Articles and Dissertations
Published By: Environment International, Vol. 13, pp. 409-426, 1987
Further Information This paper highlights the gross discrepancy between actual, measured exposure of never smokers to passive smoking and the "doom and gloom" figures of the antitobacco propaganda on the “mortality” “caused” by passive smoking.
Arundel, Sterling and Weinkam write (emphases added):
"These risk exposures estimate
12 lung cancer deaths among never smokers from exposure to particulate ETS: 8 among the 11.9 million male never smokers and 4 among the 28.8 million female never smokers in 1980. Conversely, between 655 and 3,610 never smoker lung cancer deaths are estimated from methods based on the average lung cancer risk observed in epidemiological studies of exposure to ETS.”
With figures and arguments like that, it is no surprise that one of the most binding parts of the Master Settlement Agreement was to forbid the tobacco industry from financing studies that demonstrated the absurdity and dishonesty of the antitobacco propaganda and its “science.”
“Three possible reasons for the discrepancy between the exposure and risk-based estimates are discussed: the excess risk observed in epidemiological studies are due to bias, the relationship between exposure and risk is supralinear, or sidestream tobacco smoke is substantially more carcinogenic than an equivalent exposure to mainstream smoke.”
There is actually a fourth, fundamental reason that this study did not consider: the epidemiological studies on ETS are based on questionnaires about vague and guessed memories of exposures of sometimes many decades earlier, provided by very old non smokers who are cancer patients in the case groups, and in search of an explanation for their disease. Under those conditions – the search for a guilty party – a cancer patient will “remember” anything that is proposed, and that may “make sense” as an explanation. It is not a coincidence that the "cases" almost always "remember" more exposure than the controls without cancer.
This is the most fundamental flaw of the epidemiological studies on ETS – a flaw that invalidates them all, regardless of their results, and that also shows the incompetence and dishonesty of "public health" institutions when they claim that passive smoking is harmful to the non smoker.
This essential nonsense forms the "body of scientific evidence" at the foundation of any and all smoking bans in the world.