Scientific Evidence Portal
Declining lung cancer mortality of young Australian women despite increased smoking is linked to reduced cigarette 'tar' yields | L. Blizzard, T. Dwyer
Article Published: Feb. 2001
Type: Statistical Demographic
Published By: British Journal of Cancer, p 392-396, Volume 84, Number 3, February 2001
Further Information Abstract only
"Increased smoking has not resulted in higher lung cancer mortality for Australian women born in the 1950s and 1960s. Reductions in tar yields of Australian-made cigarettes, which would have affected primarily those born after the 1940s, may be responsible."
This, however, is contradictory to the antismoking propaganda, that states that that “low tar” or “light” cigarettes are just as “dangerous” as are regular cigarettes. The cigarette manufacturers are, in fact, forbidden from advertising their products on this basis.
The questions and observations that stem from this study turn out to be contrary to the “public health” dogma and ideology:
If “low tar” cigarettes are responsible for the decline in lung cancer despite the increase in smoking, why is it forbidden to advertise them on the grounds of being healthier products? Why doesn’t “public health” inform the public? Is ideology cutting into education?
If light cigarettes are no different in danger than regular cigarettes and smoking is indeed the largest single cause of lung cancer, then the number of lung cancers should have increased because there has been a smoking increase, but this is negated by the objective observation of the actual lung cancer cases in smokers.
Is it possible that cigarettes are not substantially responsible for lung cancer in the first place? That seems to be the only logical conclusion that studies like this lead to.