|
|
For the first time in over a decade, cigarette consumption increased in 1995, much to the chagrin of the anti-smoking industry, who envisioned a smoke-free society by the year 2000. Could it be that all the hype and hysteria has finally bottomed out, and people realize that smoking might not be as bad as portrayed by the health sector and some die-hard zealots.
Just recently, the Knight-Ridder Tribune News Wire carried an article stating that "scientists now believe that all cancers are triggered by abnormal genes." They have identified more than a dozen specific cancer-related GENETIC DEFECTS, some being inherited, others caused by environmental factors.
A gene, dubbed FHIT (Fragile Histidine Triad), is vulnerable to damage by carcinogens such as those found in cigarette smoke. A total of 59 cases (all smokers), stricken with lung cancer, were examined, with 80% of them having had damaged FHIT genes.
The first question is: what happened to the other 20%? And secondly, just because they were smokers does not mean that only cigarettes contain carcinogens. In Los Angeles for example, children grow up with a 15% diminished lung capacity, so there must be something in the air other than first-hand smoke. According to the Air Quality Control Board, 1% of the pollution can be traced to cigarettes, which leaves a whopping 99% to other pollutants. What about the exhaust from cars, which contains a high level of carbon monoxide. One part in 100,000 produces symptoms of poisoning, and 1 part in 750 parts of air causes death in half an hour, pre encyclopedia.
Would there not be the possibility that the damage to the FHIT gene caused by environmental factors is not caused by cigarette smoke, but rather by the exhaust from motor vehicles? Start a car in a closed garage and it will not take too long before you expire. How many cigarettes would you have to smoke to achieve the same effect? Now multiply that one car in the garage by millions of cars in a city, where does all that exhaust go? In the air we breathe!!!
Now when you dissect a lung, I wonder if you can tell the difference where the carcinogens came from, but just because someone was a smoker, cigarettes are blamed automatically, regardless of other confounding factors, of which there are many, like lifestyle, alcohol consumption, obesity, exposure to chemicals at a workplace, etc. None of that counts if you happen to be a smoker.
By the way, if smoking is so deadly, how do we explain the 70, 80, and 90 year olds who have smoked all their lives and are in better health than many nonsmokers? Give that some thought next time you hear one of those commercials that vilifies smokers.
Incidentally, I am a nonsmoker.
Otto J. Mueksch, Vice President
Californians for Smoker's Rights
|
|