SHATTERING AN ORTHODOXY: From Australia, one of the most anti-smoking countries in the world, there comes a new study, conducted by the Australian Bureau of statistics. Part of this study sought to establish smoking status amongst the population, and the rates of illness within those groups. The conclusions that emerge are dynamite, for they shatter the prevailing orthodoxy. Smokers reported lower rates of long-term illness, and any illness, than either ex-smokers or those who had never smoked. Moreover, if smokers are shown to be less likely to suffer from illness, the study raises serious questions over the claims that environmental tobacco smoke causes harm to non-smokers. After all, if smokers suffer fewer illnesses than non-smokers despite the fact that they come into closer and more frequent contact with tobacco smoke, how can it be claimed to affect those who do not smoke? Smokers were found to be less likely to suffer from tumours, high cholesterol, hypertension, and heart disease than either of the other groups. Of all three groups, it was invariably the ex-smokers who fared worse. It was only where rates of bronchitis and emphysema were examined that those who had never smoked came out on top, and even they had a prevalence only half that of smokers and ex-smokers. Below we provide tables based on figures that appeared in the Australian Bureau of Statistics January 1994 report entitled 1989-90 National Health Survey: Lifestyle and Health Australia.  ACCESS THE STUDY
Characteristics of Australian Smokers
The survey showed that in 1989-90 28.4% of adult Australians were smokers. Men still smoked more than women, at 32.1% and 24.7% respectively, and smoking was more common amongst the 18-24 year olds than those aged 45 years or more. Smoking was more common among unemployed persons (43.5%) than the employed (31.2%) and those not in the labour force (27.5%). Smoking was highest amongst those in the low to middle income groups (33.4%) and lowest amongst those educated to BA degree or higher (16.4%). When the number of years during which a person had been a smoker were taken into account, again it was the ex-smokers who fared worse when it came to long term illnesses. Long-term Illness
When questioned about long-term illnesses, 82.9% of ex-smokers reported one or more long-term conditions, which was higher than both smokers and those who had never smoked. When age was taken into consideration, more people who had never smoked than those who did smoke reported one or more long-term illnesses. In the 18-44 group 63.2% of those who had never smoked, and 64.7% of those who did reported long-term illness. It was also found that those persons aged 45 years and over who had smoked for 20 years and then stopped had a higher prevalence of hypertension, heart disease, asthma, high cholesterol and tumours than those who were still smoking and had done so for 20 years or more. Moreover, when compared to those in the same age group who had never smoked, smokers over the age of 45 years were found to have a lower prevalence of tumours, high cholesterol, hypertension, and heart disease. No Reported Illness
Smokers, too fared better than both ex-smokers and non-smokers when it came to reporting any form of illness. Heart Disease, Hypertension, Overweight
On heart disease, hypertension, and being overweight, smokers suffered less from these than either ex-smokers or those who had never smoked. Indeed, in all categories, except hypertension, it was ex-smokers who fared worst. Bronchitis and Emphysema
It was only in the category of bronchitis and emphysema that those who had never smoked fared better than either smokers or ex-smokers. However, it was still the ex-smokers who fared worse than current smokers. As can be seen from these percentages, emphysema is a rare disease. While actual figures of Australian deaths from this disease are not available, those for England and Wales in the UK are. Fewer than 2,000 deaths from emphysema were recorded in the mortality statistics for England and Wales for 1992. Only 30 of these were in the age group 40-49. The death rate peaked at 70-74 for women and 75-79 for men. Since men are on an average heavier smokers than women, this suggests that some other factor is at work to explain the difference (though indeed a death at 74 is hardly premature in the usual term, though it may be lower than the average 78 for women, in the UK, but the 75-79 for men is higher than the average life expectancy of 72 or 73 years). There are many different types of bronchitis listed in the Office of Population, Census and Surveys (OPCS) figures. For example: Acute bronchitis and bronchiolitis; Acute bronchitis; Acute bronchiolitis; Bronchitis, not specified as acute or chronic; Chronic bronchitis; Mucopurulent chronic bronchitis; Obstructive chronic bronchitis; and Bronchiotasis. In 1992 just over 8,000 deaths occurred as a result of these diseases. Again, most deaths from these diseases were in the 60+ age range, with relatively few amongst younger age groups. To put these figures in context, the total number of registered deaths in England and Wales in 1992 were 558,313 from all causes, and across all ages. In other words, 1.8% of deaths in England and Wales in 1992 were due to emphysema and bronchitis. (Source: Series DH2 no. 19, 1992 Mortality Statistics; Cause - England and Wales, OPCS, 1993) Conclusion It is no surprise that the Australian Bureau of Statistics should preface the publication of these results with the statement: "Some care should be taken in interpreting the associations between lifestyle factors and health status described in this publication. Data from the survey should not be interpreted as proof of causal relationships." Correlation does not prove causality, as FOREST frequently points out, but the co-incidences that appear in this report are remarkable in their consistency. In Australia at least, it appears that being a smoker is to be rather more healthy than being either an ex-smoker or never having smoked at all. This study not only shatters the prevailing orthodoxy over the alleged damage of active smoking, it smashes yet another hole in the claims of the proponents of 'passive smoking' For, if smokers suffer from fewer illnesses than non-smokers, how on earth can it be argued that their smoke damages others?
|
