Tobacco Documents Online

,; ~ - . : ... ;, ~mo~ing, -- . -BAN FRANCISCO-Ten inhal- s ations of cigarette smoke nearly double resistance to airflow Into -~ -the lungs, and the respiratory '+effect lasts up to an hour after t+he.last inhalation. - ~--- .. ~._-... ., .M . This finding was reported here .: at a conference on air pollution by' Drs. Julius H. Comroe Jr. and J. A. Nadel of the University of California's Cardiovascular In- stitute. The meeting also heard new evidence Implicating a t m o s- pheric contamination in the etiology of bronchogenic carci- nama. Dr. David F. Eastcott of Wellington, N. Z., reported that the Iung-cancer d e a U h rate among immigrants in his ooun- try from the British Isles was 30-75% higher than among na- tyve New Zealanders. 1c:T- Drs. Comroe and Nadel; using the whole-body plethysmograph, evaluated the respiratory effects f of smoking on 36 healthy sub- jects. The changes were found be similar In smokers and ~.t_.. nonsmokers and were repro- : dueible. Smoking of pipes, cigars or cigarettes without Inhaling had no effect on airway con- ductance. Inhalation of Isopro- terenol aerosol prevented or re- versed the effect of cigarette smoke, they said. In 22 cardiopulmonary - pa- tents with a wide range of ini- Dr. David F. Eastcott tial airway conductance, ciga- rette smoking- led to changes similar to those in the normal subjects. Results were measured In terms of the ratio of airway con- ductance to thoracic gas vol- ume. Ten inhal.ations of cigarette smoke brought about an average decrease of 50% in airway con- ductance which lasted about an hour. Furbheri-L7ore, reduced nicotine content, filt'ration, or removal of volatile smoke constituents, did not appreciably lessen the tle- gree of respiratory impairment produced by the cigarettes. These findings have led Drs. Comroe and Nadel to believe that submicronic particles irri- tate the smaller airways and cause them to constrict. Since khese substances comprise the bulk of cigarette smoke, their re- moval would m a k e smoking pointless, the researchers noted. Dr. Eastcott's 10-year study in- volved the enti•re native-born population of New ZeaIand over age 35 (about 1.2 million) and 250,000 British-born men and women. ~,.,., .. '; Beside being matched for age, -the two groups Included a siml ~ 3 lar proportion of smokers, and lt:~efr szn,oking habits were about L the same, the Wellington physl `- cian pointed out. A 30% higher luna cancer mort'ality was ob- served among the Immigrants in the over-all study group. But among those who did not Immigrate to New Zealand until after age 30, the death rate from lung cancer was 75%, higher than among the natiMe-born„ Dr. ' Eastcott said. - The New Zealand investigatar was quick to point out that his study results do not rule out' cigarette smoking In the patho- genesis of this disease. He feels, however, that "all the talk about smokin•a" may have overshad- owed "ample evidenu.: that smog and associated lung damage may account for at least halt the lung cancer incidence."

as the principal cause or by those who :. Dut the blame for lunr cancer's exnlosive . wan mcwufln~m,-~~n rronc~~co ~.nromv. l h mcrease on genera a atmosp ertc pollution '.~t'r' NEw ZEALAND'S DR EASTCOTT , . Last week authorities from both schools A+ G,~a ake „r. met in San Francisco under auspices of Z" the University of' California; the Tobac- '~ this asi the long 1 shadow of those dark I co Industry Research Committee put up Satanic mills." ;' .~ -.-i '"$28,00o towar& expenses. '= Public & Personall Most surprising was A New Zealand general practitioner, : the extent to which the University of ' Dr. David F. Eastcott, might have been ..Southern California's Dr. Pauli Kotin speaking for nearly everyone present when agreed. Previously, Pathologist Kotin had he declared: "The incidence of lung, can- minimized the importance of smoking, cer is complexly determined and cannot emphasized public air pollution. This time, be related solely or principally to a single though he pile& up more scientific data factor. Tobacco smoking plays a part. At- 'to convict public air pollution, Dr. Kotin mospheric pollution plays a part." Trou- also plumped for multiple causation. He ble is, he complained, that the evidence doubted; he said, that heavy cigarette incriminating heavy cigarette smoking is f,:smoking or "personal air pollution" plays "compact" (and hence easily grasped), a "primary role" in causing lung cancer, while that indicting, air pollution is di- but he granted that it' may be guilty as verse and various. a fellow criminal. The researchers still Dark Satanic Mills. In the Down- differed in their theories of sequence: ~ ~ ' • ~Smoking & Cancer'~Cont~. After ears of bo b di h h . y __ m ar ng eac ot er " " ith fl t d i l w a en a s andng recrim unflatteri- inations, the two sides in the smoking- and-lung-cancer controversy came close ' to sense-making agreement last week. --Previouslv_ evidence hac IIQ11Allv hPPn ~-`.i_-'t"offered at one-sided meetings-either by 7i:1:.; t inothose who indict heavy cigarette smoking Valley (pop. 8o,ooo), Dr. Eastcott found sets the stage for smoking to damage ,;,,-Under dominion's heavily industrial Hutt Dr. Eastcott thought British air pollution conditions for his inquiry as neatly laid the lungs and perhaps lea& to cancer, out as in a laboratory experiment. By 'while Dr. Kotin thought smoking sets excluding Maoris, he dealt with people ^ the stage for the air pollution villain. "almost entirely of British extraetion. "'Conference 'participants also moved to Under socialized medicine, all got the same health care. Their smoking habits were essentially the same. All were liv- ing where the wind is strong and almost eontinuous, so that air pollution is negli- gible. But some had been born and raised there, while others were immigrants who had spent the first part of their lives in smoke-shrouded Britain. The death rate from lung cancer among both men and women, Dr. Eastcott found, was 30% higher among the British-born, and 75% higher among those who emi- grated to New Zealand after age 30. No such~ discrepancy appeared with cancer in other parts of the body. Moreover,, though New Zealanders (native and immigrant alike) smoke even more heavily than stay-at-home Britons, the dominion's lung- cancer death rate is still lower than the old country's. Concluded Dr. Eastcott: "Something happens to the Britisher in his native environment that increases his susceptibility to lung cancer .,. I regard clear up two other seeming contradictions which have bedeviled the years-long re- search. Why is it' that, witb~ Americans smoking about as many cigarettes as Britons, and at least' some U.S. cities having air pollution as bad as many of Britain's, the lung-cancer death rate is markedly higher in Britain than in the U.S.? One factor is obvious but too often overlooked, sai& London's Dr. Patrick Lawther: U.S. pollution is mainly indus- trial, whereas Britain's comes largely from the burning of soft ('bituminous) coal in open grates. And the castle that is every Englishman's home discharges the heavy resulting soot into the air near lung leveC from low chimneys. As for the difference in lung-cancer death rates between men and' women (which the tobacco industry maintains is far greater than the differ- ence in their cigarette consumption),, the American Cancer Society's Dr. E. Cuyler Hammond suggested that men are more exposed to industrial fumes and dusts.