Tobacco Documents Online

. . . Cancer Risks for Thee, but Not for Me By Jrnt TAYwa 1'tte /A.ntertcanl Journal et the Natlonal Cancer Institute caued quite a aUr by pub- Ilsping antpIdemloloqical study In October ru~estlnr thet wotnen who have abottlona are 5119G'more 1lkNy to develop breut cancer than women who do not. The rlght-to-Ute ctawd predlctably eetud upon the study u one more reauPa that p6oitton ououM be We- gd-11 caweo cancer. "Not to faat," aoua• tered epldetalologtsb; a 111 rbk ratio (u eyldeaalolopteta put Il) "b aot trtraag enouglt lo caS laduced aborttoa a rUdc factor tor breui eueer." ; That ttatemceMt by Bugenta taaqe, director of analytic epldemlelogy for the American Cancer Soelety, lo not some polttically eorred ettetnpt toProlect the reputation of abosllaa: h renecta tbe lqentlnc eonaensuw on whal la ud Is not ttatiUfcally olgnlfleant arhen ex- mla~~p~ ,roupp a Individuals tor wa- "~it0etxtmlogical ~tdle. in ~tesal at+e pi+s~bablp qot able, traltrlically, te ldeattty wllb any canlldetroe any telattra trlqu lowet- d,aa-11:' Dr. Cd1e twled. sULOe ept4etnlatoo- ~b .oam,tfy take iertouily oaty risk tac- ~3.®Uah~etattyg~bt~ooi Y~e ~ with t®a.t ulendau that the bt,ead catncer trtuQy wu "tatr kOm aindu{», aad tt Is dlf- ficalt to ree bow (II/ wt11 be latoraaadn to tbe Ic." thow Amalcau who ehooro to ka*a elwdont< are Aaie from pater>utl rel~ttad,on roc tbe ttate being. '1lcooe who cbom to luv+e t cfporette, Oo'WoeTer, areY't p tucYy. The aate rtok htlo that wu ro widely pooh- paehed by ,deutltb u laptacant and tn- oQachulve when It comeo to abortion waa deemed by the very same scientists an lntol- erabte health menace when h comes to sec- ondhand unoke. Actually, that's not quite true.'fhe 11 rbk factor for a single abortion wu dgnlllcantly greater then the really bard • to detect 1.19 rlok ratlo for tntendve, 40-year, daytntUyout pack-rday exposure to sec- ondhand omobe (u figtu•ed by Ihe U.S. 6nvl- roomental Protection Agency). And Ihat'a just the beginnlng. The HPA refused to rWtlate electromagnettc fields emanating frorrt power oaurceo (alteged by some to poee a cancer rbk) because, accord- Iny to the agency, "Ihe relationship rtake In the published reporto have seldom eiceeded k.0.' Slmllarly, some shMlea bave tound that drintlng paateur/sed milk results In a 2.1 risk factor tor Itug cancer. Atmosl ao one, havrer- er, haa rottest oMerbeated about the e.llo of the death-deallaY ddry laduatsy. So whpl glveol Perhopa the medical oonr tttuntty Is simply po teracynIcal thaW the po- Utical community. Yale epidemtotoo1d Alvan Ihluiteta reJoted In 'IbadcologHal Pathology ebel be trooeAlly tmaN a praminent eptdenU- otot Ut adratt tdat the tl;i'A'e iecondhau4• anoke dudy and aorreopoadlnr ?nlc cam- palgtt wm e "rottea science, but It e a worthy cauae. u will Adp ua to `ef ra of dSarettea and to beaome a mnoke-lree oodety.'• Orperhapa tt b obaple bul boneot atboour oclauo bW. A rtudy by Georye Carto et at., publlshed In ttie Joamat Risk Analytb, rwr teyed 1,461 epldeatlotoRiota, Wcologivis, pbyddaas and general scicmtiqs on .asiow health rUb, tactudtnS secondhand omoke. Hall of those nuv*yed were reed a~leaette designed to reilect mahwiream sdentlpe Ihlnldng on secondhand anoke; T0% of thoae indivfduab thought It a serious enrironmen- tal health hazard and 85% feit that public beelth Inlerventlon was Indeed necessary. The second group sarreyed was read the same vignette but. Instead of being told that the facts related to tecondhand mmobe, It waa told the dlicuuton pertained to "substance R." Only 3396 of those atentirts and phyel- cLno thought that substance (In realtty. sec- ondhand rmoke) a serious health haserd, and only 41% felt Ihd "aubatance x" wermted public health regulation. An antlsmoidnq adhlUt mtgfit argue, however, that the lack of action against one partlaUar set of risks does not Juvtlfy lack of actlon aealnd others. Pertupa the U.S. government ehould regulate papteurlzed milk, limit erpeaMre to electric fletds and ban abodlon ai a cancer risk. Yet whU'o enhWn here Is any appredatlon of the dltit- outty o~ ouurtilng that oorretalton n®ceuari- ~e ~ ~~~ y uaderatailding of . For example; we know qat diet and exer 'doe at+e Ihe mosl Importanl eontributlny hc- taro for cancer. And we aloo know titat smok- ers an aeeng+e get far less nutdtlat and ®erclse than aoasntotern. Are nonsmoking wltta of smokers (the populaflon oubyroup exuntned by HPA to anlwe at (b 1:19 risk ratio for oeconahand mnulral awre or leu likely to ohare tbelr twbands' lllertytea aed cliettrypo~ tly~lande rlander a tbe University of Q=es4 wrote reuirify tn Ihe Archlvto of Snvtmruxental Health ahat "aoclal factors were Ihree to four Itanea taore Important (risk foctoroi than BTS lenvironmental to- I 7~, ~,ry Mr. 7bylor is direclor of imbont•resowroe ~ 6~ v V E 9 s' d t~ I studie, of lhe C4to Ma(ilute in WasMn®(cm. bocoo eaake( exposure." He noted thel "there Is Increastng evidence that dletary habits are related to several kinds of rerplra• tory disease, tncludlne lung cancer and chronic bronchltir," and those dietary hablb of cmoktng men are often shared by thelr nonsmoking spouses. Dr. Itylander asked: "Could It be thal we are commltttng a funda- uaental error by pladng t3'fS In the category of a causatlve factor when In reality we may be studying a co-founder?" Correlation dmply does not equal cauoa- don, no matter how Impressive the datlslica. Consider an epldemlologicul study published In Hollend that found that keeping blyda cotve- Iale9 with a revenfold Increase In the risk of lung cancer-a eorrelatton three Ifines more significant lhan'lhat of oecondhatM tnwlce. Stmllarly, blocAemUt Bruce Ames of the tlnl- venlty of California at Bakeley b bnd o/ showing hlo students a graph with two Ilna representing data fmm 19511 to the present. The two Itnes aLnost completely matcb. The students Invariably say yes, the twu oeV of dab must be related. Yet one tlne repraento the numberof mating ttotto In Ceraoanyt Itke o4ter. the ownber of live cbledbbtbs. • And then there Is ehe oueosy problem (tos randomnew flleP~~) 0~l ehllet unlikely t1 ttUie~i~e- iWa u~e ads ~il~oa up more ~ oflea ~ tban au~td- ottier, ehte tells us nothlny. Now consider ttw mare than kaU of the epldemWloatcal studka on oecondbend smoke Included 40 or fewer sublecU, and seldom did risk ratiae differ much from the dicrre exampN. Some rtidlen, tn fad, showed aegaUee eocrNauau-tlut being expooed to eeoondhan,q smoke actually rcduees the risk of lung eancer. Jama t.e Vhnu warned In the Sunday Telegraph of /.oadon a few years back tlut "we cuuld reach a sltuattoo wtKre health ac- qvirts, using dubtous ockptlfic evWence, will be In a position to blac1mnfIl us Into behaving the way they think we ehduld It Is not an at- tractlve prospect." WeU, Dr. Le 8anu, lhe fLL- ture 1s novr.