If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, study says
3/8/2005
Secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, study says By John Ritter, USA TODAY SAN FRANCISCO - Scientists at an influential California agency have concluded that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, a finding that could have broad impact on cancer research and lead to even tougher anti-smoking regulations. Although recent studies have linked smoking to breast cancer, no major public health group, including the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute, has declared it a cause of the disease that kills 40,000 women each year in the USA. The finding by scientists for the Air Resources Board - whose early efforts to regulate auto emissions were a model for the rest of the country - could fuel workplace smoking bans in more states. And it is likely to refocus the scientific debate over the link between smoking and breast cancer. "I have to say without reservation it will stimulate continued and accelerated scientific evaluation of the smoking and breast cancer issue," says Terry Pechacek, associate director for science in the CDC's office on smoking and health. A scientific review panel is expected to approve the report as early as Monday and forward it to the Air Resources Board, which has broad state authority to regulate air pollution. The 1,200-page report analyzes new data on the extent of Californians' exposure to secondhand smoke and more than 1,000 studies of health effects from secondhand smoke. The conclusion that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, particularly in younger women, challenges conventional scientific thinking because most studies, until recently, had found no connection between female smokers and breast cancer. But California scientists based their conclusion on recent human studies that they determined had more careful assessments of long-term exposure to tobacco smoke. The report also gave more weight to toxicology evidence from animal studies than previous studies by the surgeon general and others. It's well-documented that chemicals from cigarettes cause breast cancer in lab animals. Overall, women exposed to secondhand smoke have up to a 90% greater risk of breast cancer, the report says. It says secondhand smoke kills as many as 73,400 a year in the USA. The report did not estimate the number of additional new breast cancer cases annually, and scientists did not calculate risk levels based on doses of secondhand smoke. Tobacco companies, in public comments filed with the board, say the report gives little weight to studies that found no breast cancer connection. A new surgeon general's report on secondhand smoke is expected this year. "The topic is still under review," says the report's senior scientific editor, Jonathan Samet, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University. "It's controversial," Samet says. "Concluding that passive smoke causes breast cancer has potentially powerful implications for tobacco control and breast cancer control. So there has been tension over it." ----------------------------- 3/8/2005 Firestorm could be brewing By John Ritter, USA TODAY SAN FRANCISCO - Cancer scientists are split over whether smoking causes breast cancer, but they agree on one thing: The debate is far more complex than linking smoking to lung cancer or heart disease. The U.S. surgeon general says tobacco smoke - whether secondhand or inhaled by smokers - can cause both those killers. Only the tobacco industry disputes the evidence. But breast cancer, a disease that strikes 270,000 U.S. women a year, is another matter. Though a California government report is the first to affirm secondhand smoke as a cause, it's far from the last word. Chemicals in cigarette smoke cause breast cancer in rats; the chemicals are found in human breast tissue. Recent studies of groups of women show a breast cancer-smoking link. But science has been slow - too slow, breast cancer advocates say - to indict tobacco. "If we spend this much time looking at each chemical out there that could cause breast cancer or other cancers, we'll all be dead before the analysis is completed," says Nancy Evans, a health science consultant with the Breast Cancer Fund, a national group that focuses on prevention. Scientific caution is partly a result of Big Tobacco's clout. "The tobacco industry is so wealthy and powerful that you want what you say to be incontrovertible," says Michael Thun, who heads the American Cancer Society's epidemiological research. The industry disputed the California findings in public comments included in the report. Three tobacco companies declined interview requests. Secondhand vs. active smoking But a bigger reason is uncertainty about the data. California scientists who concluded that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer and whose report is likely to be approved next week by a review panel were persuaded by "the weight of evidence." Much of that was newer, better studies, says Melanie Marty, the section chief with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment who supervised the report. "What you want is multiple studies that show an effect," she says. "As time has gone by, more and more have shown an effect." Marty's team looked at older studies that "didn't ask enough questions to figure out who was really exposed (to secondhand smoke) and who wasn't." But in six recent studies that were careful to take women who'd been exposed out of control groups, the risks went up, she says. The scientists also saw a breast cancer link to active smoking in the newer studies, though not as distinct as with secondhand smoke. That was important, Marty says, because the scientific consensus has been that active smoking doesn't put women at risk. The California scientists didn't calculate the risk for active smoking. The lower risk seen for active smoking, which bathes tissue with more carcinogens than secondhand smoke, is probably because of estrogen, Marty says. The female hormone raises breast cancer risk, but a leading theory is that big doses of inhaled smoke blunt its ability to fuel tumor growth, while smaller secondhand doses don't. Health risks to children Women exposed to secondhand smoke have a 26% to 90% higher risk of breast cancer, the report says. That broad range is due to wide disparity in exposure - a woman married to a three-pack-a-day smoker for 30 years vs. a woman exposed for a short time. The greater the exposure, the earlier the age of exposure - particularly before puberty and a first pregnancy - the higher the risks, the report said. The California scientists gave more weight to toxicology - whether chemicals in smoke cause breast cancer in lab animals - than the surgeon general or the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Toxicology provides "biological plausibility," Marty says. "If studies don't bring it forward as a reason why all these things make sense, they're missing a piece of the puzzle." Whether the California breast cancer findings - and newer studies they're partly based on - influence a surgeon general's report on secondhand smoke due this year is uncertain. "I'd be very surprised to see that change," says Barbara Brenner, executive director of Breast Cancer Action. "There's more caution in the scientific community than is necessary in the interest of the public's health. What science understands as proof is almost an ever-retreating goal." The National Cancer Institute published the Air Resources Board's widely praised 1997 secondhand smoke report. It found evidence of a breast cancer link inconclusive. "We need to take this new report seriously, look at it closely," says Deborah Winn, chief of an NCI epidemiology branch. Even if the review panel approves the new report, the board may not. It took no action and forwarded the 1997 report to the state health department, deciding it had no authority to regulate indoor pollution. But the new report has measurements on outdoor secondhand smoke from several California locations. An amusement park had the highest nicotine concentrations. Lawyers are researching whether the board can ban smoking in vehicles carrying children, spokesman Jerry Martin says. A bill to do that failed narrowly last year in the California Legislature after heavy tobacco industry lobbying. The board might find a rationale now. In 1999, the Legislature expanded its scope, ordering it to assess pollutants' health risks to children because of their greater susceptibility. Other than private homes and a few workplace exceptions, vehicles are the only major category of enclosed space where smoking is permitted in California. "It's fair to say there's some interest in going further than they did in 1997," Martin says. The 1967 law that created the board says it must act to protect public health even without "undisputed scientific evidence." No states prohibit smoking in vehicles. "That would be significant," says Brenner of Breast Cancer Action. "The more we restrain where people smoke publicly, the more likely they are to smoke in the places where they can - homes and cars." BAN BANDWAGON States that enacted smoking bans for workplaces, bars or restaurants, or for all three: California Utah South Dakota Delaware Florida New York Connecticut Maine Idaho Massachusetts Rhode Island Vermont Source: USA TODAY research; American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation --------------------- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Unfortunately ... this issue has huge PR $$$$ thrown at junkscience.com and their omnipresent flacks and paid off scientists .... finally the truth is emerging ... Thanks for the post. On 9 Mar 2005 09:32:31 -0800, "MrPepper11" wrote: 3/8/2005 Secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, study says By John Ritter, USA TODAY SAN FRANCISCO - Scientists at an influential California agency have concluded that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, a finding that could have broad impact on cancer research and lead to even tougher anti-smoking regulations. Although recent studies have linked smoking to breast cancer, no major public health group, including the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute, has declared it a cause of the disease that kills 40,000 women each year in the USA. The finding by scientists for the Air Resources Board - whose early efforts to regulate auto emissions were a model for the rest of the country - could fuel workplace smoking bans in more states. And it is likely to refocus the scientific debate over the link between smoking and breast cancer. "I have to say without reservation it will stimulate continued and accelerated scientific evaluation of the smoking and breast cancer issue," says Terry Pechacek, associate director for science in the CDC's office on smoking and health. A scientific review panel is expected to approve the report as early as Monday and forward it to the Air Resources Board, which has broad state authority to regulate air pollution. The 1,200-page report analyzes new data on the extent of Californians' exposure to secondhand smoke and more than 1,000 studies of health effects from secondhand smoke. The conclusion that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, particularly in younger women, challenges conventional scientific thinking because most studies, until recently, had found no connection between female smokers and breast cancer. But California scientists based their conclusion on recent human studies that they determined had more careful assessments of long-term exposure to tobacco smoke. The report also gave more weight to toxicology evidence from animal studies than previous studies by the surgeon general and others. It's well-documented that chemicals from cigarettes cause breast cancer in lab animals. Overall, women exposed to secondhand smoke have up to a 90% greater risk of breast cancer, the report says. It says secondhand smoke kills as many as 73,400 a year in the USA. The report did not estimate the number of additional new breast cancer cases annually, and scientists did not calculate risk levels based on doses of secondhand smoke. Tobacco companies, in public comments filed with the board, say the report gives little weight to studies that found no breast cancer connection. A new surgeon general's report on secondhand smoke is expected this year. "The topic is still under review," says the report's senior scientific editor, Jonathan Samet, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University. "It's controversial," Samet says. "Concluding that passive smoke causes breast cancer has potentially powerful implications for tobacco control and breast cancer control. So there has been tension over it." ----------------------------- 3/8/2005 Firestorm could be brewing By John Ritter, USA TODAY SAN FRANCISCO - Cancer scientists are split over whether smoking causes breast cancer, but they agree on one thing: The debate is far more complex than linking smoking to lung cancer or heart disease. The U.S. surgeon general says tobacco smoke - whether secondhand or inhaled by smokers - can cause both those killers. Only the tobacco industry disputes the evidence. But breast cancer, a disease that strikes 270,000 U.S. women a year, is another matter. Though a California government report is the first to affirm secondhand smoke as a cause, it's far from the last word. Chemicals in cigarette smoke cause breast cancer in rats; the chemicals are found in human breast tissue. Recent studies of groups of women show a breast cancer-smoking link. But science has been slow - too slow, breast cancer advocates say - to indict tobacco. "If we spend this much time looking at each chemical out there that could cause breast cancer or other cancers, we'll all be dead before the analysis is completed," says Nancy Evans, a health science consultant with the Breast Cancer Fund, a national group that focuses on prevention. Scientific caution is partly a result of Big Tobacco's clout. "The tobacco industry is so wealthy and powerful that you want what you say to be incontrovertible," says Michael Thun, who heads the American Cancer Society's epidemiological research. The industry disputed the California findings in public comments included in the report. Three tobacco companies declined interview requests. Secondhand vs. active smoking But a bigger reason is uncertainty about the data. California scientists who concluded that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer and whose report is likely to be approved next week by a review panel were persuaded by "the weight of evidence." Much of that was newer, better studies, says Melanie Marty, the section chief with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment who supervised the report. "What you want is multiple studies that show an effect," she says. "As time has gone by, more and more have shown an effect." Marty's team looked at older studies that "didn't ask enough questions to figure out who was really exposed (to secondhand smoke) and who wasn't." But in six recent studies that were careful to take women who'd been exposed out of control groups, the risks went up, she says. The scientists also saw a breast cancer link to active smoking in the newer studies, though not as distinct as with secondhand smoke. That was important, Marty says, because the scientific consensus has been that active smoking doesn't put women at risk. The California scientists didn't calculate the risk for active smoking. The lower risk seen for active smoking, which bathes tissue with more carcinogens than secondhand smoke, is probably because of estrogen, Marty says. The female hormone raises breast cancer risk, but a leading theory is that big doses of inhaled smoke blunt its ability to fuel tumor growth, while smaller secondhand doses don't. Health risks to children Women exposed to secondhand smoke have a 26% to 90% higher risk of breast cancer, the report says. That broad range is due to wide disparity in exposure - a woman married to a three-pack-a-day smoker for 30 years vs. a woman exposed for a short time. The greater the exposure, the earlier the age of exposure - particularly before puberty and a first pregnancy - the higher the risks, the report said. The California scientists gave more weight to toxicology - whether chemicals in smoke cause breast cancer in lab animals - than the surgeon general or the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Toxicology provides "biological plausibility," Marty says. "If studies don't bring it forward as a reason why all these things make sense, they're missing a piece of the puzzle." Whether the California breast cancer findings - and newer studies they're partly based on - influence a surgeon general's report on secondhand smoke due this year is uncertain. "I'd be very surprised to see that change," says Barbara Brenner, executive director of Breast Cancer Action. "There's more caution in the scientific community than is necessary in the interest of the public's health. What science understands as proof is almost an ever-retreating goal." The National Cancer Institute published the Air Resources Board's widely praised 1997 secondhand smoke report. It found evidence of a breast cancer link inconclusive. "We need to take this new report seriously, look at it closely," says Deborah Winn, chief of an NCI epidemiology branch. Even if the review panel approves the new report, the board may not. It took no action and forwarded the 1997 report to the state health department, deciding it had no authority to regulate indoor pollution. But the new report has measurements on outdoor secondhand smoke from several California locations. An amusement park had the highest nicotine concentrations. Lawyers are researching whether the board can ban smoking in vehicles carrying children, spokesman Jerry Martin says. A bill to do that failed narrowly last year in the California Legislature after heavy tobacco industry lobbying. The board might find a rationale now. In 1999, the Legislature expanded its scope, ordering it to assess pollutants' health risks to children because of their greater susceptibility. Other than private homes and a few workplace exceptions, vehicles are the only major category of enclosed space where smoking is permitted in California. "It's fair to say there's some interest in going further than they did in 1997," Martin says. The 1967 law that created the board says it must act to protect public health even without "undisputed scientific evidence." No states prohibit smoking in vehicles. "That would be significant," says Brenner of Breast Cancer Action. "The more we restrain where people smoke publicly, the more likely they are to smoke in the places where they can - homes and cars." BAN BANDWAGON States that enacted smoking bans for workplaces, bars or restaurants, or for all three: California Utah South Dakota Delaware Florida New York Connecticut Maine Idaho Massachusetts Rhode Island Vermont Source: USA TODAY research; American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation --------------------- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 13:10:18 -0600, Ilena Rose
wrote: Unfortunately ... this issue has huge PR $$$$ thrown at junkscience.com and their omnipresent flacks and paid off scientists ... finally the truth is emerging ... Thanks for the post. On 9 Mar 2005 09:32:31 -0800, "MrPepper11" wrote: 3/8/2005 Secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, study says By John Ritter, USA TODAY SAN FRANCISCO - Scientists at an influential California agency have concluded that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, a finding that could have broad impact on cancer research and lead to even tougher anti-smoking regulations. Although recent studies have linked smoking to breast cancer, no major public health group, including the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute, has declared it a cause of the disease that kills 40,000 women each year in the USA. The finding by scientists for the Air Resources Board - whose early efforts to regulate auto emissions were a model for the rest of the country - could fuel workplace smoking bans in more states. And it is likely to refocus the scientific debate over the link between smoking and breast cancer. "I have to say without reservation it will stimulate continued and accelerated scientific evaluation of the smoking and breast cancer issue," says Terry Pechacek, associate director for science in the CDC's office on smoking and health. A scientific review panel is expected to approve the report as early as Monday and forward it to the Air Resources Board, which has broad state authority to regulate air pollution. The 1,200-page report analyzes new data on the extent of Californians' exposure to secondhand smoke and more than 1,000 studies of health effects from secondhand smoke. The conclusion that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, particularly in younger women, challenges conventional scientific thinking because most studies, until recently, had found no connection between female smokers and breast cancer. But California scientists based their conclusion on recent human studies that they determined had more careful assessments of long-term exposure to tobacco smoke. The report also gave more weight to toxicology evidence from animal studies than previous studies by the surgeon general and others. It's well-documented that chemicals from cigarettes cause breast cancer in lab animals. Overall, women exposed to secondhand smoke have up to a 90% greater risk of breast cancer, the report says. It says secondhand smoke kills as many as 73,400 a year in the USA. The report did not estimate the number of additional new breast cancer cases annually, and scientists did not calculate risk levels based on doses of secondhand smoke. Tobacco companies, in public comments filed with the board, say the report gives little weight to studies that found no breast cancer connection. A new surgeon general's report on secondhand smoke is expected this year. "The topic is still under review," says the report's senior scientific editor, Jonathan Samet, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University. "It's controversial," Samet says. "Concluding that passive smoke causes breast cancer has potentially powerful implications for tobacco control and breast cancer control. So there has been tension over it." ----------------------------- 3/8/2005 Firestorm could be brewing By John Ritter, USA TODAY SAN FRANCISCO - Cancer scientists are split over whether smoking causes breast cancer, but they agree on one thing: The debate is far more complex than linking smoking to lung cancer or heart disease. The U.S. surgeon general says tobacco smoke - whether secondhand or inhaled by smokers - can cause both those killers. Only the tobacco industry disputes the evidence. But breast cancer, a disease that strikes 270,000 U.S. women a year, is another matter. Though a California government report is the first to affirm secondhand smoke as a cause, it's far from the last word. Chemicals in cigarette smoke cause breast cancer in rats; the chemicals are found in human breast tissue. Recent studies of groups of women show a breast cancer-smoking link. But science has been slow - too slow, breast cancer advocates say - to indict tobacco. "If we spend this much time looking at each chemical out there that could cause breast cancer or other cancers, we'll all be dead before the analysis is completed," says Nancy Evans, a health science consultant with the Breast Cancer Fund, a national group that focuses on prevention. Scientific caution is partly a result of Big Tobacco's clout. "The tobacco industry is so wealthy and powerful that you want what you say to be incontrovertible," says Michael Thun, who heads the American Cancer Society's epidemiological research. The industry disputed the California findings in public comments included in the report. Three tobacco companies declined interview requests. Secondhand vs. active smoking But a bigger reason is uncertainty about the data. California scientists who concluded that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer and whose report is likely to be approved next week by a review panel were persuaded by "the weight of evidence." Much of that was newer, better studies, says Melanie Marty, the section chief with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment who supervised the report. "What you want is multiple studies that show an effect," she says. "As time has gone by, more and more have shown an effect." Marty's team looked at older studies that "didn't ask enough questions to figure out who was really exposed (to secondhand smoke) and who wasn't." But in six recent studies that were careful to take women who'd been exposed out of control groups, the risks went up, she says. The scientists also saw a breast cancer link to active smoking in the newer studies, though not as distinct as with secondhand smoke. That was important, Marty says, because the scientific consensus has been that active smoking doesn't put women at risk. The California scientists didn't calculate the risk for active smoking. The lower risk seen for active smoking, which bathes tissue with more carcinogens than secondhand smoke, is probably because of estrogen, Marty says. The female hormone raises breast cancer risk, but a leading theory is that big doses of inhaled smoke blunt its ability to fuel tumor growth, while smaller secondhand doses don't. Health risks to children Women exposed to secondhand smoke have a 26% to 90% higher risk of breast cancer, the report says. That broad range is due to wide disparity in exposure - a woman married to a three-pack-a-day smoker for 30 years vs. a woman exposed for a short time. The greater the exposure, the earlier the age of exposure - particularly before puberty and a first pregnancy - the higher the risks, the report said. The California scientists gave more weight to toxicology - whether chemicals in smoke cause breast cancer in lab animals - than the surgeon general or the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Toxicology provides "biological plausibility," Marty says. "If studies don't bring it forward as a reason why all these things make sense, they're missing a piece of the puzzle." Whether the California breast cancer findings - and newer studies they're partly based on - influence a surgeon general's report on secondhand smoke due this year is uncertain. "I'd be very surprised to see that change," says Barbara Brenner, executive director of Breast Cancer Action. "There's more caution in the scientific community than is necessary in the interest of the public's health. What science understands as proof is almost an ever-retreating goal." The National Cancer Institute published the Air Resources Board's widely praised 1997 secondhand smoke report. It found evidence of a breast cancer link inconclusive. "We need to take this new report seriously, look at it closely," says Deborah Winn, chief of an NCI epidemiology branch. Even if the review panel approves the new report, the board may not. It took no action and forwarded the 1997 report to the state health department, deciding it had no authority to regulate indoor pollution. But the new report has measurements on outdoor secondhand smoke from several California locations. An amusement park had the highest nicotine concentrations. Lawyers are researching whether the board can ban smoking in vehicles carrying children, spokesman Jerry Martin says. A bill to do that failed narrowly last year in the California Legislature after heavy tobacco industry lobbying. The board might find a rationale now. In 1999, the Legislature expanded its scope, ordering it to assess pollutants' health risks to children because of their greater susceptibility. Other than private homes and a few workplace exceptions, vehicles are the only major category of enclosed space where smoking is permitted in California. "It's fair to say there's some interest in going further than they did in 1997," Martin says. The 1967 law that created the board says it must act to protect public health even without "undisputed scientific evidence." No states prohibit smoking in vehicles. "That would be significant," says Brenner of Breast Cancer Action. "The more we restrain where people smoke publicly, the more likely they are to smoke in the places where they can - homes and cars." BAN BANDWAGON States that enacted smoking bans for workplaces, bars or restaurants, or for all three: California Utah South Dakota Delaware Florida New York Connecticut Maine Idaho Massachusetts Rhode Island Vermont Source: USA TODAY research; American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation --------------------- further proof that smoking among other people is both criminal to them and suicidal to oneself. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vaccine Manufacturers and Breast Implant Manufacturers: Same Game, Same Strategies. A Mere Coincidence? | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | December 18th 04 09:07 PM |
Classic Droan was R R R R, should I DOUBLE DARE HIM? ..was... LaVonne | Kane | Spanking | 0 | April 17th 04 07:13 PM |
Kids should work... | Doan | Spanking | 33 | December 10th 03 08:05 PM |
Kids should work... | Doan | Foster Parents | 31 | December 7th 03 03:01 AM |
look | Goran | Kids Health | 0 | August 30th 03 06:51 AM |