Re: Smoking Does Not Cause Cancer! (A Classic Scientific Article)
The matter of lung cancer being caused by things other then smoking is actually a very interesting topic. The vast range of incidents of lung cancer incidents among cigarette smokers of varying ethnic and socio-economic grouping is something that lots of honest researchers/critics have noted as a fatal flaw with the conventional anti-smoking position. If anyone is interested I could post some stuff about that sort of thing. In sort, your risk factor for smoking tobacco has a lot to do with your general health, genetics, diet as well as what kind of tobacco you smoke and how you smoke it.
Insofar as occupational exposure to variety of industrial chemicals are significant causal factors for a wide variety of respitory and cardiovascular ailments itís a bad idea to not consider such things when declaring some disease and death presumed to have been brought about by it was a product of some single evil (i.e. tobacco). Yet for decades now anyone that suffered from lung cancer who was not a coal miner is statistically counted as a having gotten said aliment from smoking tobacco. People in various industries (paint, foundry, semi-conductor and a few others I can't recall off hand) actually suffer from lung cancer risk factors equal to or higher then those of the American cigarette smoker yet nothing at all is done to safe guard those people. Post hoc interviews with those suffering from aliments attributed to tobacco are often ask leading questions about tobacco consumption (in the context of winning the legal lottery) introduce what is called recall bias into surveys. A great deal has been written about such problems and even worse examples of post hoc forcing of the facts to meet the hypophysis and that is something Iíll post about next week when I am back from traveling.