Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci,net.bio
Subject: Re: Plutonium
Message-ID: <645@bu-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-May-86 22:45:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.645
Posted: Tue May 20 22:45:53 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 01:49:31 EDT
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 46
Xref: linus net.politics:15415 net.sci:592 net.bio:351


>I believe that the rate of Lung Cancer is 15 times higher for smokers
>than for non-smokers. It would be interesting to attempt to correlate the
>rise in Lung Cancer with non-smokers, taking into account exposure to
>other people's smoke.
>
>Personally, I feel that while Reactors are dangerous, they don't even begin
>to touch the dangers from smoking tobacco.

Perhaps tobacco is to blame, I don't know if smoking over the last 20
years has increased, I don't think so although of course you have the
long latency values showing up for 'older' smokers, pre-surgeon general's
report.

Just to nitpick, I don't think there has ever been a study that showed
that there is any demonstrable cancer risk from second-hand smoke, I
believe that's a myth used by anti-smokers to amplify their annoyance,
if I'm wrong I sincerely would be interested in a reference.

And then of course there are the synergy factors, people who were exposed
to asbestos AND smoked were remarkably more likely (like dozens of times)
to get lung cancer than smokers or non-smokers who were exposed. Therefore,
what we know about smoking may be seriously flawed in many ways, it may
in many cases have been necessary but not sufficient, other exposures
having been exacerbated by the tobacco smoke.

I think it should be weak comfort to point and say: See, it's the smokers,
so forget the radioactive materials we are dumping into our environment.

I know* such things are massively complicated to analyze and the only
rational reaction, when confronted with a distinct rise in cancer
across a population the size of the US is to go after all plausible
carcinogens, not attempt to rationalize something like radiation away
as harmless in lieu of tobacco smoking. Besides, aren't you disturbed
that of the two you can personally avoid only one (ie. stop smoking)?

You can put that in your pipe and...oh forget it...

	-Barry Shein, Boston University

*Ok, why do I 'know', well, I did do 6 years at the Harvard School of
Public Health in epidemiological research of occupational diseases.
No big deal, but I have worked on such analyses a little. Although I
did pulmonary research it had nothing directly to do with tobacco or
radiation (although tobacco was a considered factor in every study,
of course.)