Despite being an ex-smoker myself I am one of those who remain less
than convinced about some dangers of passive smoking in support of which
little good science appears to exist and am concerned that the current
raft of proposals to restrict the activities and civil liberties of
smokers is a ‘bridge too far’.
I read this article with great interest as
I believe that it may suggest the answer to a long-standing quandary which
the authors did not highlight.
The authors’ suggestion that compensatory smoking was the reason for no
difference in risk being demonstrated between those who smoked medium, low
or very low tar cigarettes is only one possible explanation for the
findings.
The consistent observation of the many examples of ‘Uncle Fred’ who smoked
heavily all his life and was fit as a flea until he passed on in his sleep
aged 90 should make us ask why did he neither get carcinoma of the lung,
despite the wholesale application of carcinogenic paint, nor elsewhere to
kill him; in other words, was he simply good at immunosurveillance?
Should the range of tars in cigarettes be equated with an equivalent range
of risk or are some individuals simply at risk for the development of any
sort of carcinoma due to poor defence mechanisms when the threshold of
carcinogen load is exceeded for example in very low tar brands, perhaps
through passive smoking or even diet? What about the incidence other
cancers in these and other patients?
Carcinoma of the lung with its smoking connection is very emotive but
perhaps rather than attempt to eradicate all passive smoking we should get
real and look more closely at the immune surveillance systems of ‘Uncle
Fred’ and his kind to the future benefit of all.
Rapid Response:
The answer to a quandary?
Despite being an ex-smoker myself I am one of those who remain less
than convinced about some dangers of passive smoking in support of which
little good science appears to exist and am concerned that the current
raft of proposals to restrict the activities and civil liberties of
smokers is a ‘bridge too far’.
I read this article with great interest as
I believe that it may suggest the answer to a long-standing quandary which
the authors did not highlight.
The authors’ suggestion that compensatory smoking was the reason for no
difference in risk being demonstrated between those who smoked medium, low
or very low tar cigarettes is only one possible explanation for the
findings.
The consistent observation of the many examples of ‘Uncle Fred’ who smoked
heavily all his life and was fit as a flea until he passed on in his sleep
aged 90 should make us ask why did he neither get carcinoma of the lung,
despite the wholesale application of carcinogenic paint, nor elsewhere to
kill him; in other words, was he simply good at immunosurveillance?
Should the range of tars in cigarettes be equated with an equivalent range
of risk or are some individuals simply at risk for the development of any
sort of carcinoma due to poor defence mechanisms when the threshold of
carcinogen load is exceeded for example in very low tar brands, perhaps
through passive smoking or even diet? What about the incidence other
cancers in these and other patients?
Carcinoma of the lung with its smoking connection is very emotive but
perhaps rather than attempt to eradicate all passive smoking we should get
real and look more closely at the immune surveillance systems of ‘Uncle
Fred’ and his kind to the future benefit of all.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests