Mr. Cody (re: bmj rapid responses 18 March 2006) asks "why, if
Enstrom and Kabat's use of spousal exposure is inadequate, it isn't
similarly inadequate in all the other studies that make up the canon?" Of
course they are all flawed to a greater or lesser extent, and as a result,
also underestimate the risks of passive smoking because, like Enstrom and
Kabat, most fail to take total exposure to ETS into account.(1,2)
Secondly he suggests, without citation, that cotinine is not a valid
biomarker for ETS. In fact cotinine has been amply demonstrated to be the
best biomarker for ETS(3,4,5) and is not flawed by “many sources other
than ETS” as he uncritically suggests.
1. Repace JL, and Lowrey AH. A Quantitative Estimate of Nonsmokers'
Lung Cancer Risk From Passive Smoking. ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL 11: 3-22
(1985).
2. Johnson KC and Repace JL. Lung cancer and passive smoking -
Turning over the wrong stone. BMJ 321 (7270) 1221 (2000).
3. Repace JL. Dietary nicotine won't mislead on passive smoking ...
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 308/6920 (1 Jan) 61-62 (1994).
4. Pirkle, J.L., Flegal, K.M., Bernert, J.T., Brody, D.J., Etzel,
R.A., and Maurer, K.R. (1996) Exposure of the population to environmental
tobacco smoke: the third national health and nutrition examination survey,
1988 to 1991, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 275: 1233-
1240.
5. Benowitz NL. Cotinine as a biomarker of environmental tobacco
smoke exposure. Epidemiologic Reviews 18: 188-204 (1996).
Competing interests:
Competing interests: The author is a secondhand smoke consulta
Competing interests:
No competing interests
29 September 2006
James L. Repace
James Repace, MSc., Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor, Tufts Univ. School of Medicine, and Repac
Rapid Response:
Risk and Cotinine: A reply to Mr. Cody
Mr. Cody (re: bmj rapid responses 18 March 2006) asks "why, if
Enstrom and Kabat's use of spousal exposure is inadequate, it isn't
similarly inadequate in all the other studies that make up the canon?" Of
course they are all flawed to a greater or lesser extent, and as a result,
also underestimate the risks of passive smoking because, like Enstrom and
Kabat, most fail to take total exposure to ETS into account.(1,2)
Secondly he suggests, without citation, that cotinine is not a valid
biomarker for ETS. In fact cotinine has been amply demonstrated to be the
best biomarker for ETS(3,4,5) and is not flawed by “many sources other
than ETS” as he uncritically suggests.
1. Repace JL, and Lowrey AH. A Quantitative Estimate of Nonsmokers'
Lung Cancer Risk From Passive Smoking. ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL 11: 3-22
(1985).
2. Johnson KC and Repace JL. Lung cancer and passive smoking -
Turning over the wrong stone. BMJ 321 (7270) 1221 (2000).
3. Repace JL. Dietary nicotine won't mislead on passive smoking ...
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 308/6920 (1 Jan) 61-62 (1994).
4. Pirkle, J.L., Flegal, K.M., Bernert, J.T., Brody, D.J., Etzel,
R.A., and Maurer, K.R. (1996) Exposure of the population to environmental
tobacco smoke: the third national health and nutrition examination survey,
1988 to 1991, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 275: 1233-
1240.
5. Benowitz NL. Cotinine as a biomarker of environmental tobacco
smoke exposure. Epidemiologic Reviews 18: 188-204 (1996).
Competing interests:
Competing interests: The author is a secondhand smoke consulta
Competing interests: No competing interests