Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Jump to full article »
Labelling cigarette packets with tar yields (plus nicotine and carbon monoxide) was, and is, a mistake. The mistake was not in the conception of the low tar programme, or even in conducting it as a huge experiment with public health. The error was allowing the tobacco industry to control it.
[This study] provides firm evidence for a dose-response relationship between lung cancer risk and duration of exposure to second-hand smoke for the 3 main sources of exposure: spousal, workplace and social.Paul Brennan, PhD, with the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues.
It does look as if it's the cancers that are principally caused by hormones that are not affected by smoking. . . Practically all the cancers of tissues that are exposed to the environment in one way or another are affected by the chemicals distributed throughout the body when you inhale tobacco smoke.IARC panel member Sir Richard Doll. Ross, E.
There is no way that people should be working bathed in toxins and pollutants that scientists have today shown beyond all doubt cause cancer. . . Passive smoking is quite clearly more than just the nuisance many of the world's tobacco companies would have us believe. People are harmed and killed by it and it is time industry, government and smokers themselves woke up to this.Marsha Williams, of ASH-London, on the IARC review. Reaney, P.
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - OfficialThe original March 8, 1998 Sunday Telegraph headline. ASH London delves thoroughly into this aspect of the <i>Lancet</i> IARC story, with supporting links to the articles and ASH's complaint and correspondence. [All the major British papers covered this story today, with the glaring exception of the <i>Telegraph.]</i><I>The Lancet publishes damning evidence of tobacco company manipulation of passive smoking science</I>
We don't want to move into conflict. We want to move away from conflict. . . Now that we are in fact changing, there's too much emphasis on dredging up the past. PM VP David Greenberg, on the <i>Lancet</i> IARC study. <I>Claims tobacco firms undermined health warnings</I>
We were concerned that bad science would lead to bad policies. . . We had a lot of technical points to make and, like any company, we tried to make them. David Greenberg, senior vice president at Philip Morris International, acknowledging the IARC campaign. ROSS, E., <I>Researchers Claim Tobacco Attack</I>
1. Delaying the completion or publication of the [IARC] study; 2. Influencing the conclusions and results of the study; 3. Avoiding possible negative results of the study.Philip Morris memo indicative of an "extensive operation to prevent the IARC study harming the tobacco industry," according to Bouma, J., <i>Tabaksindustrie frustreerde onderzoek naar meeroken [Tobacco industry tried to block passive smoking study]</i>