=> vox populi ©

Workers in bars and restaurants most vulnerable
to lung cancer, Canadian study says

ANDRÉ PICARD
PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER


People who are routinely exposed to a lot of second-hand smoke, such as workers
in bars
and restaurants, can see their risk of lung cancer triple, a new study says.

The Canadian study provides some of the most compelling scientific evidence yet
for a
total ban on workplace smoking, including bars and restaurants.

The research, published in the International Journal of Cancer, found that the
more people
smoke in a workplace, the greater the risks to non-smokers.

"These data absolutely back a smoking ban in bars," said Dr. Kenneth Johnson,
senior
epidemiologist at the surveillance and risk-assessment division of Health Canada
and the
lead researcher.

Dr. Roberta Ferrence, director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, said
"What's
important about this research is it demonstrates a dose-response: The more
exposure you
have, the higher your risk.

"While this may seem obvious, it has long been contested by industry."

Dr. Ferrence said she hopes that this "strong new evidence will prompt strong
new action"
to expand workplace smoking bans.

The study also looked at the risk of second-hand smoke in the home.

Dr. Johnson and a team at Health Canada ****yzed a lifetime of information from
761 women
who had never smoked, and 71 others with lung cancer.

They found that a non-smoking woman who lives with a smoker has a 21-per-cent
higher risk
of developing lung cancer over her adult lifetime. But if the woman lived with a
smoking
parent as a child, her risk jumps 63 per cent, above that of someone who has
always lived
in a smoke-free home.

A woman who has always lived in a smoke-free home but works where smoking is
permitted
sees her risk of developing lung cancer jump by 27 per cent. That risk climbs
steadily
over time, and increases based on the number of smokers in the workplace.

"There's an underlying [belief] that second-hand smoke increases your risk of
developing
lung cancer by 20-25 per cent, and maybe that can be explained away by
publication bias,"
Dr. Johnson said.

"But when you see the risk rising by 75 per cent right up to a tripling of the
risk, it's
hard to argue that nothing is going on."

The new research found that when the number of "occupational smoker years" (the
number of
smokers in the workplace multiplied by the worker's years of service) reaches
26, the risk
of lung cancer has doubled.

(That could mean two smoking co-workers over 13 years or five smoking co-workers
over five
years. It could also mean 26 customers daily for a year in a bar.)

When researchers looked at the upper third of workers -- those exposed to the
most
second-hand smoke -- they found the lung cancer risk was more than tripled.

Since the early 1980s, more than three dozen studies have examined the impact of
secondhand smoke on non-smokers, but the Health Canada research is the first
original
Canadian data.

higher risks associated with workplace exposure because studies have
consistently
demonstrated that the intensity of exposure is higher on the job than at home.
The level
of nicotine in the air of bars is up to 15 times higher than in the home of a
smoker.

He said the new research suggests that earlier studies on the impact of
secondhand smoke
in the home were flawed because they failed to take into account workplace
exposure.
Similarly, previous research on childhood exposure has tended to look at the
impact during
childhood only, while the new data demonstrate that the risks are ***ulative if
exposure
continues through adulthood.

The Health Canada researchers collected data on the women from the cancer
registries of
eight provinces.

Women are usually the focus of research on secondhand smoke because,
historically, they
have been far less likely than men to smoke and far more likely to live and work
with
smokers.

Twenty-four per cent of Canadians over the age of 15 now smoke, the lowest rate
since
Health Canada began collecting data in the 1960s. Then, fully half the
population smoked.

Lung cancer is the biggest cancer killer in both women and men. It killed an
estimated
17,700 Canadians last year. Smoking is also a leading contributor to heart
disease,
Canada's biggest killer.

ipad

Forgot to include the bottom line on this "study" - Hooey!!

magnulus

That's a rather small number of people for a study like this, that makes
such a sweeping statement. I would like to know what the p value for the
confidence interval was. If it's not less than 5 percent, I wouldn't
believe it. If a study has a p-value greater than 5 percent, usually it can
be assumed that the study is not statisticly significant, ie, lacking
statistical power. Anti-tobacco advocates have been known to mislead
before, such as with the EPA and WHO studies, where the p value was less
than 5 percent, ie, the results were not statisticly significant.

robert broughton

Most human beings regard 71 lung cancer victims as 71 too many.


No, you wouldn't.

I asked one of your fellow asswipes for an example a few months ago. He came
up empty-handed. You will, too.

--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003

magnulus

An example? The US EPA report. The conclusions are based on bad
statistics. Intentionally bad statistics.

Figures. Your country is full of pussies and cowards, all too unfamiliar
with skills like critical thought. Especially British Columbia.

magnulus

Hypothesis: some of the women lied about their smoking status. Maybe
some of them were former smokers. Whatever. There are dozens of
explanations. Also, again, without knowing the p-value, there is no way to
know if this study has statistical power.

prsmith

Yeah and if horses had wings we could all fly too.

If the p-value if of such great importance to you. Go find the study and
get the info. I do not believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy
against tobacco and the myriad of evidence from all of the corners of the
globe is enough to convince me that tobacco is a serious threat and problem
(it also appears to be enough for the voters, lawmakers and courts.)

=> vox populi ©

And of course Magnanus needs to remember that no one cares
about the health of smokers, not one iota, it doesn't matter if
in some alternate universe, SHS was acutally shown to be healthful
and curative, the laws and restrictions against PUBLIC smoking will
continue because it's the obnoxious repugnant stench that most
people object to being forced to suffer.

robert broughton

Hey, I'm capable of typing "US EPA report". See, I just did it. It does
nothing to prove your claim that the authors of it were misleading anyone.
The likelihood that you read some claim about the US EPA report on some
website somewhere doesn't prove anything, either.

--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"Watch your mouth, if you ever want to cross the border. Bad things
can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
mailto:stanlee_98@yahoo.com , Nov. 30, 2003

ipad

Hey this is great news. None of these reports conclusively prove anything!!

I'm gonna fire one up and celebrate!