0
0
0.
0 message rom t ose W lo Os 0 0
0
to se wl4o
r+
-ft Some non-smokers are of the American Cancer Society in with regard to Passive smoking, alley
0 annoyed by cigarette smoke. This is a 1981 which involved 175,000 people, will, for 11he present, not beable to
reality that's been with us for a long it was reported that'passive smoking' base Their efforts on a demonstrated
time. had "very little, if any" effect on lung fieal(It Hazard from passive
0
< Lately, however, many non- cancer rates among non-smokers. smoking:'
smokers have been led to believe that In the follow-tip study Often our own concerns about
I
cigarette smoke in [tie air can actually published in 1985, no statistically health can take an unproven claim and
CD cause disease. significant increase in risk was ma-nify it out of all proportion; so
0 L_
_% And yet there is little evidence reported. what begins as a misconcep(ion turns
and nothing which proves scientifically Researchersat the I Iarvard infoa frightening rnyih.
that cigarette smoke causes disease in School of, [,tibiae I lend] found fill( Alrighl, cigarme Smoke may be
non-smokers. a non-smoker would have to spend annoying to sonic nori-smokers, but how
zr The London Times reported 100 hours s1rai-lit. in (lie smokiest bar shall we deal wifli fliesc problems?
0
0 findings from the Institute of Cancer to "absorb" (lie equivalent of a sin0e Confrontation'? Sc-gyregalioii? Legisla(ion
Research in Surrey, England, published filter lip cinarette. No.
C,
in this month's edition of the 'British MaJor reviews on 'passive We Think annoyance is neither
I
Journal of Cancer,' that 'passive snioking'over [lie least few years have a governmental nora medical problem.
smoking'for life-long non-smokers concluded that 'passive smoking' lt@ a people problem. Smokers can
in [lie cannot be shown to bea health risk.
caff ies no significant increase help by being more considerate and
> risk of lung cancer, bronchitis or heart The weight of evidence is surnmed responsible. Non-smokers can help by
disease (all allegedly associated with tip in (lie remarks at Me conclusion being more tolerant. And bolh proups
1 C7
smoking). of the 1984 Vienna I lealth can h0l) by showing more rcsl)cc( fi)r
The Institutes conclusions are Conference which was lield in each others righ(s and feelings.
based on a wealth of statistical detail co-operation with the World I [cattle Don't let intolerant minority
co
froma study involving 12,000 people. Organisation: "should law makers presstire groups use yoii lo crenic
In .1 Study by a Vice-President %vish to take legislative measures divisions betiveen Australians.
Aulhorised by John Dollissonl6bacco Institute Gold Fields I louse. SY(flicy
01@1_.LOOIOV

AIWACIM-111' FUJI1
A follow-up to
messa"n - -roin, -,hose w. io 0 41
Kul.
r+ to those who (.Off
A notice under the heading rererrcd lo differences were seen and slight decreases in the -weight of evidence' or he Conference.
above appeared in this newspaper in July 198& risk were as common as slight increases' ' 'I he reference to live 'wcight of
The notice was directed to the "While more data would be desirable for these evidence" was not intended lo convey that the
0 controversy about 'passive smoking" and health diseases. lung cancer cionfinucs lo be the major concluding remarks expressed the only views plit
hazard. and it tclerrcd in particular to smoking associated discasc For which passive 161-ward ;II the CollIcrClicc - lattice that Illey
conclusions expressed in a siul@l y reported by the smoking comes under suspicion. Since all the summed up the view ofa substantial majority.
0 London Times on 20 June 1986. It contained a difficulties o(carrying out good research have During the proceedings various vicws were
CD statement that the conclusions 'are based on a clearly still not yet been overcome, further expressed on matters related to the issue of
wealth ofstatistical detail from a study involving research is certainly needed. Our findings passive smoking".
0 12,0(X) people". appear consistent with the general view. based The concluding remarks referred to in
It has been suggested that this on all the available evidence, that any effcct of the notice were contained in a press release by
statement was misleading, in that the study was passive smoking on risk oflung cancer or two of the organisers of the Conference (Professor
based on a much lesser number than 12,000. The other smoking-associatcd diseases is at most H. Valentin, Bavarian Academy OfOCCUP3161`121
Tobacco institute ofAustralia does not accept quite small, ifit crisis at all. The marked and Social Medicine. and Professor F. Wyndcr of
that suggestion, but wishes to make available the increases in risk noted in sonic swiliesarr the American I retain I mindilmn),is fi)IloWN:
=r following information so that readers may judgc more likely to be a result of bias in the study "A drawback in all CI)idci ioulogical studies up
the matter for themselves. design than ofa true effect of passive to now consists in the fac that they have bccn
0 1, Overall 12,693 interviews were conducted smoking." conducted without suffic eni quantification of
0 including 3,832 interviews of married cascs I Thenoticcalsorcfcffcdtolwosiudics thccontaniin.-itionftonil,3ssivcsmoking.
and controls where the passive smoking by Dr Garfinkel. a Vicc-Ilicsidcril of the Further epidemiological investigations. in
questionnaire was completed. American Cancer Society. It has been claimed which the problem of registering the amount
imcrvicws'. the that the reference lo those studies was misleading
2. Using data obtained from the ofpassivc contamination will havc to be dealt
researchers identified subjects who were in that it suggested that the second (1985) study with more, arc urgently needed. New attempts
married and who reported that they had never was the 'follow-u p" to the first (1981) and that at doing so have been indicated. Since, due to
the findings of the two were linked. The second the annoyance connected with passi ye
smoked. They also identified appropriate study was referred to as the follow-up to the First. smoking and the possible hazard to high-risk
controls.
3. Several statistical analyses were conducted and The second study was scparaic and groups, it also further constitute$ a
> the Final conclusions expressed in the study dealt with different pcopic. It was conducted by controversial social problcul, 'international co-
were as follows: the same researcher along with two ollicrs. The operation among the various scientific
-Our analyses showed no significant cffect of elevated risk oflungcanccr that the second study disciplines is the order ofilic day. Should
passive smoking on lifclong nonsmokers as found in women exposed to the smoke ofoihers lawmakers wish to take legislative measures
regards risk ofchronic bronchitis, ischaernic was reported as not being statistically significant. with regard to passive smoking, they will, for
CD heart disease or stroke. In all the analyses The notice has been criliciscd for dic present, not be able to base their cffoi is on
relating the various indices of passive smoke describing remarks made at the conclusion of the a demonstrated health hataid from passive
exposure to these diseases. no significant 1984 Vienna Health Conference as summing up smoking."
Authorised by John Dollisson, Thhacco Institute orAustralia.
Gold Fields I lousc I Alfred St., Sydney Cove. 2000.
[@/6010P