"Robert" wrote:
>Greetings,
>From a non smoker who reads the smoking debate articles with interest. If
>the number of people now smoking is declining, why has lung cancer increased
>out of pro portion to number of smokers?.
Two possible reasons
a) There is a fairly long lag time between exposure and development of
the cancer - like 20 years. And people that smoked and stopped may
still have residual damage that shows up later.
b) Exposure to second hand smoke by people that don't smoke may be
even more damaging to their lungs than actually smoking. As wives of
heavy smokers who never smoked themselves will develop lung cancer.
>Me, I think vehicle fumes and other chemicals are the 'main' cause, not
>smoke.
>Best regards Rob.
Most of the time, vehicle pollution occurs outdoors, and people are
farther away from the source than if they are smoking themselves or
are sitting in a smoky room. So that's probably not the 'main' cause.
If it was, people that worked in bus garages would be the main cancer
victims, and I don't think that is true. |