Smoking and Lung Cancer
For some illnesses caused by smoking, smokers have a 50% or a 100% greater chance if getting that illness than never smokers. Stomach cancer and pneumonia are like that. A 100% greater risk doesn’t mean 100% chance of getting the illness, it means double the chances of getting the illness as compared with the chances if you never smoked.
For lung cancer, the increased risks are much greater. So a man who continues to smoke until he dies is has 2300% increased risk of dieing of lung cancer: I.e. he is 23 times more likely to die of lung cancer, as compared with if he had never smoked. Of course, the overall size of that risk is influenced by how common the disease is. A lifelong non-smoker has less than half of one percent chance of dieing of lung cancer by the age of 75. A smoker who quits smoking by age 40 has a 6% chance of dieing of lung cancer by age 75. If the smoker keeps smoking until they die or reach age 75, then they have a 16% cumulative risk of dieing of lung cancer. These risks are amazingly big, when one remembers that for the smoker to get lung cancer they also have to survive and not be killed by one of the other common illnesses caused by smoking (e.g. COPD, heart-attack etc).
Smoking causes lung cancer because the smoke itself contain known carcinogenic chemicals such as benzo(a)pyrene and NNK. As these chemicals are deposited into the lungs year on year they cause DNA damage, oxidative stress and inflammation, which promote the initiation and growth of tumors. It is essentially the DNA damage, and the inability of the body to repair that damage, that results in cells starting to divide and multiply in a deviant way that ends up growing into a malignant tumor. Because the lungs are such essential organs for life (ie. healthy lungs are necessary for breathing) and because lung cancer is not easy to detect and cure at an early stage, lung cancer is very often fatal, with a 5-year survival rate around 15%. In many cases the cancer metastasizes and affects other organs of the body.
Great efforts continue to try to develop new methods of detection and cure for lung cancer. But right now the best interventions we have are those that prevent it occurring in the first place, by reducing initiation of smoking or enabling addicted smokers to quit before they develop lung cancer. By far the best thing you can do to dramatically reduce your risks of developing lung cancer, is to avoid all inhalation of tobacco smoke.
If you are interested in reading about the health effects of smoking in greater detail I recommend a recent chapter on that topic by Foulds and colleagues (2008) that can be downloaded from: http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/staffarticles.htm
The 2004 US Surgeon General’s Report is an extremely comprehensive review of the effects of smoking on health which can be accessed in various formats at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/smokingconsequences/
Labels: cigarette smoking, jonathan foulds, lung cancer





4 Comments:
At Sun Mar 30, 06:54:00 AM 2008,
Susan Levin said…
While Professor Foulds is correct in stating that smoking causes lung cancer, we believe that continued equating of only lung cancer and smoking is misleading and in fact is statistically inaccurate; more importantly it unintentionally perpetuates the "stigma" and the "blame the victim" attitude long associated with a lung cancer diagnosis.
Smoking is recognized as the #1 carcinogen, the #1 cause of lung cancer and is associated with 10 other cancers, heart disease and stroke. it's high time that those involved with smoking cessation programs (and others) not offer a "simple solution" to a complicated disease. This is not the time for 30 second sound bites.
At Fri Apr 18, 06:36:00 AM 2008,
Anonymous said…
New subject, or return to an older one:
The chemicals found in cigarette smoke... Obviously the tobacco companies don't pour rat poison (etc) over their tobacco while making cigarettes. So, is it the burning of the cigarette that somehow creates these chemicals?
At Tue Apr 07, 04:59:00 AM 2009,
Jonathan Foulds, MA, MAppSci, PhD said…
In numerous posts I have discussed how smoking causes many more diseases than lung cancer. In this post it was already mentioned that its possible to get lung cancer without ever being an active smoker. 1% of 75 year-old never smokers get lung cancer, compared with 16% of continuing smokers. By for the most important way to avoid lung cancer is to not inhale tobacco smoke. The next most important way is to avoid inhaling other peoples tobacco smoke. As discussed frequently on this blog, quitting smoking sometimes isn't so simple. Not quite sure what sound bites you are referring to, Susan.
With regards to toxins, some are already in the tobacco before its burned (e.g. tobacco-specific nitrosamines) and some are produced by burning it.
At Mon May 11, 07:23:00 PM 2009,
Paul Monson said…
Susan, in your blog you state "we believe....". This implies that your views are representative of a group or an organisation. Who do you represent? Your bizarre criticism of Jonathon’s article is typical of the conspiracy gibberish spun from the large tobacco companies that somehow smoking is not bad after all and it’s not the smoker’s fault (“blame the victim”). So how much do you get paid from the tobacco companies to respond to such articles?
Post a Comment
<< Home