Monday, December 28, 2009

What's the youngest a child could develop lung cancer from second hand smoking


What's the youngest a child could develop lung cancer from second hand smoking?
If a child's parents smoked, how long would it take, an approximate minimum, for it to be realistic that the child developed lung cancer because of second hand smoke. (I'm writing a novel and need to know if it is realistic that one of the characters have developed lung cancer from second hand smoking by their parents as a child)
Cancer - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Not gonna happen and you aren't gonna get any help in a serious health forum. Go to books and authors or homework help.
2 :
Children do not get lung cancer and second hand smoke is not that big a deal.
3 :
Exactly what the other two posts said. There is no respectable scientific case that relates second hand smoke to lung cancer. The risk is considered NON SIGNIFICANT, because it's exponentially too small to measure, if a link even existed. The 1993 Environmental Protection Agencies linking health concerns to second hand smoke was thrown out by a district judge for cherry-picking their information, even with the bias they could only conclude: “The studies showed that for any given nonsmoker, the lifetime risk of getting lung cancer remains small: 4 to 5 in 1000 ordinarily, and 6 to 7 in 1000 if he or she has been living with a smoking spouse.” http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/artcl-new.php?ID=40 That's 100% exposure indoors over a lifetime. BMJ did the longest most in depth study and concluded: “Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 The smoke campaigns also like to bring up the idea that it's for the safety of the workers, This shows waitresses in smoke filled bars are exposed to only a 5th of what the EPA considers hazardous: http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00 The EPA also states the following: “Studies that support a CASUAL association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.” “the chance of declaring these increases statistically significant was small.” “EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk.” “The lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking” http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html So as you can see the science behind the health concerns of others over second hand smoke are practically impossible to even been seen in case studies, let along be justification enough to pass any bans. This information needs to be shared with the world, so the lies from the campaigns don't influence people to vote stupidly. Like the quotes goes, "If you hear a lie long enough, eventually it becomes the truth." Also at Forces international they publicly display all the scientific cases done on the matter at: Other Source(s): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/200907/is-second-hand-smoke-really-dangerous http://www.cigarmony.com/downloads/smoking%201440.pdf “Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.[JNatlCancerInst1998;90:1440–50]” http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/artcl-new.php?ID=40 http://skepticdoc.com/?p=9



Read more discussions :

Posted by lung cancer at 4:09 PM