August 18, 2008

Mild air pollution may be worse than smoking! New research presented today at the American Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia, implicates free radicals that attach to particles from smokestacks, car exhaust pipes and household chimneys for the rise in lung cancer. Apologists rush to claim more proof is needed, but the new findings could open the door for massive litigation.

Consider: Dellinger (the lead researcher) noted that one would have to smoke about *300 cigarettes a day* to be exposed to the same level of environmental free radicals found in MODERATELY polluted air. Does this mean that smokers forced by do-gooders to smoke outside are thus being subjected to even worse health effects? And what about the nonsmokers? When the very air that they breath is worse than then the evils they seek to avoid, how ironic!

posted by Dan Folkus 16 years ago
  • Depressing.
  • *dons a portable Venturi Scrubber*
  • Had to stop reading because it made my lungs hurt just thinking about it.
  • This really pegs my bullshit-o-meter. Would someone not have noticed by now a huge increase in lung cancer deaths among non-smoking peoples who are dazzling urbanites versus similarly non-addicted country folk?
  • Ralph, I did push the BS-o-meter, but I only did it to peg attention to this peer reviewed scientific paper, and to the ongoing violence of free radical environmental pollution. Adding the NICOTINE word would have again put smokers more at risk than ordinary airbreathers as yet. But would that have made this post more, or less depressing, Hank?
  • urbanites versus similarly non-addicted country folk? Have you please got any dazzling data to share?
  • Careful with that dazzling data - you'll end up blinding somebody with science.
  • "But would that have made this post more, or less depressing, Hank?" I couldn't understand what your last couple of posts meant, tbh.
  • I'd read about this a few years ago. The report was squelched very rapidly then, bet it will be again.
  • I'm a bit surprised by the "armchair" dismissals around here lately. This seems like a solid and noteworthy study. The guy who presented it made sure to note that this research is "early in the game", and that there are many ways to do such calculations. As far as a distinction being uncovered in regards to the urbanites vs. country folk - - there are so many modes of pollutant dispersion, that I would gather to say that it's not so clear-cut. Pollution can travel great distances, and is not necessarily "restricted" to the general area from which it eminates.
  • I think RTD is correct about city/country differences. This recent study seems to indicate that pollution is vastly higher near the source, especially vehicle emissions. As for dismissing the article...I think it's justified solely for the "300 cigarettes a day!!!" scaremongering. Giving the impression that cigarettes are no more dangerous than moderate levels of ambient air pollution is ridiculous.
  • The linked article didn't actually quote Dillinger as saying "300 cigarettes a day". Perhaps that was an error on msn's part? Whatever the case, that does seem a bit far-fetched if he did in fact say that. I read about this initially here, and it seemed more reasonable. The reference to cigarettes here was: the risk could be equivalent to smoking as little as one cigarette a day or as much as more than two packs a day...
  • Also, the study you link to is an example of linear dispersion. Obviously, one could see vast differences between rural and urban areas in regards to emissions from vehicular traffic. Nonetheless, there are many other types of pollutants, many of which come from industrial applications that may drift and cover some rural areas. My point is that it's not a "cut and dry" case - - there's a vast amount of variables at play here, and I think such a study deserves further investigation.
  • If it can't be proven conclusively that pollution causes cancer, then there is no problem, obviously. Fire up the coal burning plants!