Re: => Socioeconomic Inequities In Lung Cancer Incidence of Smokers <= attn: Lowlife Tobacco Addicts !!

High testosterone increases learning disability. This would concentrate
individuals of this type who cannot compete easily for gainful employment in
lower socioeconomic areas. It is also known that increased testosterone
increases the likelihood of smoking in adolescence. Testosterone may also
increase the likelihood of cancer. The common link is high testosterone.
James Michael Howard, Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S.A.

"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:70qpsaFhj26rU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Smoking Behavior Partially Explains Socioeconomic Inequities In Lung
Cancer Incidence
ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2009) - Europeans with the least education have a
higher incidence of lung cancer compared with those with the highest
education. However, smoking history accounts for approximately half of
this risk, according to a new study.

Previous studies showed that individuals with a lower socioeconomic status
have a higher risk for developing lung cancer. Some studies have also
suggested that some of the excess risk of lung cancer is due to smoking.

To further investigate the contribution of smoking to the discrepancy in
lung cancer incidence, Gwenn Menvielle, Ph.D., and colleagues examined the
association of smoking, diet, education, and lung cancer in 391,251
individuals in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and
Nutrition study. Menvielle, who conducted the research in The Netherlands
at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment,
Bilthoven, and the department of public health of the Erasmus MC,
Rotterdam, is now at the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche
Médicale in Villejuif, France.

The researchers used participants' highest level of education achieved as
an indicator of socioeconomic status and had smoking and diet information
from questionnaires completed at study entry.

With a mean follow-up time of 8.4 years, 939 men and 692 women were
diagnosed with lung cancer. Men with the lowest education had a 3.62-fold
increased risk of lung cancer compared with men with the highest
education. Women with the lowest education had a 2.39-fold increased risk
compared with women with the highest education. The association between
education and cancer risk was greatest in Northern Europe and Germany.
When the researchers adjusted the risk models to account for smoking, the
excess risk dropped by approximately half. Diet did not appear to
contribute to the inequity in lung cancer risk between participants with
lowest and highest education.

The authors state that while their model shows that smoking accounts for
some of the discrepancy in lung cancer risk, they may not have yet
accounted for the full impact of smoking. Therefore, some of the residual
inequity in lung cancer risk associated with socioeconomic status may
still be due to smoking behavior. Nonetheless, the new data suggest that
other factors contribute to the inequality. "In future studies, other risk
factors should be considered, perhaps in relation with smoking," the
authors write. "However, we also observed that removing smoking would
reduce the population health burden that is associated with social
inequality in lung can¬cer considerably, in terms of number of cancers
avoided. Therefore, public health policies aiming at reducing smoking
rates, especially among persons with low education, are still strongly
needed."

In an accompanying editorial, Michael J. Thun, M.D., of the American
Cancer Society in Atlanta, Georgia, writes that Menvielle and colleagues'
effort to disentangle the impact of smoking and socioeconomic status on
lung cancer risk is laudable. However, given shifting patterns of smoking
in Europe, from a behavior associated more frequently with higher
socioeconomic status to one associated with lower socioeconomic status,
and geographic differences in that pattern, it is an extremely difficult
task.

Thun concurs with the authors' conclusion that smoking must remain a focus
of anti-cancer efforts. He concludes that ".the most effective approach to
reducing both the socioeconomic disparities and the overall burden of lung
cancer is to implement measures that we already know are effective in
reducing tobacco use."







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Fresnell lens for heat
    ... I thought I had very low risk of lung cancer because there is zero ... Smoking would be unwise and foolish for me now because nicotine would ... I certainly am not an antismoker zealot and I disdain P.C. zealots in ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Smoking
    ... Therefore, in order to protect workers from dying, we're gonna ban smoking." ... There are health hazards worth protecting people from that don't involve ... If these laws were based solely on the risk of death by cancer from ... people have indeed died from lung cancer where the most likely cause is ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: Calendars - sort of OT
    ... 16 to age 51, when I finally quit for good. ... and then quite you are going to escape the damages of smoking. ... Some people who die of lung cancer, ... never smoked or had one of the other common risk factors ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • *Article: Secondhand smoke in home linked to adult lung cancer
    ... Here's one more older study that shows smoking is bad not only for the health of people who light up but also for those around them -- specifically, for children who breathe in their parents' secondhand smoke. ... and it finds that children exposed to secondhand smoke on a daily basis have more than triple the risk of lung cancer and an increased risk of other respiratory problems later in life than those who grew up in a smoke-free environment. ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • Second Hand Reality By "The Man" Who Started It All
    ... For half a century eminent scientist Sir Richard Doll has followed ... smoking and lung cancer. ... They revealed that smoking can cause lung cancer. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)