unifrib oktttrs ocnMir - Legacy Tobacco Documents Library

•
•
ty 34
decades, despite the hiGher inteneity of exposuro
to these areas to ci.garette smoge?
(b) Would a larCe study onployi .nt; trkilted and
tested i .nVest'.i . getolCs yield the f3nme data aa that
co I 9vnonly quoted from many of the volunteor--holper
e9i :udi.os in this country?
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hly24f00/pdf
(c) Is the increase i.n pri.uiary bronehi.al cancer
really as great ac commonly quc.tod? The study by
Gi,l .li.a9n quoted on page 140 of the Report to the
S u.rECeon Gcnoral ficnnonctrates how the increase In
repnrted Ct . S . bronchial. oancor nay be much loss than
cla9 .nmd . This study shows that i.f in 1914, two por -
eeilt oi' the deathF certified to t:uberculesffi were
really due to lung cancer, then the ineroase In
pri,mary bL"onchial cancer botween that year and the
yoar 1950 would 1)e about eQht-fold for maleF and
only 1 .8 fold for females . ., fiGcrees vastly lower
than the connonly quoted increace .
A suUsequont study by Gi1lia.m noted a declining
rnte o£ i .ncreese In reported bronchi.a l cancor, which
is not oons4 .r,tont with roportod increased cigarette
consun:pti.on if ci.Cnratto smoking is regarded as
causinC lung cancer . (Gi1l .iam, etc . Cancer 14 (S),
G22••2f3, May-•.YCnro 1f)G1) . Similar decline is reported
In xnC]and and Wr1es, (Locs, Lnncot, June 20, 1f9G4,
7703