Tobacco’s Bum Rap

Tobacco's Bum Rap

During the 1900s in the United Kingdom men were consuming almost seven pounds of tobacco annually [on a per capita basis].

UK Tobacco
Cigarettes have largely replaced other forms of smoking in the past seventy years, during which time tobacco consumption has steadily increased. It is still increasing.

Women hardly ever smoked before 1920: since then they have smoked steadily increasing numbers of cigarettes.

Smoking and Health – A report of The Royal College of Physicians on smoking in relation to cancer of the lung and other diseases – 1962
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/sites/default/files/smoking-and-health-1962.pdf

However, lung cancer “was a rare disease” that caused very few deaths during this period.

In the early 1900s, lung cancer was a rare disease causing around one death annually in every 100,000 people.

Types of cancer – Lung cancer – Cancer Research UK
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/print/%20?files=CRUKMIG_100019758,CRUKMIG_100019760,CRUKMIG_100019763,CRUKMIG_100019761,CRUKMIG_100019764,CRUKMIG_100019762,CRUKMIG_1000197598parentfile=CRUKMIG_100019764

Evidently, tobacco smoking wasn’t a leading cause of death during the 1900s.

During the First World War male mortality and male tobacco consumption increased significantly.

The higher rates of lung cancer observed in “men born around the turn of the century” has been attributed to their “past smoking behaviour” by the experts.

The different patterns of lung cancer death rates in men and women reflect past smoking behaviour: smoking prevalence peaked earlier in men than women in Great Britain, and accordingly the highest lung cancer mortality ratios are observed in men born around the turn of the century and in women born in the 1920s.

Types of cancer – Lung cancer – Cancer Research UK
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/print/%20?files=CRUKMIG_100019758,CRUKMIG_100019760,CRUKMIG_100019763,CRUKMIG_100019761,CRUKMIG_100019764,CRUKMIG_100019762,CRUKMIG_1000197598parentfile=CRUKMIG_100019764

Somehow the experts have managed to overlook that Chemical Weapons were used extensively during the First World War and that Mustard Gas is “strongly mutagenic and carcinogenic”.

By 1918, one in every four artillery shells fired contained gas of one type or another.

Gas Warfare
http://www.worldwar1.com/arm006.htm

Mustard gas has extremely powerful vesicant effects on its victims.

In addition, it is strongly mutagenic and carcinogenic, due to its alkylating properties.

The mutagenic and carcinogenic effects of mustard agent mean that victims who recover from mustard gas burns have an increased risk of developing cancer in later life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_gas#Physiological_effects

The “carcinogenic” effects of mustard gas slowly became apparent after the end of the First World War as the average number of male deaths per year from lung cancer rose from 146 to 3,090 during the period 1919 to 1945 – a total of 35,312 male deaths from lung cancer during this period.

UK Men - Lung Cancer

Source data: Smoking and Health – A report of The Royal College of Physicians on smoking in relation to cancer of the lung and other diseases – 1962

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/the-cholesterol-correlation-the-chemical-weapons-correlation/

The association between lung cancer and Chemical Weapons is supported by the epidemiological evidence from Sweden that was neutral during the First World War and [accordingly] did not experience a massive surge in lung cancer immediately after the Great War.

Sweden - Lung Cancer Death Rates

Cancer Trends During the 20th Century
Örjan Hallberg and Olle Johansson
Journal of Australian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine Vol. 21 No. 1; April 2002: pages 3-8
http://www.iddd.de/umtsno/cancertrends.pdf

Sweden, following its long-standing policy of neutrality since the Napoleonic Wars, remained neutral throughout World War I between 28 July 1914 and 11 November 1918.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_in_World_War_I

In the United Kingdom male lung cancer rates started to accelerate when the Manhattan Project started operations in 1944.

In the opening chapter, dealing with the history of the atomic energy industry, the report explained that in 1944 the first of a series of giant nuclear reactors had gone into operation in Hanford, Washington, to produce the plutonium for the Trinity bomb.
The reactor was located in the dry eastern edge of the state of Washington, directly upwind from Montana, Idaho, and North Dakota.

Because the operating engineers did not have sufficient experience with these enormous new reactors being built under wartime pressures, large releases of radioactive gases occurred.

Secret Fallout – Low-level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island
Ernest Sternglass – 1981 – McGraw-Hill Book Company

In July 1945, the first atomic bomb, dubbed “Trinity”, was detonated in the New Mexico desert. It was fueled by plutonium created at Hanford.

In August 1945, two more atomic bombs – “Little Boy”, a uranium-235 bomb, and “Fat Man”, a plutonium bomb – were used against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Manhattan_Project_and_beyond

UK Lung Cancer Curve

Twentieth Century Mortality Trends in England and Wales
Office for National Statistics – Health Statistics Quarterly – Summer 2003
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/hsq/health-statistics-quarterly/no–18–summer-2003/twentieth-century-mortality-trends-in-england-and-wales.pdf

Then, in 1951, the United Kingdom and Sweden both experienced a surge in male lung cancer rates as nuclear fallout from the Nevada Test was deposited upon Europe.

Operation Ranger was the fourth American nuclear test series.

It was conducted in 1951 and was the first series to be carried out at the Nevada Test Site.

All the bombs were dropped by B-50D bombers and exploded in the open air over Frenchman Flat (Area 5).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranger

The high-altitude fallout clouds from the Nevada test site, carried across the Atlantic in a northeasterly direction by the prevailing jet-stream wind currents, would have deposited their radioactivity on the northern parts of Europe with much greater intensity than on the southern parts.

Secret Fallout – Low-level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island
Ernest Sternglass – 1981 – McGraw-Hill Book Company

The rates of lung cancer [again] surged in 1963 as nuclear fallout was [again] deposited on Europe following the huge surge in atmospheric testing during 1961 and 1962.

Annual Atmospheric Yields

Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
UNSCEAR 1993 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/1993.html

Tsar Bomba

Tsar Bomba is the nickname for the AN602 hydrogen bomb, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. Its October 30, 1961 test remains the most powerful artificial explosion in human history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

Operation Dominic

Operation Dominic was a series of 31 nuclear test explosions with a 38.1 Mt total yield conducted in 1962 by the United States in the Pacific.
This test series was scheduled quickly, in order to respond in kind to the Soviet resumption of testing after the tacit 1958-1961 test moratorium.
Most of these shots were conducted with free-fall bombs dropped from B-52 bomber aircraft.
Twenty of these shots were to test new weapons designs; six to test weapons effects; and several shots to confirm the reliability of existing weapons.
The Thor missile was also used to lift warheads into near-space to conduct high altitude nuclear explosion tests; these shots were collectively called Operation Fishbowl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dominic_I_and_II

Operation Fishbowl was a series of high altitude nuclear tests in 1962 that were carried out by the United States as a part of the larger Operation Dominic nuclear test program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fishbowl

A Thor rocket carrying a W49 thermonuclear warhead (manufactured by Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory) and a Mk. 2 reentry vehicle was launched from Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. The explosion took place 250 miles (400 km) above a point 19 miles (31 km) southwest of Johnston Island.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

Therefore, the health risks in the second half of the 20th century were associated with:
1) Inhalation of airborne nuclear fallout.
2) Skin contact with airborne nuclear fallout.
3) Ingestion of airborne nuclear fallout.
4) Exposure to deposited nuclear fallout.
5) Consuming contaminated products from areas with high levels of nuclear contamination.

Products like vintage 1963 French wine and American tobacco.

Radioactivity measurements applied to the dating and authentication of old wines

Trends in US Tobacco Farming

1963 Bordeaux wine was bad when it was bottled and time has only made it worse.
The summer was cold and wet.
Rot on the grapes was a major problem for growers.
Damage from severe hail storms further reduced the crop yields.
The 1963 Bordeaux harvest officially started October 7.
1963 Bordeaux wine at their best were light, acidic wines.
From their initial release, 1963 Bordeau wines quickly headed downhill from there.

http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/wine-topics/bordeaux-wine-buying-guide-tasting-notes-ratings/bordeaux-wine-detailed-vintage-summary-1945-today/1963-bordeaux-wine-vintage-report-wine-buying-tips/

Therefore, the next time your shivering outside having a surreptitious smoke be grateful your not inside sharing a bottle of vintage 1963 Chateau Caesium with some smug, self-satisfied non-smokers who think they will live forever.

Further reading:

The Fallout Hypothesis – 23 July 2010 – Frank Davis
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/the-fallout-hypothesis/

The Fallout Hypothesis 2 – 8 October 2010 – Frank Davis
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/the-fallout-hypothesis-2/

The Fallout Hypothesis 3 – 19 October 2010 – Frank Davis
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/the-fallout-hypothesis-3/

Revisiting the Fallout Hypothesis – 9 December 2013 – Frank Davis
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/revisiting-the-fallout-hypothesis/

Wine makers crack open hi-tech tricks – 28 November 2008 – Rami Tzabar – BBC Science
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7755014.stm

How Atomic Particles Helped Solve A Wine Fraud Mystery
3 June 2014 – The Kitchen Sisters
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/06/03/318241738/how-atomic-particles-became-the-smoking-gun-in-wine-fraud-mystery

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Atmospheric Science, History, Medicine. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Tobacco’s Bum Rap

  1. kuhnkat says:

    Chernobyl should have caused a HUGE increase in cancers downwind based on consensus science of radioactive effects. It caused a barely discernible blip in the most irradiated areas.

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/

    The lung cancer rate in Sweden you showed IMMEDIATELY went up if it was from radiation. This is NOT according to other observations as it typically takes decades to cause lung cancers from smoking, low level radioactivity, other carcinogens. In other words, their exposure would have had to start between the wars to cause the uptick when it occurred.

    Back to the negative correlation of the US map. The areas it shows with higher lung cancer rates are low to very low radioactivity. “IF” radiation was even partially responsible for these higher rates, then there should be cancer clusters everywhere there is comparatively higher radioactivity. Again, I see a NEGATIVE correlation.

    You may find it interesting that the follow up investigation of our bombing of Japan found far less mutation, radiation, cancers, leukemia etc, than consensus expected just as we see in the aftermath of Chernobyl, not to mention the total lack of any radiation effects so far from Fukushima.

    https://archive.org/details/TheEffectsOfTheAtomicBombOnHiroshima

    ““No statistically significant increase in major birth defects or other untoward pregnancy outcomes was seen among children of survivors. … The incidence of major birth defects (594 cases or 0.91%) among the 65,431 registered pregnancy terminations for which parents were not biologically related accords well with a large series of contemporary Japanese births at the Tokyo Red Cross Maternity Hospital, where radiation exposure was not involved and overall malformation frequency was 0.92%. No untoward outcome showed any relation to parental radiation dose or exposure. … Since many birth defects, especially congenital heart disease, are not detected in the neonatal period, repeat examinations were conducted at age eight to ten months. Among the 18,876 children re-examined at that age, 378 had one or more major birth defect (2.00%), compared with 0.97% within two weeks of birth. Again, there was no evidence of relationships to radiation dose.”

    – RERF, Birth defects among the children of atomic-bomb survivors (Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear weapons explosion irradiated survivors).

    The Hiroshima-Nagasaki nuclear attacks RERF life-span study (LSS) from 1950 to 2000 for leukemia deaths and from 1958 to 1998 for solid cancer occurrence showed that for 49,204 survivors in the leukemia study group, there were an excess of 94 leukemia deaths attributed to radiation, risk of 94/49,204 or 0.191% (above the natural number of cancers in the unexposed control group), and an excess of 848 solid (tumour) cancer deaths in 44,635 survivors, a risk of 848/44,635 or 1.90%. In each case, the excess radiation cancer risk was smaller than the natural risk of 0.22% for leukemia and 15.69% for solid (tumour) cancer deaths. It is significant that the natural cancer death risk was higher than the radiation cancer death risk for both leukemia and solid tumours unless the dose exceeded about 1 Gray (100 R or 100 cGy). E.g., 48% of leukemia deaths from doses of 10-100 R were due to radiation and 52% were natural (a bigger risk than radiation). Likewise, only 16% of solid tumour cancer deaths for doses of 10-100 R were due to radiation (84% were natural).”

    Now, if you are trying to show the possibility that the tobacco is contaminated and delivers higher levels of radioactive substance to the lungs of the smokers, that is an interesting hypothesis. A direct measurement of the tobacco should be found rather than trying this by implication. Then again, the rest of the world does not get their tobacco primarily from the US so this exercise would have to be repeated for all growing areas and primary distribution areas.

    Agent Orange and TCDD were implicated in cancers and other diseases of Vietnam Vets and Vietnamese. Turns out that more TCDD was produced by burning trash than the color agents. Why the US has a ban on burning trash. You might want to also look into when the types of materials started being burnt that would produce TCDD. I have not looked at that yet.

    You may find these interesting:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299203/

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/07/forbidden_science_low_level_radiation_and_cancer.html
    Includes references to studies

    http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/2014/06/11/the-nuclear-scare-scam-galen-winsor/
    Can’t find a working video link right now. I did download a copy of the video if you want it.

    • malagabay says:

      A lot depends upon which sources are consulted and the science deployed by these sources.

      For example:

      In your Hiroshima-Nagasaki quotation you will notice the results are based upon a comparison with an “unexposed control group” [which is arguably an oxymoron when it comes to nuclear fallout].

      The Hiroshima-Nagasaki nuclear attacks RERF life-span study (LSS) from 1950 to 2000 for leukemia deaths and from 1958 to 1998 for solid cancer occurrence showed that for 49,204 survivors in the leukemia study group, there were an excess of 94 leukemia deaths attributed to radiation, risk of 94/49,204 or 0.191% (above the natural number of cancers in the unexposed control group), and an excess of 848 solid (tumour) cancer deaths in 44,635 survivors, a risk of 848/44,635 or 1.90%. In each case, the excess radiation cancer risk was smaller than the natural risk of 0.22% for leukemia and 15.69% for solid (tumour) cancer deaths.

      In one study of the “children whose parents had been within 2000 meters of the explosions” the control group consisted of “the population in the suburbs farther than 2500 or 3500 meters from the explosion”.

      Late in 1966, I was given a copy of the preliminary results of a Yale University study of Hiroshima and Nagasaki carried out by Dr. S. Finch and a group of colleagues and sponsored by the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.

      The study involved an examination of the incidence of leukemia among some 17,000 children whose parents had been within 2000 meters of the explosions.

      Radiation doses ranged from about 3 to 30 rads, with a few as large as a hundred.

      These were certainly much largerthan the doses from typical pelvic X-rays received by the mothers in the study by Dr. Saxon Graham, doses which increased the risk of childhood leukemia among the children conceived many years later by as much as 100 percent.

      The control group used for comparison purposes in the Yale study consisted of the population in the suburbs farther than 2500 or 3500 meters from the explosion, where the radiation from the bomb was calculated to have been less than that from natural background.

      Secret Fallout – Low-level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island
      Ernest Sternglass – 1981 – McGraw-Hill Book Company

      Personally, I don’t find these “control group” studies very convincing because “leukemia rates rose sharply by 50 percent between 1946 and the early 1950s” in the whole of Japan.

      In fact, for all of Japan, leukemia rates rose sharply by 50 percent between 1946 and the early 1950s, just as Dr. Stewart’s statistician, David Hewitt, had originally observed for England and the United States.

      This was followed by another sharp rise as of 1959. And just as the rates had turned down again in Hiroshima and Troy, they declined again throughout Japan to half their peak intensities four to six years after the temporary moratorium of 1958-61, proving that these rises had not been due to such factors as improved diagnostic methods or increased use of medical X-rays, as some had suggested.

      Secret Fallout – Low-level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island
      Ernest Sternglass – 1981 – McGraw-Hill Book Company

      Personally, I don’t find your quoted cancer study very convincing because [for example] “the cancer rate for the 10- to 14-year-old children all over Japan tripled from 10 to 30 cases per million population, gradually climbing further to 40 cases by 1955 and to 50 by 1963, a fivefold increase during the period of heavy testing”.

      The data for Japan, prepared by a group of public health physicians and statisticians from the Japanese Institute of Public Health, was particularly significant, since Japan was not only exposed to the fallout from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, but also received the radioactive debris from the U.S. Pacific and Soviet Siberian tests.

      The report showed that three to five years after the fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki descended in 1945 the cancer rate for the 10- to 14-year-old children all over Japan tripled from 10 to 30 cases per million population, gradually climbing further to 40 cases by 1955 and to 50 by 1963, a fivefold increase during the period of heavy testing.

      For the youngest children zero to 4 years old, the increase was less, once again confirming the hypothesis that radiation was the causative factor as in the case of Troy.

      Again, the rates for the middle-aged group remained level, while the rate for those over 80 went up as elsewhere, in the case of Japan from about 3000 to 8000 per year per million individuals.

      Here then was the confirmation of why the studies of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors had not revealed any effects on their children.

      Everywhere in Japan, mortality rates had gone up due to the fallout, so that there was little or no difference between those survivors exposed to the direct flash and those who received the fallout in their diet over the years that followed.

      Secret Fallout – Low-level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three-Mile Island
      Ernest Sternglass – 1981 – McGraw-Hill Book Company

      It’s a very polarised debate and all evidence should be critically examined because we live in an age of post-normal science where [frequently] he who pays the piper calls the tune.

    • malagabay says:

      Chernobyl should have caused a HUGE increase in cancers downwind based on consensus science of radioactive effects. It caused a barely discernible blip in the most irradiated areas.

      My researches are continuing into the post-Chernobyl period and it will be interesting to see whether the view that “It caused a barely discernible blip” can be substantiated.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Chernobyl should have caused a HUGE increase in cancers downwind based on consensus science of radioactive effects. It caused a barely discernible blip in the most irradiated areas.
        Didn’t it? That’s not what I read. Perhaps you would like to google thyroid cancer Chernobyl.

      • kuhnkat says:

        beo…

        Since I have done quite a bit of Yahooing around to find the information I am passing, I think it would be beneficial for both of us if you would post links to the sources you are depending on for your information.

        Yes there were child thyroid cancers especially in the immediate area and a FEW children died. This is controversial though as the literature says it takes several years longer normally for radiation to cause thyroid cancer.

        Of course, like tobacco, I am very doubtful of all these wonderful research articles that can somehow tie an exposure 40 years before to a cancer. It is sloppy stats that show correlation without showing the actual effect and mechanism.

        Basically cancer is when the bodies immune system misses or is not able to stop a cell that has mutated. What caused the mutation?? An error in transcription. Yes chemical, radiation etc. can cause these errors. In other words, yes these “carcinogens” can cause cancer, BUT, most of the cases are NOT caused by radiation, smoking etc. They are caused by the bodies failure from aging or other damage.

    • malagabay says:

      it typically takes decades to cause lung cancers from smoking, low level radioactivity, other carcinogens

      My researches are continuing into whether the “decades” concept tells the whole story….

    • beobrigitte says:

      The lung cancer rate in Sweden you showed IMMEDIATELY went up if it was from radiation. This is NOT according to other observations as it typically takes decades to cause lung cancers from smoking, low level radioactivity, other carcinogens.

      In these decades that it takes to link up smoking with lung cancer you do not encounter anything that can cause cancer? REALLY?

      • kuhnkat says:

        Your problem is that there was less than background levels of radioactivity dumped in Sweden from Chernobyl. Sorry, you have to find some other monster under your bed to blame your cancer rise upon.

      • beobrigitte says:

        I beg to differ – I do remember the Swedish panicking – and assuming one of their reactors had leaked – then they contacted other EU states.
        The ‘background radiation’ in quite a number of European states increased rapidly – Poland was one of the few countries in which iodine was ladelled out to the public in order to “combat” (in case you, kuhnkat, lack the knowledge; iodine will lodge in the thyroid gland, thus outcompeting radioactive particle for lodging in the thyroid gland – this is a simple as I can put it!) thyroid cancer.

        Also, kuhnkat, you did avoid answering:
        In these decades that it takes to link up smoking with lung cancer you do not encounter anything that can cause cancer? REALLY?

        And, I personally am not interested what you find under your bed.
        In any case, the lung cancer rate is up when the smoking rate has gone down. Any explanation?

  2. craigm350 says:

    Tim o/t but may be of interest. Not sure how it was calibrated as only skimmed the paper

    DNA study: Celts not a single group

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31905764

    The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html

  3. Fredrik Eich says:

    I have mapped the rise and fall of world wide lung cancer to the period of atomic weapons testing fall out and the correlation is perfect, see here

    http://alternativeanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/p/nuclear-fallout-and-lung-cancer.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s