Ritorno alla pagina principale di FORCES Italiana
Home

La scorrettezza politica dell'onestà intellettuale

Organizzazione internazionale - Codice Fiscale 95063070106

  >>>>  Invia questa pagina a un amico

The Evidence

L'archivio scientifico che scardina 50 anni di superstizioni sul fumo



Ritorno alla pagina principale di FORCES Italiana
Home

Le rubriche

FUMO PASSIVO: ECCO LA LISTA AGGIORNATA AL 2005 DI TUTTI GLI STUDI. RISULTATO: NESSUN PERICOLO

Letture pertinenti

... E questa la chiamano "scienza" - AIRC/OMS: il questionario della vergogna La lunga lista degli errori metodologici della scienza rottame sul fumo passivo Chi ha pagato gli studi?

Informazioni su FORCES

Maledetti ciccioni parassiti sociali
Poveri caffeinomani ora vi curiamo
Porci bevitori siete i prossimi
Incensatori e profumatori assassini, ecco il vostro turno
La frode del fumo passivo
Uccidiamoli per il loro bene
Scienza rottame
Scienza scorrettissima
Abusi contro i fumatori
La posta di FORCES
Umorismo
Il muro del silenzio
Vietato parlarne: vittorie del tabacco
Quanti sono 'sti morti??
Lo sapevate che...?
Eventi quà e là
IPSE DIXIT: citazioni
Porno Health Canada
Coppa scienza rottame

I servizi speciali

La guerra della nicotina
Di Wanda Hamilton
Multinazionali farmaceutiche: Governi in tasca, salutismo in vendita
La truffa del fumo passivo - Corso rapido per principianti

Attivismo

COMPRA L'INNO DELLA LOTTA AL SALUTISMO
Sostieni FORCES acquistando questa bellissima canzone per soli $0,99!

I treni appartengono anche a chi fuma, e fumare sul treno nel proprio vagone non da fastidio a nessuno!
Boicotta i treni, causa danno!

 

9 Febbraio 2005 - Siamo lieti di presentare ai nostri lettori la lista aggiornata degli studi su fumo passivo e cancro polmonare. La lista include la differenziazione per categorie (esempio: lavoro, casa, infanzia, ecc.); questa spiega l'apparente raddoppio del numero degli studi, in realtà leggermente superiore a 70. Questa lista mette davvero la parola “fine” alla diatriba sul fumo passivo, perché dimostra conclusivamente, passo per passo e in un linguaggio estremamente semplice ed accessibile a tutti, l’incredibile falsa rappresentazione dell'evidenza usata per trasformare un non-pericolo in una “epidemia” e in un fenomeno di isterismo collettivo.


Nota: In caso di difficoltà di stampa, clicca qui per scaricare questa lista in formato PDF (410 Kb).

Raccomandiamo di leggere le informazioni necessarie per meglio comprendere il significato delle tavole.

(salta le informazioni e vai alle condizioni per la validità epidemiologica) || (salta tutto e vai alle tavole)

Incidenza di una malattia:  La frequenza con cui tale malattia appare nelle persone.

Rischio relativo, elevazione di rischio, RR: il rapporto tra l’incidenza di una malattia in un gruppo di persone che si crede sia esposto al fumo passivo (questo gruppo è chiamato caso) e l’incidenza della stessa malattia  in un gruppo non esposto al fumo passivo (questo gruppo è chiamato controllo).


RR =

Frequenza delle malattia (incidenza) che appare tra le persone esposte
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequenza delle malattia (incidenza) che appare tra le persone non esposte

Se l’incidenza tra gli esposti e i non esposti è la stessa il rischio relativo è 1 e non c’è alcun cambio di rischio. Se l’incidenza è più altra tra gli esposti, RR diventa più grande di uno e il rischio cresce. Se l’incidenza è più bassa tra gli esposti, RR diventa più piccolo di uno e il rischio diminuisce. Per dimostrare l’esistenza di un vero rischio, per gli studi che esaminano malattie multi-fattoriali (vedi sotto) l’elevazione deve essere almeno del 100-200% (RR=2 o 3); altrimenti, visto l’enorme margine di errore di questo tipo di studi, un’elevazione del 20% (RR=1.2), com’è la media nel caso del fumo passivo, non ha alcuna sostanza.

Fattore confondente (confounder) o concomitante: fattori e circostanze che contribuiscono alla malattia. Tutte le malattie attribuite al fumo (attivo o passivo) sono multi-fattoriali, cioè possono essere causate da diversi fattori che agiscono o individualmente o assieme ad altri – differentemente da malattie mono-fattoriali che hanno invece una sola causa, e le cui elevazioni di rischio possono essere accuratamente misurate. Le combinazioni con cui i confondenti agiscono sono infinite, e cambiano per ogni singolo individuo.

Studio longitudinale: uno studio che identifica gruppi o individui esposti o non esposti a condizioni potenzialmente tossiche, e li segue per molti anni.

Studio retrospettivo: uno studio basato sui ricordi di esposizione delle persone intervistate e non su misurazione diretta dell’esposizione.  Uno studio retrospettivo non ha modo di verificare l’accuratezza dei ricordi.

Studio caso-controllo: studio utilizzato quando non c’è altra possibilità se non quella di osservare le differenze di esposizione ai tossici in gruppi di gente con e senza la malattia. Gli studi caso-controllo sono necessariamente retrospettivi. In questi studi l’incidenza della malattia è zero nei controlli (gente non esposta) e 100% nei casi (gente esposta); ovvero, si sceglie solo la gente esposta che abbia già la malattia senza verificare cosa l’ha causata. Questi studi cercano di indovinare l’esposizione dei soggetti al fumo passivo basandosi su ciò che i soggetti dicono di ricordare e quindi inferire (indovinare) il rischio, puramente sulla base della differenza di esposizione ricordata dai soggetti esaminati durante le interviste. Infine si attribuisce la malattia già esistente (e che potrebbe essere stata causata da una qualsiasi combinazione di altri cofattori) al fumo passivo, di nuovo basandosi sulla differenza di esposizione riportata dagli intervistati. La schiacciante maggioranza degli studi sul fumo passivo è retrospettiva, e caso-controllo. Con questa qualità metodologica si procede a dire che il fumo passivo “avvelena” gli altri, e che “non c’è dubbio che il fumo passivo sia cancerogeno”.

Ipotesi: Una congettura che deve essere dimostrata con la sperimentazione.

Significato statistico: una coerenza numerica che indica solo che i dati facciano tutti vedere un beneficio o un rischio, e non un po’ di uno e un po’ dell’altro, come invece accade per  la maggioranza degli studi sul fumo passivo. Attenzione, non farti ingannare: “significato statistico” non vuol dire né che i dati siano accurati, né che il rischio/beneficio esiste, né che esso sia grosso. In breve, rischio con “significato statistico” (o “statisticamente significativo”) non vuol dire “rischio significante”, come invece la “salute pubblica”, i truffatori attivisti antifumo e i media loro portavoce ci lasciano intendere.

Intervallo di confidenza: il margine di certezza che non si siano fatti errori. Tale intervallo è del 95%. Per leggere la tavola sotto, semplicemente ricordarsi questa facile regola: per avere significato statistico di elevazione di rischio, i due numeri che definiscono l’intervallo devono essere maggiori di 1 (esempio: 1.3 – 4.7); per avere significato statistico di diminuzione di rischio (beneficio), i due numeri che definiscono l’intervallo devono essere minori di 1 (esempio: 0.6 – 0.9). Se l’intervallo è a cavallo di 1 (esempio: 0.7 – 2.3) lo studio è privo di significato statistico, cioè non dimostra proprio nulla.

Passiamo ora alla descrizione di ciò che è necessario a uno studio per stabilire una vera validità epidemiologica.

Condizioni necessarie per la validità epidemiologica

 

1.   Uno studio deve garantire che le sue rappresentazioni numeriche di esposizione individuale al fumo passivo durante l’arco della vita ricordate dai soggetti intervistati siano misure vere di esposizioni reali.

2.   Uno studio deve garantire che la tendenziosità (bias) dei ricordi dei soggetti intervistati abbia la stessa influenza sia sui casi sia sui controlli, e sui gruppi esposti e non esposti.

3.   Uno studio deve garantire che la selezione dei soggetti e le tendenziosità su classificazione errata (misclassification) abbiano la stessa influenza sia sui casi sia sui controlli, e sui gruppi esposti e non esposti.

4.   Uno studio deve garantire che noti fattori confondenti causali (causal confounders) abbiano la stessa influenza sia sui casi sia sui controlli, e sui gruppi esposti e non esposti.

5.   Uno studio deve garantire l’accuratezza delle informazioni cliniche concernenti patologie e diagnosi.

6.   I risultati di vari studi concernenti il fumo passivo devono essere coerentemente riproducibili da altri.

7.   In qualsiasi studio, il margine di errore statistico del rischio riportato dovrebbe raggiungere non meno del 95% di livello di significato.

8.   Se i criteri suddetti sono soddisfatti, I risultati dello studio dovrebbero essere in accordo con i criteri di Hill sulla causalità.*

9.   Le sommatorie meta-analitiche non sono credibili a meno che non siano fatte sulla base di tutti gli studi disponibili. Tali studi devono anche esibire un’omogeneità di struttura e di condotta, e devono soddisfare i criteri di validità descritti sopra.

 

Le condizioni soddisfatte dagli studi sul fumo passivo

Per ragioni di brevità e chiarezza ci concentriamo qui sugli studi epidemiologici concernenti fumo passivo e cancro polmonare, i cui sponsor affermano sempre che rappresentano l’evidenza migliore e più forte dei rischi dell’esposizione al fumo passivo. Su tale base, le considerazioni concernenti l’affidabilità delle affermazioni per altre malattie che si afferma siano collegate all’esposizione al fumo passivo devono essere subordinate alle considerazioni sul cancro polmonare.

La credibilità dei criteri sopra è lapalissiana, facile da capire e comprensibile a chiunque sia interessato nella verifica dell’evidenza basata sui fatti. Su tale base sfidiamo chiunque ad esprimere discordia su quanto segue, che affermiamo essere valido per qualsiasi studio o qualsiasi meta-analisi finora condotta sul fumo passivo.

1.       È incontrovertibile che nessuno degli studi esistenti può garantire che le sue rappresentazioni numeriche di esposizione individuale al fumo passivo durante l’arco della vita ricordate dai soggetti intervistati siano misure vere di esposizioni reali.

2.       È incontrovertibile che nessuno degli studi esistenti può garantire che la tendenziosità (bias) dei ricordi dei soggetti intervistati abbia la stessa influenza sia sui casi sia sui controlli, e sui gruppi esposti e non esposti.

3.       È incontrovertibile che nessuno degli studi esistenti può garantire che la selezione dei soggetti e le tendenziosità su classificazione errata (misclassification ed altri bias) abbiano la stessa influenza sia sui casi sia sui controlli, e sui gruppi esposti e non esposti.

4.       È incontrovertibile che nessuno degli studi esistenti può garantire che noti fattori confondenti causali (causal confounders) abbiano la stessa influenza sia sui casi sia sui controlli, e sui gruppi esposti e non esposti.

5.       È incontrovertibile che nessuno degli studi esistenti ha garantito l’accuratezza delle informazioni cliniche concernenti patologie e diagnosi.

6.       È incontrovertibile che i risultati di vari studi concernenti il fumo passivo sono stati grossolanamente incoerenti e non riproducibili in modo affidabile.

7.       È incontrovertibile che solo una sparuta minoranza di studi ha riportato il margine di errore numerico a o sotto al 95% del livello di confidenza del significato statistico.

8.       È incontrovertibile che nessuno degli studi sul fumo passivo ha soddisfatto i criteri di causalità di Hill. *

9.       È incontrovertibile che nessuna meta-analisi degli studi sul fumo passivo è stata condotta sulla base di tutti gli studi disponibili, studi che esibiscono un’omogeneità di struttura e di condotta, e che abbiano soddisfatto i criteri di validità suesposti.

Una dettagliata considerazione di ogni singolo studio sul fumo passivo e cancro polmonare renderebbe questo rapporto inaccessibile alle persone non specializzate. Su richiesta però ci impegniamo ad offrire un’analisi dettagliata di ogni studio sotto-elencato per ciò che concerne le affermazioni sopraesposte.

Cionondimeno, i punti sulla coerenza dei risultati e del significato statistico possono essere presentati e capiti immediatamente con una semplice lista degli studi e dei rischi riportati. Sommari grafici sono anche forniti dopo la tavola.

Si ricorda al lettore che il significato statistico concerne solo il contesto numerico di uno studio, e si riferisce solo al campo di errore numerico di un particolare studio. Nessuna manipolazione statistica può migliorare al qualità dei dati raccolti, e quindi se i dati sono inaffidabili e corrotti ogni derivante stima statistica resta ugualmente inaffidabile e corrotta.

Per esempio, nessuna manovra statistica può migliorare la mancanza di affidabilità sull’esposizione al fumo passivo derivante dai ricordi delle persone esaminate in un particolare studio. Ne segue che uno studio con un’elevazione di rischio dal significato statistico non da alcuna assicurazione di essere credibile.  D’altra parte uno studio senza significato statistico – che faccia vedere un’elevazione di rischio o un beneficio -  è doppiamente inaffidabile: primo a causa dell’inaffidabilità dei dati di base, e secondo perché il margine di errore numerico è inaccettabile. In ogni caso, gli studi più grossi hanno un vantaggio statistico perché la dimensione dell’errore numerico è inversamente proporzionale al numero delle persone esaminate da un particolare studio.

Come tabella generale, ecco tutti gli studi disponibili fino a oggi concernenti l’esposizione al  fumo passivo e il cancro polmonare, classificati in tre categorie:

STUDI CONIUGALI - Studi su non fumatori conviventi con mogli, mariti o partner fumatori.

STUDI SUL LAVORO - Studi su non fumatori che lavorano in luoghi dove si permette di fumare.

STUDI SULL’INFANZIA - Studi su non fumatori esposti al fumo passivo a casa durante la fanciullezza e l’adolescenza.

CODICE COLORI E NOTAZIONI:
  Elevazione di rischio statisticamente non significativa

STUDI SUL FUMO PASSIVO 1981-2005

  Riduzione di rischio (protezione) non statisticamente significativa
  Elevazione di rischio statisticamente significativa
  Riduzione di rischio (protezione) statisticamente significativa
^   = Cifre da Final Report CALEPA 1997
^^   = Cifre da Final Report CALEPA 2003
SG  = 1986 Surgeon General’s Report
( ) = Stimato.
NR  = No Rischio. Riportato dai ricercatori come senza correlazione cioè RR=1.00.
Vedere referenza bibliografiche a fondo pagina

STUDI CONIUGALI

Studi e autori

Anno

Nazione

Sesso

Numero di cancri polmonari

Rischio Relativo
(esempio:  1,18=18% elevazione di rischio)

95% Intervallo di Confidenza

Garfinkel et al. 1 (SG)

81

United States

F

153

1.18

0.90-1.54

Chan et al. SG

82

Hong Kong

F

84

0.8

 0.43-1.3

Correa et al. (SG)

83

United States

F

22

2.07

0.81-5.25

Correa et al.(SG)

83

United States

M

8

1.97

0.38-10.32

Trichopouls et al. (SG)

83

Greece

F

77

2.08

1.20-3.59

Buffler et al.

84

United States

F

41

0.8

0.34-1.9

Buffler et al.

84

United States

M

11

0.51

0.14-1.79

Hirayama et al. (SG)

84

Japan

F

200

1.6

1.00-2.4

Hirayama et al. SG

84

Japan

M

64

2.24

1.19-4.22

Kabat et al. 1(SG)

84

United States

F

24

0.79

0.25-2.45

Kabat et al. 1(SG)

84

United States

M

12

NR

0.2-5.07

Garfinkel et al. 2(SG)

85

United States

F

134

1.23

0.81-1.87

Lam W. et al.

85

Hong Kong

F

60

2.01

1.09-3.72

Wu et al. (SG)

85

United States

F

29

1.4

0.4-4.2

Akiba et al. (SG)

86

Japan

F

94

1.5

0.9-2.8

Akiba et al. (SG)

86

Japan

M

  428

1.8

0.4-7.0

Lee et al. (SG)

86

United Kingdom

F

41

1.00

0.37-2.71

Lee et al. (SG)

86

United Kingdom

M

22

1.3

0.38-4.39

Bownson et al. 1

87

United States

F

19

1.68

0.39-6.9

Gao et al.

87

China

F

246

1.19

0.82-1.73

Humble et al.

87

United States

F

20

2.2

0.80-6.6

Humble et al. 87

United States

M

8

4.82

0.63-36.56

Koo et al. 87

Hong Kong

F

86

1.64

0.87-3.09

Lam T et al.

87

Hong Kong

F

199

1.65

1.16-2.35

Pershagen et al. (SG)

87

Sweden

F

70

1.2

0.7-2.1

Butler et al. 88

United States

F

8

2.2

0.48-8.56

Geng et al.

88

China

F

54

2.16

1.08-4.29

Inoue et al. 88

Japan

F

22

2.25

0.8-8.8

Shimizu et al.

88

Japan

F

90

1.08

0.64-1.82

Choi et al.

89

Korea

F

75

1.63

0.92-2.87

Choi et al. 89

Korea

M

13

2.73

0.49-15.21

Hole et al.

89

Scotland

F

6

1.89

0.22-16.12

Hole et al. 89

Scotland

M

13

3.52

0.32-38.65

Svensson et al. 89

Sweden

F

34

1.26

0.57-2.81

Janerick et al.

90

United States

F&M

191

0.93

0.55-1.57

Kalandidi et al.

90

Greece

F

90

2.11

1.09-4.08

Sobue et al.

90

Japan

F

144

1.13

0.78-1.63

Wu-Williams 90

China

F

417

 0.7

0.60-0.9
protezione

Liu Z et al. 91

China

F

54

 0.77

0.30-1.96

Brownson et al. 2 ^ 92

United States

F

431

 NR

0.80-1.2

Stockwell et al. ^

92

United States

F

62

1.6

0.80-3.0

Liu Q et al. ^ 93

China

F

38

1.66

0.73-3.78

Wu et al.

93

China

F

75

1.09

0.64-1.85

Fontham et al. ^ 94

United States

F

  651

1.29

1.04-1.60

Zaridze et al. 94

Russia

F

  162

1.66

1.12-2.46

Du et al. 95-96a China       F 69 1.19

0.66-2.16

Kabat et al. 2 ^

95

United States

F

    67

1.08

0.60-1.94

Kabat et al. 2 ^ 95

United States

M

   39

1.6

0.67-3.82

Wang et al. 96a China F 99     2.5 1.3-5.1
Wang et al. 96b China F    92 1.11 0.65-1.88
Schwartz et al. ^

96

United States

F

   175

1.1

0.72-1.68

Schwartz et al. ^ 96

United States

M

   72

1.1

0.60-2.03

Sun et al. 96

China

F

   230

1.16

0.80-1.69

Want SY et al.

96

China

F

  82

2.53

1.26-5.10

Wang TJ et al.

96

China

F

  135

1.11

0.67-1.84

Cardenas et al. ^ ^^ 97

United States

F

  150

1.2

0.80-1.6

Cardenas et al. ^ ^^

97

United States

M

  97

1.1

0.60-1.8

Jöckel-BIPS ^^ 97

Germany

F

  53

1.58

0.74-3.38

Jöckel-BIPS ^^

97

Germany

M

  18

1.58

0.52-4.81

Jöckel-GSF ^^ 97

Germany

F

  242

0.93

0.66-1.31

Jöckel-GSF ^^ 97

Germany

M

  62

0.93

0.52-1.67

Ko et al. ^ ^^

97

Thailand

F

  105

1.3

0.7-2.5

Nyberg et al. ^^ 97

Sweden

F

  89

1.2

0.74-1.94

Nyberg et al. ^^ 97

Sweden

M

  35

1.2

0.57-2.55

Jockel et al. ^^ 98 Germany F&M   71 1.12 0.54-2.32
Nyberg et al. ^^ 98a Sweden F   89 1.05 0.6-1.86
Nyberg et al. ^^ 98a Sweden F&M   58 1.17 0.73-1.88
Boffetta et al.
(meta-analysis)
98
Nazione Sesso Cancri R.R. I.C. 95%
         
Europe F 508 1.15 0.86‑1.55
Sweden  F&M 70 2.29 0.65‑8.07
Germany 1 F&M 76 0.88 0.40‑1.95
Germany 2 F&M 142 1.22 0.66‑2.2
Germany 3 F&M 31 2.01 0.71‑5.67
England F&M 26 1.38 0.43‑4.28
France F&M 77 0.72 0.36‑1.25
Portugal 1 F&M 49 2.04 0.71‑5.8
Portugal 2 F&M 33 2.03 0.76‑5.38
Spain F&M 71 1.1 0.48‑2.68
Italy 1 F&M 40 0.73 0.28‑1.65
Italy 2 F&M 19 1.12 0.35‑3.56
Italy 3 F&M 16 1.36 0.30‑6.45
Zaridze et al. ^^ 98 Russia F 189 1.53 1.06-2.21
Jee et al. ^^ 99 Korea F 79 1.9 1.0-3.5
Rapiti et al. ^^ 99 India F 52 1.2 0.5-2.9
Zhong et al. ^^ 99 China F 504 1.1 0.7-1.7
Lee et al. ^^ 00 Taiwan F 186 1.2 0.7-2.0
Wang et al. ^^ 00 China F&M 200 1.19 0.7-2.0
Kreuzer at al. ^^ 00/01 Germany F 234 0.96 0.7-1.33
Kreuzer at al. ^^ 00/01 Germany F&M 292 0.99 0.73-1.34
Johnson et al. ^^ 01 Canada F 56 1.2 0.5-3.0
Nishino et al. ^^ 01 Japan F 23 1.8 0.67-4.6
             

STUDI SUL LAVORO

Studi e autori Anno Nazione Sesso Rischio Relativo 95% I.C.
Kabat et al. 1 ^

84

United States

F

0.70

0.30-1.50

Kabat 1 et al.  ^

84

United States

M

3.3

1.1-10.4

Garfinkel 2 ^ 85

United States

F

0.93

0.7-1.2

Wu et al. ^ 85

United States

F

1.3

0.5-3.3

Lee et al. ^

86

United Kingdom

F

0.63

0.17-2.33

Lee et al. ^ 86

United Kingdom

M

1.61

0.39-6.6

Koo et al. ^ 87

Hong Kong

F

0.91

0.15-5.37

Shimizu et al. ^ 88

Japan

F

1.18

0.70-2.01

Janerich et al. ^ 90

United States

F&M

0.91

0.80-1.04

Kalandidi et al. ^ 90

Greece

F

1.39

0.80-2.5

Wu-Williams et al. ^ 90

China

F

1.2

0.90-1.6

Brownson et al. 2 92

United States

F

0.79

0.61-1.03

Stockwell et al. ^ 92

United States

F

NR

NS

Fontham et al. ^ 94

United States

F

1.39

1.11-1.74

Zaridze et al. 94

Russia

F

1.23

0.74-2.06

Kabat et al. 2 ^ 95

United States

F

1.15

0.62-2.13

Kabat et al. 2 ^

95

United States

M

1.02

0.5-2.09

Schwartz et al. ^

96

United States

F&M

1.5

1.0-2.2

Sun et al. 96

China

F

1.38

0.94-2.04

Wang et al. 96a China F 2.0 p=0.05
Wang et al. 96b

China

F

0.89

0.45-1.77

Jockel-BIPS ^^

97

Germany

F&M

2.37

1.02-5.48

Jockel-GSF ^^

97

Germany

F&M

1.51

0.95-2.4

Ko et al. ^ ^^

97

Thailand

F

1.1

0.40-3.0

Nyberg et al. ^^ 98a

Sweden

F&M

1.61

0.91-2.85

Zaridze et al. ^^ 98 Russia F 0.88 0.55-1.41
Boffetta et al. (WHO) ^^

 98

Europe

F&M

1.17

0.94-1.45

Zhong et al. ^^ 99 China F 1.7 1.30-2.3
Kreuzer et al. ^^ 98/00 Germany F 1.03 0.78-1.36
Lee et al. ^^ 00 Taiwan F 1.2 0.50-2.4
Johnson et al. ^^ 01 Canada F 1.21
1.71
0.50-2.8 min.
0.7-4.3 max.
           

STUDI SULL'INFANZIA

Studi e autori Anno Nazione Sesso Rischio Relativo 95% I.C.
Correa et al. SG 

 83

United States

F

NR

NS 

Kabat & Wyn ^ 

 84

United States

F

0.92

0.40-2.08 

Kabat & Wyn ^

 84

United States

M

1.26

0.33-4.83

Garfinkel et al. 2 SG

 85

United States

F

0.91

0.74-1.12

Wu et al. (SG)

 85

United States

F

0.6

0.20-1.7

Akiba et al. SG

 86

Japan

F&M

NR

NS

Gao et al. ^

 87

China

F

1.1

0.7-1.7

Koo et al. ^

 87

Hong Kong

F

1.73

0.6-6.4

Pershagen et al. ^

 87

Sweden

F

NR

0.4-2.3

Svensson et al. ^

 89

Sweden

F

3.3

0.5-18.8

Janerich et al. ^

 90

United States

F&M

1.09

0.68-1.73

Sobue et al. (^)

 90

Japan

F

1.28

0.71-2.31

Wu-Will et al. (^)

 90

China

F

NR

NS

Brownson et al. 2 ^

 92

United States

F

0.8

0.60-1.1

Stockwell et al. ^

 92

United States

F

1.1

0.50-2.6

Fontham et al. ^

 94

United States

F

0.89

0.72-1.1

Zaridze et al.

 94

Russia

F

0.98

0.66-1.45

Kabat 2 ^

 95

United States

M

0.9

0.43-1.89

Kabat et al. 2 ^

 95

United States

F

1.55

0.95-2.79

Sun et al.

 96

China

F

2.29

1.56-3.37

Wang et al. 96a China F 1.91 p=0.01
Wang et al.

 96

China

F

0.91

0.56-1.49

Jockel-BIPS ^^

 97

Germany

F&M

1.05

0.50-2.22

Jockel-GSF ^^

 97

Germany

 

0.95

0.64-1.4

Ko et al. ^ ^^

 97

Thailand

F

0.80

0.4-1.6

Boffetta et al. (World Health Organization) ^^

 98

Europe

F&M

0.78

0.64-0.96
protezione

Jockel et al. ^^ 98 Germany   F&M 2.02 0.60-6.75
Nyberg et al. ^^ 98a Sweden   F&M 1.02
0.72
0.63-1.66 father
0.28-1.87 mother
Zhong et al. ^^ 99 China   F 0.9 0.50-1.9
Rapiti et al. ^^ 99 India   F 3.99 1.90-8.2
Kreuzer et al. ^^ 98/00 Germany   F 1.03 0.78-1.36
Lee et al. ^^ 00 Taiwan   M 1.7 1.10-2.6 father
  F 0.9 0.30-3.1 mother
Wang et al. ^^ 00 China   F&M 1.52 1.1-2.2
Rachtan et al. ^^ 01 Poland   F 3.31 1.26-8.69
Johnson et al. ^^ 01 Canada   F 0.54 0.1-2.7
Vineis et al. 05   Europe F&M 1.42   0.63-3.20

Codice

Numero di studi coniugali: 81 Perc.
     
 
Elevazione di rischio statisticamente non significativa: 57 70.37%
 
Riduzione di rischio (protezione)  statisticamente non significativa: 10 12.34%
 
Elevazione di rischio statisticamente significativa: 13 16.04%
 
Riduzione di rischio (protezione) statisticamente significativa: 1 1.23%

Codice

Numero di studi sul lavoro: 31 Perc.
     
 
Elevazione di rischio statisticamente non significativa: 18 58%
 
Riduzione di rischio (protezione)  statisticamente non significativa: 7 22.7%
 
Elevazione di rischio statisticamente significativa: 6 19.3%

Codice

Numero di studi sull'infanzia: 37 Perc.
     
 
Elevazione di rischio statisticamente non significativa: 20 55.6%
 
Riduzione di rischio (protezione) statisticamente non significativa: 10 27.8%
 
Elevazione di rischio statisticamente significativa: 5 13.9%
 
Riduzione di rischio (protezione) statisticamente significativa: 1 2.7%

 
NON ASCOLTARE LA PROPAGANDA:
SE FUMI NON AMMAZZI NESSUNO
Per ulteriore documentazione sulla falsa rappresentazione dell'evidenza da parte della propaganda antifumo, vedere anche:

The Evidence

L'archivio scientifico che scardina 50 anni di superstizioni sul fumo

e:
La frode del fumo passivo

Referenze:

ACGIH (1990): American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygien­ists: Documentation of the Threshold Limit values and Biological Exposure Indices. 5th Edition and supplements. ACGIH, 6500 Glenway Ave. Building D‑7, Cincinnati, OH 45211‑4438.

Adami H, et al. (1989):Risk of cancer in women receiving hormone replacement therapy. Int J Cancer, 44:833‑839.

Akiba S, et al. (1986): Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer Among Japanese Women. Cancer Res, 46:4804‑4807.

Alavanja M (1993): Saturated fat intake and lung cancer risk among nonsmoking women in Missouri. J Nat Cancer Inst, 85(23):1906‑1916.

Albanes D (1989): Physical Activity and the Risk of Cancer in the NHANES I Population. Am J Pub Health, 79:744‑750.

Albert R (1989): Carcinogen risk Assessment. Environ Health Perspect, 81:103‑105.

Altshuler B (1989): Quantitative models for lung cancer induced by cigarette smoke. Environ Health Perspect, 81:107‑108.

Agudo A, et al. (1997): Vegetable and Fruit Intake and the Risk of Lung Cancer in Women in Barcelona, Spain. Eur J Cancer, 33:1256‑1261.

Angell M (1996): Science on trial. W.W. Northon & Co. New York.

Angerer J (1992): Internal exposure to organic substances in a municipal waste incinerator. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 64:265‑273.

Armitage A, et al. (1997): Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Is It Really a Carcino­gen? Med Sci Res, 25:3‑7. Axelsson G, et al. (1996): Dietary Factors and Lung Cancer Among Men in West Sweden. Int J Epidemiol, 25:32‑39.

Baker RR, Proctor CJ (1990): The origins and properties of environmental tobacco smoke. Envir Intern, 16:231‑245.

Benowitz NL, et al. (1991): Stable isotope studies of nicotine kinetics and bioa­vailability. Clin Pharmacol Ther 49:270‑277

Blair A, et al. (1995): "Guidelines for Application of Meta‑Analysis in Environ­mental Epidemiology," Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 22:189‑197.

Boffetta P, et al. (1998): Multicenter case‑control study of exposure to environ­mental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J Nat Cancer Inst, 90:1440‑1450.

Boffetta P, Tredaniel J, Greco A (2000): Risk of childhood cancer and adult lung cancer after childhood exposure to passive smoke: a meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 108:73-82.

Boffetta P, Aguado A, Ahrens W, Benhamou E, Benhamou S, Darby SC, et al. (1998). Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(19):1440-50.

Brandt AM (1998): Blow some my way: passive smoking, risk and American culture. In: Ashes to ashes: the history of smoking and health. Lock S, et al., Eds., pp. 164‑187. Radopi B.V., Amsterdam & Atlanta.

Breslow N, Day N (1980): Statistical Methods in Cancer Research: Volume 1 ‑‑ The Analysis of Case‑Control Studies, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Scientific Publications, No. 32, Lyon, France.

Breslow N, Day N (1987): Statistical Methods in Cancer Research: Volume 2 ‑‑ The Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Scientific Publications, No. 82, Lyon, France.

Bretthauer EW (1992): Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, EPA. Letter to JJ Tozzi. December 17, 1992, Washington DC.

Brown S, et al. (1995): The Association of Economic Status With the Occurrence of Lung Cancer. Cancer, 36:1903‑1911.

Brownson R, et al. (1987): Risk Factors for Adenocarcinoma of the Lung. Am J Epidemiol, 125:25‑34.

Brownson RC, et al. (1992): Passive smoking and lung cancer in nonsmoking women. Am J Publ Health, 82:1525‑1530.

Brownson RC, et al. (1993): Reliability of passive smoke exposure histories in a case control study of lung cancer. Intern J Epidemiol, 22:804‑808

Brownson R, et al. (1997): Family History of Cancer and Risk of Lung Cancer in Lifetime Non‑Smokers and Long‑Term Ex‑Smokers. Int J Epide­miol, 26(2):256‑263.

Brugnone F, et al. (1992): Reference values for blood benzene in the occupational­ly unexposed general population. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 64:179‑184.

Buffler P, et al. (1984): The Causes of Lung Cancer in Texas. In: Lung Cancer: Causes and Prevention (Mizzell M, Correa P, Eds.):, pp. 83‑99. Verlag Chemie International New York.

Butler T (1988): The Relationship of Passive Smoking to Various Health Out­comes Among Seventh‑Day Adventists in California. Ph.D. Dissertation, Uni­versity of California, Los Angeles, California.

Byers T, et al. (1987): Diet and Lung Cancer Risk: Findings from the West­ern New York Diet Study. Am J Epidemiol, 125:351‑363.

California Environmental Protection Agency. Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Final Report 1997. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA.

California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a toxic air contaminant. Part B: Health effects. November 2003. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/dreport/bcovertoc1.pdf

Candelora E, et al. (1992): Dietary Intake and Risk of Lung Cancer in Women Who Never Smoked. Nutr Cancer, 17(3):263‑270.

Cardenas V, et al. (1997): Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Mortality in the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study II. Cancer Causes Control, 8:57‑64.

CEPA (1997): Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Final Report. California Environmental protection Agency. Office of Environmental Hazards Assessment. Sacramento, California.

Chan W, Fung S (1982): Lung Cancer in Non‑Smokers in Hong Kong. In: Cancer Campaign, Volume 6, Cancer Epidemiology (Grundmann E, Ed.):, pp. 199‑202, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.

Chen C (1990): Epidemiologic Characteristics and Multiple Risk Factors of Lung Cancer in Taiwan. Anticancer Res, 10:971‑976.

Chen T (1989): A Review of Methods for Misclassified Categorical Data in Epidemiology. Statistics in Med, 8:1095‑1106.

Choi SY, et al. (1989): A Case‑Control Study on Risk Factors in Lung Cancer. Korean J Epidemiol, 11:66‑80.

Collier AM, et al. (1992): Cotinine elimination in young children as a function of age, sex, and race following ETS exposure (Abstract). Am Rev Respir Dis 145(4pt2):532A.

Copas JB, Shi JQ (2000): Reanalysis of epidemiological evidence on lung cancer and passive smoking. Br Med J 320:417-418. 

Correa P, et al. (1983): Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer. Lancet, 2:595‑597.

Coultas DB, et al. (1990a): Variability of measures of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the home. Am Rev Respir Dis, 142:602‑606.

Coultas DB, et al. (1990b): A personal monitoring study to assess the workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Am J Publ Health, 80:988‑990.

Cress RD, et al. (1994): Characteristics of women nonsmokers exposed to passive smoke. Prev Med, 23:40‑47.

Crouse W (1988): Results from a survey of environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants. Presented at the APCA International Conference, Niagara Falls, NY.

Dai XD, et al. (1996): The Etiology of Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Females in Harbin, China. Lung Cancer, 14(Suppl.1):S85‑91.

Daling JR, et al. (1994): Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. J Natl Cancer Inst, 86:1584‑92.

Delfino RJ, et al. (1993): Questionnaire assessment of recent exposure to envi­ronmental tobacco smoke in relation to salivary cotinine. Eur Respir J, 6:1104‑1108.

Dement J, et al. (1994): Follow‑Up Study of Chrisotyle Asbestos Textile Workers: Cohort Mortality and Case‑Control Analyses. Am J Ind Med, 26:431‑447.

De Stefani E, et al. (1997): Fatty Foods and the Risk of Lung Cancer: A Case‑Control Study From Uruguay. Int J Cancer, 71:760‑766.

Doll R, Peto R (1976): Mortality in relation to smoking: 20 years' observations on male British doctors. Br Med J, 2:1525‑1536.

Doll R, Peto R (1978): Cigarette smoking and bronchial carcinoma: dose and time relationships among regular smokers and lifelong non‑smokers. J Epidemiol Commun Health, 32:303‑313.

Doll R (1978): An epidemiologic perspective of the biology of cancer. Cancer Res, 38:3573‑3583.

Doll R, et al. (1980): Mortality in relation to smoking: 22 years' observations on female British doctors. Br Med J, 280:967‑971.

Doll R, et al. (1994): Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years' observations in male British doctors. Br Med J, 309:901‑911.

Domino EF, et al. (1993): The relevance of nicotine content of common vegetables to the identification of passive tobacco smokers. Med Sci Res 21:571‑572.

Du Y, Cha Q, Chen X, Chen Y, Huang L, Feng Z, et al. (1996). An epidemiological study of risk factors for lung cancer in Guangzhou, China. Lung Cancer 14(Suppl 1):S9-S37.

Du Y, Cha Q, Chen Y, Lei Y, Xue S (1995). Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and female lung cancer. Indoor Air 5(4):231-6.

Easterbrook P, et al. (1991): Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet, 337:867‑872.

Edlin C, et al. (1984): Radon in Homes ‑‑ A Possible Cause of Lung Cancer. Scand J Work Environ Health, 10:25‑34.

Enstrom JE, Kabat GC (2003). Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98. Br Med J 326(7398):1057.

Emmons KM, et al. (1992): Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in natural­istic settings. Am J Publ Health, 82:24‑28

Emmons K, et al. (1995): Dietary intake and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in a worksite population. Eu J Clin Nutr, 49:336‑343.

Fontham ET, et al. (1991): Lung cancer in nonsmoking women: A multicenter case‑control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 1:35‑43.

Fontham E, et al. (1992): Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Women: Dietary Antioxi­dants. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 1:249.

Fontham E, et al. (1994): Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Women: A Multicenter Study. J Am Med Assn, 271:1752‑1759.

Freund KM, et al. (1993): The health risks of smoking. The Framingham study: 34 years of follow‑up. Ann Epidemiol, 3:417‑424.

Gao Y, et al. (1987): Lung Cancer Among Chinese Women. Int J Cancer, 40:604‑609.

Gaylor DW, et al. (1997): Health Risk assessment practices in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 26:307-321, 1997.

Garfinkel L (1981): Time Trends in Lung Cancer Mortality Among Nonsmokers. J Nat Cancer Inst, 66:1061‑1066.

Garfinkel L, et al. (1985): Involuntary Smoking and Lung Cancer: A Case‑Control Study. J Nat Cancer Inst, 75:463‑469.

Geng G, et al. (1988): On the Relationship Between Smoking and Female Lung Cancer. In: Smoking and Health 1987 (Aoki M, et al., Eds.):, pp. 483‑86, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.

Givens G, et al. (1997): Publication Bias in Meta‑Analysis: A Bayesian Data‑Augmentation Approach To Account For Issues Exemplified in the Passive Smoking Debate. Stat Sci, 12:221‑250.

Goodman M, et al. (1988): The Effect of Dietary Cholesterol and Fat on the Risk of Lung Cancer in Hawaii. Am J Epidemiol, 128:1241‑1255.

Gori GB (1976): Low risk cigarettes: a prescription. Science, 194:1243‑1246.

Gori GB, Mantel N (1991): Mainstream and environmental tobacco smoke. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 14:88‑105.

Gori GB (1998a): Epidemiology and public health: is a new paradigm needed or a new ethic? J Clin Epidemiol 51:637‑641.

Gori GB (1998b): Reply to the preceding dissent. J Clin Epidemiol 51:647-649.

Gori GB, Luik JC (1999): Passive smoke: the EPA’s betrayal of science and policy. The Fraser Institute, Vancouver.

Gravelle JG, Zimmermann D (1994): Cigarette taxes to fund health care reform: An economic analysis. Congressional Research Services, The Library of Con­gress, Washington DC.

Greenwald AG (1975): Consequences of prejudices against the null hypothesis. Psychol. Bull, 82:1‑20.

Guerin MR, et al. (1987): Measuring environmental emissions from tobacco combustion: sidestream cigarette smoke literature review. Atmos Environ, 21:291‑297.

Gustavsson P, et al. (1990): Lung Cancer and Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Among Bus Garage Workers. Scand J Work Environ Health, 16:334‑54. 

Hackshaw A, et al. (1997): The Accumulated Evidence on Lung Cancer and Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Br Med J, 315:980‑988.

Haevner DL, et al. (1996): Determination of volatile organic compounds and respirable suspended particulate matter in New Jersey and Pennsylvania homes and workplaces. Environ Int 22:159‑183.

Hatziandreu EJ, et al (1989): The reliability of self‑reported cigarette consumption in the United States. Am J Publ Health, 79:1020‑1023.

Hayes R, et al.(1989): Lung Cancer in Motor Exhaust‑Related Occupations. Am J Ind Med, 16:685‑695.

Hill AB (1965): The environment and disease: Association or Causation? Proc R Soc Med, 58:295‑300.

Hinds M, et al. (1982): Tuberculosis and Lung Cancer Risk in Non‑Smoking Women. Am Rev Respir Dis, 125:776‑778.

Hirayama T (1981): Non‑Smoking wives of Heavy Smokers a Higher Risk of Lung Cancer: A Study From Japan. Br Med J, 282:183‑185.

Hirayama T (1984): Lung cancer in Japan: effects of nutrition on passive smoking. In: Lung cancer: causes and prevention. Mizell M, Correa P, Eds. pp.175‑195. Verlag Chemie International Inc., New York.

Hoffmann D, Hecht SS (1989): Advances in tobacco carcinogenesis. In: Chemical carcinogenesis and mutagenesis. Cooper CS, Grover PL, eds., Springer‑Verlag, New York

Hole D, et al. (1989): Passive Smoking and Cardiorespiratory Health in a General Population in the West of Scotland. Br Med J, 299:423‑427.

Horwitz R, et al. (1988): An Ecogenetic Hypothesis for Lung Cancer in Women. Arch Intern Med, 148:2609‑2612.

Humble C, et al. (1987): Marriage to a Smoker and Lung Cancer Risk. Am J Pub Health, 77:598‑602.

IARC (1986): Tobacco smoking: Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcino­genic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Vol 38. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.

ICSH (1998): Fourth report of the Independent Committee on Smoking and Health. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.

Inoue R, Hirayama T (1988): Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer in Women. In: Smoking and Health 1987. Aoki M, et al., Eds. pp.283‑285. Elsevier Science Pub­lishers, Amsterdam.

Jacobsson R, et al. (1997): Increased Risk of Lung Cancer Among Professional Drivers in Urban But Not Rural Areas of Sweden. Occup Environ Med, 54:189‑193.

Jain M, et al. (1990): Dietary Factors and Risk of Lung Cancer: Results from a Case‑Control Study, Toronto, 1981‑85. Int J Cancer, 45:287‑293.

Janerich D, et al. (1990): Lung Cancer and Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the Household. N Engl J Med, 323:632‑636.

Jarvis MJ, et al. (1987): Comparison of tests used to distinguish smokers from nonsmokers. Am J Publ Health, 77:1435‑1438.

Jee SH, Ohrr H, Kim IS (1999). Effects of husbands' smoking on the incidence of lung cancer in Korean women. Intl J Epidemiol 28(5):824-8.

Jockel K-H, Pohlabeln H, Ahrens W, Krauss M (1998). Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Epidemiology 9(6):672-5.

Johnson KC, Hu J, Mao Y (2000). Passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk in Canada, 1994-97. The Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. Cancer Causes Cont 11(3):211-21.

Johnson KC, Hu J, Mao Y (2001). Lifetime residential and workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in never-smoking women, Canada 1994-97. Intl J Cancer 93(6):902-6.

Jenkins RA, et al. (1996): Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in sixteen cities in the United States as determined by personal breathing zone air sam­pling. J Exp Anal Environ Epidemiol 6:473‑502.

Jöckel K H (1991): Passive Smoking ‑‑ Evaluation of the Epidemiological Findings. Presentation to the Association of German Engineers, Mannheim Colloquium, VDI Reports 888.

Jöckel K H, Pohlabeln H, Ahrens W, Krauss M (1998): Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Epidemiology 9:672-675.

Jöckel K -H (1997): Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Germany. Position paper on Public Hearing of Experts on the Law on Protection of Non‑Smokers, Health Policy Questions/Child and Youth Protection, Bonn, Germany.

Jöckel K-H (1998) Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Epidemiology 9:672-675.

Kabat G, Wynder E (1984): Lung Cancer in Nonsmokers. Cancer, 53:1214‑1221.

Kabat G (1990): Epidemiological Studies of the Relationship Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer. In: Toxicology Forum: 1990 Annual Winter Meeting. pp.187‑189. Washington, DC.

Kabat G (1994): Aspects of the Epidemiology of Lung Cancer in Smokers and Nonsmokers in the United States. In: Proceedings of the International Symposi­um on Lifestyle Factors and Human Lung Cancer, Guangzhou, China.

Kabat GC, et al. (1995): Relation between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in lifetime nonsmokers. Am J Epidemiol, 142:141‑148

Kalandidi A, et al. (1990): Passive Smoking and Diet in the Etiology of Lung Cancer Among Nonsmokers. Cancer Causes Control, 1:15‑21.

Klawansky S, Fox MS (1984): A growth rate distribution model for the age dependence of human cancer incidence: A proposed role for promotion in cancer of the lung and breast. J Theor Biol, 111:531‑587.

Klesges LM, et al. (1992): Discrepancies between self‑reported smoking and carboxyhemoglobin ‑ An analysis of the Second National Health and Nutrition Survey. Am J Publ Health, 82:1026‑1029.

Kluger R (1996): Ashes to Ashes: American's hundred‑year cigarette war, the public health, and the unabashed triumph of Philip Morris. A. Knopf, New York.

Ko YC, et al. (1997): Risk Factors for Primary Lung Cancer Among Non‑Smoking Women in Taiwan. Int J Epidemiol, 26:24‑31.

Koo L, et al. (1987a): Measurements of Passive Smoking and Estimates of Lung Cancer Risk Among Non‑Smoking Chinese Females. Int J Cancer, 39:162‑169.

Koo L, et al. (1997b): Dietary and Lifestyle Correlates of Passive Smoking in Hong Kong, Japan, Sweden and the USA. Soc Sci Med, 45:159‑169.

Koo L, (1988): Dietary Habits and Lung Cancer Risk Among Chinese Females in Hong Kong Who Never Smoked. Nutr Cancer, 11:155‑172.

Knekt P, et al.(1996): Elevated Lung Cancer Risk Among Persons With Depressed Mood. Am J Epidemiol, 144:1096‑1103.

Kreuzer M, Krauss M, Kreienbrock L, Jockel KH, Wichmann HE (2000): Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a case-control study in Germany. Am J Epidemiol 151:241-250.

Kulessa C, et al. (1989): Psychosocial Personality Traits and Cigarette Smoking Among Bronchial Carcinoma Patients. Stress Med, 5:37‑46.

Kvale G, et al. (1986): Occupational Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk. Int J Cancer, 37:185‑193.

Lalonde M (1974): A new perspective on the health of Canadians. Health and Welfare Canada. Ottawa. Canada.

Lam W (1985): A Clinical and Epidemiological Study of Carcinoma of Lung in Hong Kong. M.D. Dissertation, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong.

Lam T, et al. (1987): Smoking, Passive Smoking and Histological Types in Lung Cancer in Hong Kong Chinese Women. Br J Cancer, 6:673‑678.

Lange P, et al. (1990): Ventilatory Function and Chronic Mucus Hypersecretion as Predictors of Death from Lung Cancer. Am Rev Respir Dis, 141:613‑617.

Last J (1994): New pathways in an age of ecological and ethical concerns. Int J Epidemiol, 23:1‑4.

Lee PN, et al. (1986): Relationship of Passive Smoking to Risk of Lung Cancer and Other Smoking‑Associated Diseases. Br J Cancer, 54:97‑105.

Lee PN (1992): Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Mortality. Karger, Basle, Switzerland.

Lee PN (1993a): An estimate of adult mortality in the United States from passive smoking. Envir Intern, 19:91‑100.

Lee PN (1993b): An Assessment of the Epidemiological Evidence Relating Lung Cancer Risk in Never Smokers to Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure. In: Environmental Tobacco Smoke (Kasuga H, ed.): pp.28‑70. Springer‑Verlag, New York.

Lee PN, Forey B (1995): Misclassification of Smoking Habits as Determined by Cotinine or by Repeated Self‑Report ‑‑ A Summary From 42 Studies. J Smoking‑Related Dis, 6:109‑129.

Lee PN, Forey B (1996): Misclassification of Smoking Habits as a Source of Bias in the Study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer. Statistics Med, 15:581‑605.

Lee PN (1998): Difficulties in assessing the relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer. Stat Met Med Res, 7:137-163.

Lee I, Paffenbarger R (1994): Physical Activity and Its Relation to Cancer Risk. Med Sci Sport Exerc, 26:831‑837.

Lee C, Ko Y, Goggins W, Huang J, Huang M, Kao E, et al. (2000). Lifetime environmental exposure to tobacco smoke and primary lung cancer of non-smoking Taiwan women. Intl J Epidemiol 29(2):224-31.

Lees R, et al. (1987): A Case‑Control Study of Lung Cancer Relative to Domestic Radon Exposure. Int J Epidemiol, 16:7‑12.

Lei YX, et al. (1996): Some Lifestyle Factors in Human Lung Cancer: A Case‑Control Study of 792 Lung Cancer Cases. Lung Cancer, 14(Suppl.1):S121‑S136.

Le Marchand L, et al. (1989): Vegetable consumption and lung cancer risk: a population‑based case‑control study in Hawaii. JNCI, 81:1158‑1164.

Le Marchand L, et al. (1991): Dietary patterns of female nonsmokers with and without exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Cancer Cause Contr, 2:11‑16.

LeVois ME, Layard MW (1994): Inconsistencies between workplace and spousal studies of environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Regul Toxicol Pharma­col, 19:309‑316.

LeVois M, Switzer P (1998): Differential Exposure Misclassification in Case‑Control Studies of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer. J Clin Epidemiol, 51:37‑54.

Liu Q, et al. (1993): Indoor Air Pollution and Lung Cancer in Guangzhou, Peo­ple's Republic of China. Am J Epidemiol, 137:145‑154.

Liu Z, et al. (1991): Smoking and Other Risk Factors for Lung Cancer in Xuanwei, China. Int J Epidemiol, 20:25‑31.

Luik JC (1996): Smokescreen: passive smoking and public policy. Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne.

Luo RX, et al. (1996): Indoor Burning Coal Air Pollution and Lung Cancer: A Case‑Control Study in Fuzhou, China. Lung Cancer, 14(Suppl.1):S113‑119.

Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959): Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease. J Nat Cancer Inst, 22:719‑748.

Margetts BM, Jackson AA (1993): Interactions between people's diet and their smoking habits: the dietary and nutritional survey of British adults. Br Med J, 307:1381‑1384.

Matanoski G, et al. (1995): Characteristics of Nonsmoking Women in NHANES I and NHANES II Epidemiologic Follow‑Up Study With Exposure to Spouses Who Smoke. Am J Epidemiol, 142:149‑157.

Mercer RR, Crapo JD (1993): Three‑dimensional analysis of lung structure and its application to pulmonary dosimetry models. In: Toxicology of the lung, Gardner DE, et al., eds. Raven Press, New York.

Mettlin C, (1989): Milk Drinking, Other Beverage Habits, and Lung Cancer Risk. Int J Cancer, 43:608‑612.

Miesner EA, et al. (1989): Particulate and nicotine sampling in public facilities and offices. J Air Pollut Control Assoc, 39:1577‑1582.

Mumford J, et al. (1987): Lung Cancer and Indoor Air Pollution in Xuan Wei, China. Science, 235:217‑220.

NAS, (1986): National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. Envi­ronmental Tobacco Smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

NAS (1992): Responsible Science: Ensuring the integrity of the research process, Volume I. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC.

Nelson PR, et al. (1997): Composition of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) from international cigarettes and determination of ETS‑RSP:particulate marker ratios. Environ Int 23:47‑52.

Nishino Y, Tsubono Y, Tsuji I, Komatsu S, Kanemura S, Nakatsuka H, et al. (2001). Passive smoking at home and cancer risk: a population-based prospective study in Japanese nonsmoking women. Cancer Causes Cont 12(9):797-802.

Nyberg F, Agrenius V, Svartengren K, Svensson C, Pershagen G (1998a). Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in nonsmokers: does time since exposure play a role? Epidemiology 9(3):301-8.

Nyberg F, Agudo A, Boffetta P, Fortes C, Gonzalez CA, Pershagen G (1998b). A European validation study of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke exposure in nonsmoking lung cancer cases and controls. Cancer Causes Cont 9(2):173-82.

NTP (1998): Report on Carcinogens Subcommittee. Board of Scientific Counselors. National Toxicology Program. Session of December 2-3, 1998. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Nyberg F, et al. (1997): Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer ‑‑ Does Time Since Exposure Play a Role? Epidemiology, 8:S38.

Ogden MW, et al. (1997): National incidence of smoking and misclassification among U.S. married female population. J Clin Epidemiol 50:253‑263.

Ohlin P, et al. (1976): Carbon monoxide blood levels and reported cessation of smoking. Psychopharmacology (Berlin), 49:263‑265.

Oksa P, et al. (1997): Cancer Incidence and mortality among Finnish asbestos sprayers and in asbestosis and silicosis patients. Am J Ind Med, 31:693‑698.

Oldaker GB, et al. (1990): Results from surveys of environmental tobacco smoke in offices and restaurants. In: Indoor air quality. Kasuga H, ed., pp.99‑104. Springer Verlag, Berlin.

Ooi W, et al. (1986): Increased Familial Risk for Lung Cancer. J Nat Cancer Inst, 76:217‑222.

Osteen WL (1998): Order and Judgment in: Flue‑cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation et al. V. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Carol Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Winston‑Salem Division. July, 17.

Papineau D (Ed.).The philosophy of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1996.

Pastorino U, et al. (1987): Vitamin A and female lung cancer:A case‑control study on plasma and diet. Nutr Cancer, 10:171‑179.

Perbellini L, et al. (1988): Environmental and occupational exposure to benzene by analysis of breath and blood. Br J Ind Med, 45:345‑352.

Perez‑Stable E, et al. (1992): Misclassification of smoking status by self‑reported cigarette consumption. Am Rev Respir Dis, 145:53‑57.

Pershagen G, et al. (1987): Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer in Swedish Women. Am J Epidemiol, 125:17‑24.

Phillips K, et al (1994): Assessment of personal exposures to environmental tobacco smoke in British nonsmokers. Environ Int 20:693‑712.

Phillips K, et al. (1996): Assessment of air quality in Stockholm by personal monitoring of nonsmokers for respirable suspended particles and envi­ronmental tobacco smoke. Scand J Work Environ Health 22(1):1‑24.

Phillips K, et al (1997a): Assessment of air quality in Barcelona by personal monitoring of nonsmokers for respirable suspended particles and envi­ronmental tobacco smoke. Environ Int 23:173‑196.

Phillips K, et al (1997b): Assessment of air quality in Turin by personal monitoring of nonsmokers for respirable suspended particles and envi­ronmental tobacco smoke. Environ Int 23:851‑871.

Phillips K, et al. (1998): Assessment of environmental tobacco smoke and respirable suspended particle exposures for nonsmokers in Prague using personal monitoring. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 71:379‑390.

Pollack E. et al. (1984): Prospective Study of Alcohol Consumption and Cancer. N Engl J Med, 310:617‑621.

Potter J, et al. (1992): Alcohol, Beer and Lung Cancer in Post‑menopausal Women: The Iowa Women Health Study. Ann Epidemiol, 2:587‑595.

Proctor CJ, et al. (1989):Measurement of environmental tobacco smoke in an air‑conditioned office building. In: Present and future of indoor air quality. Bieva CJ, et al., eds., pp.169‑172. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Proctor CJ (1990): Measurement of ETS on smoking allowed and smoking pro­hibited public buses. In: Indoor air quality and ventilation. Luna F, Reynolds GL, eds., pp.427‑436. Selper, London.

Rachtan J (2002). Smoking, passive smoking and lung cancer cell types among women in Poland. Lung Cancer 35(2):129-36.

Radon Research Act (1986): Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act of 1986. Pub. L. No. 99‑499, 100 Stat.1758‑60. Codified 1994 at U.S.C. 5‑7401 note. 

Raffin E, et al. (1993): Incidence of Lung Cancer by Histological Type Among Asbestos Cement Workers in Denmark. Br J Ind Med, 50:85‑89.

Rapiti E, Jindal SK, Gupta D, Boffetta P (1999): Passive smoking and lung cancer in Chandigarh, India . Lung Cancer (Ireland) 23:183-189.

Reilly WE (1991): Memorandum from William E. Reilly, Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency, to Louis W. Sullivan, Secretary, US Depart­ment of Health and Human Services, July 2, 1991. US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington DC.

Redhead C, Rowberg R (1995): Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk, US Congressional Research Service, US Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

Rodgman A (1992): Environmental tobacco smoke. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 16:223‑224.

Rosenberg WG (1991): Assistant EPA Administrator for Air and Radiation. Letter to Erich Bretthauer, Assistant EPA Administrator for Research and Develop­ment, October 7, 1991. Letter to Donald G. Barnes, Director, EPA Science Advi­sory Board, June 28, 1991.

Rosenberg L (1994): Induced abortion and breast cancer: More scientific data are needed. J Nat Cancer Inst, 86:1569‑1570.

Rothman KJ (1982): Causation and causal inference. In: Cancer epidemiology and prevention. Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF, eds. pp. 15‑22. WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia.

Rothman KJ (1986): Modern Epidemiology. Little, Brown & Co, Boston.

Rylander R, (1996): Lung Cancer, Smoking, and Diet Among Swedish Men. Lung Cancer 14(Supp.1):S75‑83.

Sakurai R, et al. (1989): Prognosis of Female Patients With Pulmonary Tuberculo­sis. Japan J Med, 28:471‑477.

Samet J, et al. (1986): Personal and Family History of Respiratory Disease and Lung Cancer Risk. Am Rev Respir Dis, 134:466‑470.

Samet JM (1992): Environmental tobacco smoke. In: Environmental toxicants. Lippmann M, ed. Van Nostrand & Reinhold, New York.

Sankaranarayanan R, et al. (1994): A Case‑Control Study of Diet and Lung Cancer in Kerala, South India. Int J Med, 58:644‑649.

Saracci R (1995): Ethical Issues in Assessing Scientific Evidence. Medicina del Lavoro, 86:174‑177.

Schwartz A, et al. (1996): Familial risk of lung cancer among nonsmokers and their Relatives. Am J Epidemiol, 144:554‑562.

SCOTH (1998): Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. Department of Health. Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland. The Scottish Office Department of Health. Welsh Office. The Stationery Office. London.

Severson R, et al. (1989): A Prospective Analysis of Physical Activity and Cancer. Am J Epidemiol, 130:522‑529.

Shapiro S (1997): Is Meta‑Analysis a Valid Approach to the Evaluation of Small Effects in Observational Studies? J Clin Epidemiol, 50:223‑229.

Schaffner KF (1991): Causing harm: Epidemiological and physiological concepts of causation. In: Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management. Mayo DG, Hollander RD, eds. Oxford University Press, New York.

Shapiro S (1998): Is meta‑analysis a valid approach to the evaluation of small effects? In: Epidemiological practices in research on small effects. Hoffmann H, Szklo M, Thamm M, eds. Springer Verlag, Berlin.

Sheldon LS, et al. (1989): An investigation of infiltration and indoor air quality. Final report to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Albany, New York.

Shen XB, et al. (1996): Relationship of Passive Smoking and Pulmonary Adeno­carcinoma in Non‑Smoking Women ‑‑ A Case Control Study in Nanjing, P.R. China. Epidemiology, 7:S20.

Shimizu H, et al. (1998): A Case Control Study of Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Women. Tohoku J Exper Med, 154:389‑397.

Shy C, (1984): Air Pollution and Lung Cancer. In: Lung Cancer: Causes and Prevention (Mizell M, Correa P, eds.), pp. 65‑72. Verlag Chemie International, Berlin.

Sidney S, et al. (1989): Dietary intake of carotene in nonsmokers with and with­out passive smoking at home. Am J Epidemiol, 129:1305‑1309.

Sillett RW, et al. (1978): Deception among smokers. Br Med J, 2:1185‑1186.

Sobue T, et al. (1990): Association of Indoor Air Pollution and Passive Smoking With Lung Cancer in Osaka, Japan. Japan J Cancer Clin, 36:329‑333.

Spengler JD, et al. (1981): Long‑term measurement of respirable sulphates and particles inside and outside homes. Atmos Environ, 15:23‑30.

Spengler JD, et al. (1985): Personal exposure to respirable particulates and impli­cations for air pollution epidemiology. Environ Sci Technol, 19:700‑707.

Steenland K (1992): Passive smoking and the risk of heart disease. JAMA, 267:94‑99.

Sterling TD, Sterling EM (1983): Investigations on the effect of regulating smok­ing on levels of indoor pollution and on the perception of health and comfort of office workers. Eu J Respir Dis, 65:(Supp.133):17‑32.

Sterling EM, et al. (1996): Assessment of nonsmoker exposure to environmental tobacco smoke using personal‑exposure and fixed‑location monitoring. Indoor Build Environ 5:112‑125. 

Stockwell HG, et al. (1992): Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk in nonsmoking women. JNCI, 84:1417‑1422.

Stookey GK, et al. (1987): Evaluation of biochemical validation measures in determination of smoking status. J Dent Res, 66:1597‑1601.

Stolwijk JAJ (1993): Statement: Transcript of the July 15, 1993 ETS session, Toxi­cology Forum, Aspen, Colorado. Toxicology Forum, Washington DC.

Sullum J (1998): For your own good, The Free Press, New York.

Sun X, et al. (1996): Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS): and Lung Cancer Among Nonsmoking Women in Harbin, China. Lung Cancer, 14(Suppl.1):S237.

Svensson C, et al. (1989): Smoking and Passive Smoking in Relation to Lung Cancer in Women. Acta Oncologica, 28:623‑629.

Teel RW, Castonguay A (1992): Antimutagenic effects of polyphenolic com­pounds. Cancer Lett, 66:107‑113.

Teich AH, Frankel MS (1992): Good science and responsible scientists. Meeting the challenge of fraud and misconduct in science. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC.

Tenkanen L, et al. (1987): Smoking and Cardiac Symptoms as Predictors of Lung Cancer. J Chronic Dis, 40:1121‑1128.

Thornton A, et al. (1994): Differences between smokers, exsmokers, passive smokers, and nonsmokers. J Clin Epidemiol, 47:1143‑1162.

Thune I, Lund E (1997): The Influence of Physical Activity on Lung Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study of 81,516 Men and Women. Int J Cancer, 70:57‑62.

Trichopoulos D, et al. (1981): Lung Cancer and Passive Smoking. Int J Cancer, 27:1‑4.

Trichopoulos D, et al. (1983): Lung Cancer and Passive Smoking: Conclusion of Greek Study. Lancet, 2:677‑678.

Tsuda T, et al. (1995): Ingested Arsenic and Internal Cancer: A Historical Cohort Followed for 33 Years. Am J Epidemiol, 141:198‑209.

van Loon A, et al. (1997): Socioeconomic Status and Lung Cancer Incidence in Men in the Netherlands: Is There a Role for Occupational Exposure? J Epidemiol Commun. Health, 51:24‑29.

USEPA (1986): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Fed Reg 51:185:33993‑34003; September 24

USEPA (1989): Indoor air facts No.5. Environmental tobacco smoke. US Envi­ronmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and Radiation. ANR‑445. June 1989. Washington DC.

USEPA (1990a): United States Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Assessment of lung cancer in adults and respiratory disor­ders in children. Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.

USEPA (1990b): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document for the 1990 Citizens Guide to Radon. USEPA. Office of Radiation Programs, Radon Division. August 16, 1990, Washington, DC.

USEPA (1992a): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Science Advisory Board, Environmental Tobacco Smoke Review Panel. July 21‑22, 1992. Crystal City Holiday Inn, Arlington, VA 22202. Transcript from: Barrera Associates Inc., 733 15th Street NW, Suite 1120, Washington DC.

USEPA (1992b): United States Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung Cancer and other Disorders. May 1992. Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.

USEPA (1992c): United States Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking. Lung cancer and other disorders. December 1992. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

USEPA (1992d): United States Environmental Protection Agency. Reviews of the EPA‑ETS report by the EPA Environmental Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH: Memorandum of April 27, 1990 from Chris DeRosa to William Farland. Memo­randum of March 24, 1992 from Terry Harvey to Linda Bailey‑Becht. US Envi­ronmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.

USEPA (1992e): United States Environmental Protection Agency. Safeguarding the future: credible science, credible decisions. The report of an expert panel on the role of science at EPA. EPA/600/9‑91/050. March 1992. Office of the Admin­istrator. Washington, DC.

USEPA (1994): Setting the record straight: Second hand smoke is a preventable health risk. EPA Publication 402‑F‑94‑005. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,DC

USEPA (1996): Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment; Notice. Fed Reg 61, No.79:17960‑18011

USOSHA (1994): US Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Indoor air quality; Proposed Rule. Fed Reg 59(65):, April 5, 1994:15969‑16039.

USSG (1964): Smoking and health. Report of the advisory committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service ‑Publication No.1103., Washing­ton, DC

USSG (1972): The health consequences of smoking. A report of the Surgeon General: 1972. DHEW Publication No. HSM 72‑7516. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Washington, DC.

USSG (1975): The health consequences of smoking 1975.DHEW Publication No. CDC 76‑8704. US Department of Health Education and Welfare. Public Health Service. Center for Disease Control. Atlanta, GA.

USSG (1979): Smoking and health: A report of the Surgeon General. DHEW publication No. (PHS):79‑50066. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Washington DC.

USSG (1982): The health consequences of smoking: Cancer. A report of the Surgeon General. US Department of Health and Human Services. Office on Smoking and Health, Rockville, MD.

USSG (1984): The health consequences of smoking: Chronic obstructive lung diseases. A report of the Surgeon General. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC.

USSG (1986): The health consequences of involuntary smoking, a report of the Surgeon General. US Public Health Service, Rockville MD.

USSG (1989): Reducing the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress. A report of the Surgeon General. DHHS publication No. CDC 89‑8411. US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Center for Disease Control. Atlanta GA.

USSG (1993): The health consequences of smoking: Cardiovascular diseases. A report of the Surgeon general. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC.

Van Loy M, et al., (1997): Dynamic behavior of semivolatile organic compounds in indoor air. Nicotine in a stainless steel chamber. Environ Sci Technol 31:2554‑2561.

Van Duuren BL (1980): Carcinogens, cocarcinogens, and tumor inhibitors in cigarette smoke condensate. In: A safe cigarette? Gori GB, Bock FG, eds. pp. 105‑112. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.

Wagenknecht LE, et al. (1992): Misclassification of smoking status in the CARDIA study ‑ A comparison of self‑report with serum cotinine levels. Am J Publ Health, 82:33‑36.

Wald NJ, et al. (1981): Serum cotinine levels in pipe smokers: Evidence against nicotine as a cause of coronary heart disease. Lancet 10:775‑777.

Wang FL, et al. (1994): Childhood and Adolescent Passive Smoking and the Risk of Female Lung Cancer. Int J Epidemiol, 23:223‑230.

Wang FL, et al. (1996): A Case‑Control Study of Childhood and Adolescent Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS): and the Risk of Female Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer, 14(Suppl.1):S238.

Wang SY, et al. (1996): A Comparative Study of the Risk Factors for Lung Cancer in Guangdong, China. Lung Cancer, 14(Suppl.1):S99‑S105.

Wang SY, Hu YL, Wu YL, Li X, Chi GB, Chen Y, et al. (1996a). A comparative study of the risk factors for lung cancer in Guangdong, China. Lung Cancer 14 Suppl 1:S99-105.

Wang TJ, et al. (1996): Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Chinese Women: A Case‑Control Study. Lung Cancer, 14(Suppl.1):S93‑S98.

Wang TJ, Zhou BS (1997): Meta‑Analysis of the Potential Relationship Between Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Chinese Women. Lung Cancer, 16:145‑15O.

Wang L, Lubin JH, Zhang SR, Metayer C, Xia Y, Brenner A, et al. (2000). Lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke in a non-industrial area of China. Intl J Cancer 88(1):139-45.

Weed DL, Kramer BS (1997): Breast cancer studies aren't "political". The Wall Street Journal March 26:A19

Wu A, et al. (1985): Smoking and Other Risk Factors for Lung Cancer in Women. J Nat Cancer Inst, 74:747‑751.

Wu A, et al. (1988): Personal and Family History of Lung Disease as Risk Factors for Adenocarcitoma of the Lung. Cancer Res, 48:7279‑7284.

Wu‑Williams A, et al. (1990): Lung Cancer Among Women in NorthEast China. Br Med J, 62:982‑987.

Wynder EL (1987): Workshop on guidelines to the epidemiology of weak associa­tions. Prev Med, 16:139‑141.

Wynder EL, et al. (1987): Association of Dietary Fat and Lung Cancer. J Nat Cancer Inst, 79:631‑637.

Wynder EL (1990): Epidemiological Issues in Weak Associations. Int J Epidemiol, 19(Suppl.1):S5‑7.

Wu A, et al. (1985): Smoking and Other Risk Factors for Lung Cancer in Women. J Nat Cancer Inst. 74:747‑751.

Wu A, et al. (1988): Personal and Family History of Lung Disease as Risk Factors for Adenocarcinoma of the Lung. Cancer Res, 48:7279‑84.

Xu Z, et al. (1989): Smoking, Air Pollution, and High Rates of Lung Cancer in Shenyang, China. J Nat Cancer Inst, 6:1800‑1806.

Ye Z, et al. (1990): The Environmental Factors of Lung Cancer in Family Women. Tianjin Chin J Clin Oncol, 17:195‑198.

Yong L, et al. (1997): Intake of Vitamins E, C, and A and Risk of Lung Cancer: The NHANES‑I Epidemiologic Followup Study, First National Health and Nutri­tion Examination Survey II. Am J Epidemiol, 146:321‑343.  

Yu S, Zhao N (1996): Combined Analysis of Case‑Control Studies of Smoking and Lung Cancer in China. Lung Cancer, 14(Suppl.1):S161‑170.

Yu ZF, et al. (1996): Environmental Factors and Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer, 14(Suppl.1):S240‑241.

Zaridze D, et al. (1994): Relation Between Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Non‑Smoking Women in Moscow. Exper Oncol, 16:441‑445.

Zhu H, Wang Z (1993): Study of Occupational Lung Cancer in Asbestos Factories in China. Br J Ind Med, 50:1039‑1042.

Ziegler R, et al. (1986): Carotenoid Intake, Vegetables, and the Risk of Lung Cancer Among White Men in New Jersey. Am J Epidemiol, 123:1080‑1093.

Zhong L, Goldberg MS, Gao YT, Jin F (1999): A case-control study of lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke among nonsmoking women living in Shanghai, China. Cancer Causes and Control 10:607-616.

 

Chi siamo
Il Comitato d'Onore
Domande frequenti (FAQ)
La piattaforma politica
Aiutaci a lottare
Sedi locali e siti affiliati

MOTORE DI RICERCA INTERNO

Abbonamenti e contatti

Contattaci
Diventa socio
Abbonamento FORCES/Enclave
Come sarà speso il tuo denaro
Clicca qui per ricevere
la newsletter gratuita
Materiali promozionali

Gli opinionisti

Alberto Mingardi
Carlo Stagnaro
Hugh High
Pierre Lemieux
Gian Turci
Il tabacchino - T. Rea
L'angolo di Zia Maria
Antonio Nicoletta

Le librerie

La libreria Italiana
La libreria internazionale

Archivi e altro

Archivio edizioni
Links
Rassegna stampa