smoking and something else

Smoking And Something Else:

Professor Simon Wolff, Toxicologist,Explains How Diesel Can Give Smokers Lung Cancer,And A Biologically Ignorant But Numerate LaymanDissects The Specious Claptrap OfThe World's Most Eminent Cancer Specialist,Professor Sir Richard Doll,

And Explains Why He Received The General Motors Cancer PrizeIn 1979

Smoking And Something Else:

Professor Simon Wolff, ToxicologisfExplains How Diesel Can Give Smokers Lung Cancer,And A Biologically Ignorant But Numerate LaymanDissects The Specious Claptrap 0fThe World's Most Eminent Cancer Specialist,Professor Sir Richard Doll,

And Explains Why He Received The General Motors Cancer PrizeIn1979

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

http://www.cvisiontech.com/

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Baron, AlexanderSmoking and Something Else:ProfessorSimon Wolff, Toxicologist, Explains HowDiesel Can Give Smokers Lung Cancer, anda Biologically Ignorant But NumerateLayman Dissects the Specious Claptrap ofthe World's Most Eminent CancerSpecialist, Professor Sir Richard Doll,and Explains Why He Received the GeneralMotors Cancer Prize in 1979I. Title616.99

ISBN 1-871473-66-7

Br i t ish L ibrary Cata loguing in Publ icat ion Data

Baron, A lexanderSrnoking and Someth ing Else:ProfessorSimon Wol f f , Tox ico logis t , Expla ins HowDiesel Can Give Smokers Lung Cancer , anda Bio log ica l ly Ignorant But NumerateLayman Dissects the Specious Claptrap ofthe Wor ld 's Most Eminent CancerSpec ia l i s t , P ro fesso r S i r R i cha rd Do I l ,and Explains Why He Received the GeneralMotors Cancer Pr i -ze in \979I . T i t I e6L6 .99

rsBN L -87L473-66 -7



Smoking And Something Else: Professor Simon WofJ Toxicologist, Explains How Diesel Can Give Smokers Lung Cancer, And A Biologically Ignorant But Numerate

Layman Dissects The Specious Claptrap Of The World's Most Eminent Cancer Spe- cialist, Professor Sir Richard Doll, And Explains Why He Received The General Mo-

tors Cancer Prize In 1979

Preface

Up until fairly recently, like the majority of the adult population, I believed that the major cause of lung cancer in our society, indeed, the major cause of cancer per Se,

was cigarette smoking. Tobacco. Being a lifelong non-smoker and a virulent anti- smoker I was also of the opinion that smoking should be banned, tobacco factory

owners shot and smokers ostracised like the social lepers they are.

Living in one of the greatest cities in the world, one is struck by the paradox of pov- erty amidst plenty. I am often struck also by the curious priorities some people place

on creature comforts, not least of all the demon weed. A few years ago I wrote the following poem about this.

A Question Of Priorities

When walking through the Underground I came upon a man Who had his face not been so red, I'm sure would have looked wan.

Propped upright in a corner, cider bottle on the floor, He stood up as I passed by, saying: Please sir, help the poor.

As I was going nowhere fast, I stopped and turned to him; His clothes were filthy rags, his eyes were wild, his face was grim; He held out a scorbutic hand and repeated his plea:

Take pity on a beggar, sir, he said accusingly.

I smiled at him as best I could: Have you been sleeping rough? These last eight years, replied the fellow, and it's mighty tough.

And when was the last time you ate? said I; he shook his head: The day 'fore yesterday, I think, a crust or two of bread.

My hand reached for my wallet, an act I would soon regret; He took the note and said: Thanks, I'd kill for a cigarette. 'a$aJBAlJ € roJ IIpl p,I '$luuql :plus puu alou aql {ool aH

!1e.r8a.r uoos plno,r I IJB u€ !a11e,r,r du.ro; per{JBaJ pueq r(tr41

'peaJq Jo oArl Jo lsnJJ e t{ulttl 1 tr(ep.ralsar( aro;, dup aq;,:puot{ slq )tooqs aq i1p1us ;a1e nod arull lsBI aql sE^\ uaq^{ puY

'q8no1 fiq8pu s.ll puu (,r,r.o11ay aql paqda.r (srua,{ lqqa lsul asaqJ

lq8no.r 3u1daa1s uaaq nod a^sH :plnor I lsaq sB rulq lB palpus I

'f18u1snccu plus eq (r1s tru88aq u uo dltd a{e;,:ea1d qq paleeda: puu puurl rllnqrors € lno ptaq aH

lrurr8 suna aJ€J slq tpg,lr ala,t sa,ta s1q (s8er riqlg aJa,'ll sarllolJ sIlItrurq ol pauJnl pue paddols 1

(1seg araqa{ou 3u1o8 suia I sV

'rood aql dlaq (.qs asea14 :8ur,tes (dq passed 1 su dn pools eH6roo1g erll uo aliloq Japlr (JauJoJ u ul lq8rrdn paddor;

'ue/a pa>lool a^sq plnolr aJns tu6l 'pa.r os ueeq lou eJBJ slq perl orl1tusru e uodn etueJ l punor8rapun aql q8norq13up11u,u uarl!\

sauuoud {o uottsano v

'qql lnoqe uraod 3u1,uo11o;aql aloJ/a 1 o8e s.reaf ,ral V 'paa/a uoluep aql IIB Jo lsual 1ou tqro;ruot aJnlBeJJ uoaceld aldoad aluos sa111rogd snoIJnJ erll dq osle {JnJls ua}Jo uru 1

',(1ua1d 1sp1utu,{ga-,tod;o xopu.rud aql dq {cnJN s.r auo {ppo,r,r eql q seIlIJ lsaluar8 aql Jo euo u1 Suu11

'aru ,{aq1 sradal IsIJos eql a{11 pasloerlso sJe{orus pue loqs sJaultodrolcu; orJ€qol (pauuuq aq ptnoqs 3u11otus ltrll uoruIdo aql Jo oq€ su^r I Ja{ours-IluB lualnrl^ € pu€ Ja{ous-uou 3uo1a;11 u 3u1eg 'oJJBqoI '8up1ours a11a.ru31c su,ra.as .rad JeJuBJ Jo esneJ .rofuru aq1 'paapu-r (r(1a1cos Jno u[ JaJuuJ 3un1yo esnuJ rofuurortl t€rp pe^alaq 1 tuollulndod 11npe eql Jo dlr.roferu eql ery 'f11uaca.r ,{I4eJ glun d1

ar0latd

6l6t uI azud raruDJ sro,-oIN lnrauag aqJ pa^lacay aH tqy4, sutoldxg puv'llo(I pruqtly 49 nssapt1 isgolc-adg ncuo3 tuaunufl tsory s&lro1t aqJ {O do4do73 snotcadg aqJ stxasslq uou{o7aprawnN rng tuDrouSl {goc18o4otg v puy 2acun3 3un7 sra4ous aqy UDJ psalquog suro1dxg 'tsy$o1oc1xotr'IfioU uou4s -rossa{ot1 :aslg SurqtautoS puy 3u14outg



SMOKING AND SOMETHING ELSE

Yes, it doesn't scan properly, but all the same, I thought it was rather cute when Iwrote it. I sent it to a clergyman with whom I'd had a rather lengthy and ultimatelyfutile correspondence. Vicars are paid to be fools and to save souls, but I am not. Itwas only quite recently that I realised just what a terrible indictment of yours trulythis poem really is; where once I was proud, now Fm almost ashamed to have writ-ten it. In spite of my more or less lifelong loathing of socialism, I was in reality per-petuating just the sort of claptrap socialists and other collectivists perpetuate underthe guise of the "common good. The argument goes something like this: there aresome things in our society which are too dangerous for the common people, theplebs, to do or to use. So such practices and substances must be eradicated. This spe-cious argument is used to attempt to deny (often successfully) all manner of fun-damental freedoms from freedom of speech (1) to the right to engage in voluntarytransactions which, although they might revolt the majority of the public, are nobusiness of anyone but the parties involved. (2)

But who decides what these substances and practices are? The unelected, self-per-petuating socialist "elitet' of course. The end result of this is empire-building, to wit,the construction of a vast (and totally unaccountable) bureaucracy and the slow butsure strangulation of both civil liberties and productive economic activity. This bure-aucracy can, and does, find more and more areas of our lives to regulate, and inorder to do that, bankrolled as it is by the, for all practical purposes, limitless fundsof the state (ie your tax money!), it can and does create moral panics, whip up mediahysteria, and fabricate "junk science" to serve its own ends on the pretext of servingthe "common good".

As Ayn Rand so tellingly pointed out, there is no common good. Those who wouldpreserve human rights must preserve minority rights, and the smallest minority onEarth is the individual. (3) Without individual rights there are no rights at all, onlyconcentration camps and Gulags, or, as is increasingly the case in Britain, the cre-ation of a cotton wool or "nanny state". (4)

However, the issue that originally attracted me to the smoking debate was not themoral argument: there is no moral argument. As Chris Tame and every other mem-ber of the Libertarian Alliance will point out, in a free society, no one has the rightto tell an informed, half-intelligent adult human being what he or she can do with hisor her body, and that includes sticking obnoxious chemicals in one's mouth, up one'snose, and in one's arm. We do not however live in a free society, furthermore, we arenot informed, rather we are misinformed. I will go further than that and state un-categorically that we are being lied to. Specifically we are being lied to by the anti-smoking lobby, by the health and safety lobby, by the cancer industry, and, mostprobably by its paymasters as well.

SMOI{NG AND SOMETHING ELSE

ies, it doesn't scan properly, but all the same, I thought it was rather cute when Iwrote it. I sent it to a clergyman with whom I'd had a rather lengthy and ultimatelyfutile correspondence. Vicars are paid to be fools and to save souls, but I am not. Itwas only quite recently that I realised just what a terrible indictment of yours trulythis poem really is; where once I was proud, now I'm almost ashamed to have writ-ten iL In spite of my more or less lifelong loathing of socialism, I was in reality per-petuating just the sort of claptrap socialists and other collectivists perpetuate underthe guise of the "common good". The argument goes something like this: there aresome things in our society which are too dangerous for the common people, theplebs, to do or to use. So such practices and substances must be eradicated. This spe-cious argument is used to attempt to deny (often successfully) all manner of fun-damental freedoms from freedom of speech (1) to the right to engage in voluntarytransactions which, although they might revolt the majority of the public, are nobusiness of anyone but the parties involved. (2)

But who decides what these substances and practices are? The unelected, self-per-petuating socialist "elite" of course. The end result of this is empire-building, to wit,the construction of a vast (and totally unaccountable) bureaucracy and the slow butsure strangulation of both civil liberties and productive economic activity. This bure-aucracy can, and does, find more and more areas of our lives to regulate, and inorder to do that bankrolled as it is by the, for all practical purposes, limitless fundsof the state (ie your tax money!), it can and does create moral panics, whip up mediahysteria, and fabricate "junk science" to serve its own ends on the pretexi of servingthe "common good".

As Ayn Rand so tellingly pointed ou! there is no common good. Those who wouldpreserYe human rights must preserve minority rights, and the smallest minority onEarth is the individual. (3) Without individual rights there are no rights at all, onlyconcentration camps and Gulags, or, as is increasingly the case in Britain, the cre-ation of a cotton wool or "nanny state". (4)

However, the issue that originally attracted me to the smoking debate was not themoral argument: there is no moral argument. As Chris Tame and every other mem-ber of the Libertarian Alliance will point out, in a free society, no one has the rightto tell an informed, half-intelligent adult human being what he or she can do with hisor her body, and that includes sticking obnoxious chemicals in one,s mouth, up one'snose, and in one's arm. We do not however live in a free society, furthermore, we arenot informed, rather we are misinformed. I will go further than that and state un-categorically that we are being lied to.'specifically we are being lied to by the anti-smoking lobby, by the health and safety lobby, by the cancer industry, and, mostprobably by its paymasters as well.

,,'




SmokingAnd Mortality - The Figures Don'tAdd Up

On Saturday, 7th March 1992, I attended a conference organised by FOREST (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco). (5) The Director

of FOREST, Chris Tame, is a leading Libertarian and Secretary of the Libertarian Alliance. I first met Tame c1982 but didn't meet up with him again until the start of

the 90s. Tame, who joined FOREST as Campaign Director in 1989, (6) is a non- smoker, fitness fanatic and vitamin freak. He has always stated categorically that he defends the right to smoke purely on Libertarian grounds, and that he is not inter-

ested either in denying or minimalising the risks associated with smoking. However, the more he looks at the evidence, the more he is convinced that we are being led up the garden path. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? That was my view too, until I

heard Simon Wolff speak.

Professor Simon Wolff has been Lecturer in Toxicology at University College Lon- don since 1986. When he isn't lecturing, he works in the Laboratory of Toxicology at the Rayne Institute, which is part of the Department of Medicine, University of

Middlesex School of Medicine. His academic qualifications are impressive, among other things he has degrees in biochemistry from Oxford and has carried out post-

doctoral research at Brunel University.

Now, you can dismiss a civil libertarian as biologically ignorant, (7) but not a lecturer in toxicology. After the conference I rang Professor Wolff and went clown to

interview him at his laboratory. Some time later, I sent the transcript to Edward Goldsmith, founder and one-time editor of The Ecologist. (8) Subsequently he

phoned me, said he was impressed with what Simon Wolff had to say, and that I might finch it enlightening to come down to his office some time and browse through

a couple of his files. I did. And I didn't like what I found.

So, what is the argument that attracted me to the smoking/cancer controversy? Specifically it is this. If an adult human being wants to put poisonous substances in

his (or her) mouth, or bloodstream, that is his decision and his decision alone. He should be allowed to do what he wants with two caveats:

that he does not harm others. that as well as enjoying the rewards of his folly, (9) he also takes the consequen-

ces. (10)

But what about people who do not wish to inject poisons into their bloodstream? Or to breathe them?

The role of air pollution, specifically diesel fumes, in the propagation of lung

cancer, has been greatly played down if not ignored entirely, although the connection has been known for some considerable time. Writing as long ago as 1959, Stocks sltrols '656I se o8e 3uo1 su 3u111.tr11 'aull alqeraplsuoc atuos JoJ u,t{ou1 uaaq ssq uol}

-cauuoJ aq1 q8noqllu (,{1a.rJ1ua parou8g lou JI u^rop pa,(qd ,{11uar3 ueeq suq .JatusJ

3un1 ;o uollu8udo.rd aql ug (saruny lasaIp ,(lpcgtcads 'uopn11od .ryu Jo aIoJ aIlJ

;uaql aql€erq ol ro

iuuaJlspoolq Jlaqt olq suosJod 1oa[u1 ol qq,tr lou op oq,u, aldoad lnoqu tuq^{ lnfl

(61)'sac-uanbasuoJ aql sa{Bl oslu aq (C) 'dgo; s1q Jo spremar aq1 8u1rto[ua sB [Ia^{ su 1uq1 (q

'sraqlo urrutl lou saop aq 1uq1 (u

:slue^€r o,r$ qll^r sluB^r eq lBq^r op ol pe/lrollu eq plnoqseH'auolu uolqrap slq puu uolslrap qq q 1eq1 tuua.rlspoolq ro rqlnour (raq ro) qqu! saouulsqns snouosrod lnd ol sluuAr 3u1aq uuunq llnps uB JI 's!qt s 1r ,{1uc.g1cadg1,{s.ra,ro.r1uoc racuucBuplorus aqt of aru palJuJlls luql luaun8ru aql s! 1uq,Lr rog

'punoJ I l€q,$ ary l,uplp I puv'plp I'saIU sFI;o aldnor uq8no.rql esarorq puu aull oruos argJo slq ol uarop aruor o1 Eurualq8Jpa 1r pug lq8yuI luql puu (r(es ol pur{ JIIoAI uotuls }Btlar qll^{. passardrul su,t aq plus (au pauoqdaq ,illuanbasqns (g) 'tsgSo1org aUJ Jo rolrpe eull-auo puu rapunoy (qlpusplog

pru^rpg o1 1d1rcsue4 eql lues I (ra1q aull etuos 'r(roluroqul slq lB rulrl iae!^ra]u!ol uaop lue,rr puu JJIoAI JossaJord Suur 1 eruereJuor aql JaIJV '.,{3o1oruo1 u-r Jarn}-ral B tou lnq (4) luu.touft r(1pc1Eololq s€ uEIrBUaqq I^Ir B sslruqp uuc no,{ t,noN

'd11sra,l;ug leunJg lu rlJJBasaJ lurolJop-1sod 1no palrruc surl pus proJxo ruor; d.rlquaqcoJq u1 saa.r8ap suq aq s8u1q1 raqloEuouru (a,rgssa.rdru! eJB suollucgllenb cluapuru sIH 'eulrlpatr{ Jo looqcs xasa1ppll trgo ,{11s:a,r1u1 {eulclpal4l Jo luarugudaq aqt ;o 1.rud s! qclqa 'a1n111su1 au,(ug eq11u,(EolorlxoJJo d.rolu.roqu-1aql q $Irora aq 'Eul.rn1cel l6usl aq uaq1\ '996I aJuls uop-uo1aEa11o3 {11sra,rpg 1e I8o1oclxoJ uI rarnlryf uaeq surlJJIoAt uoru1s rossaJord

'4uads JJIoA{. uoruls pruaqI Ulun

(oo1 ,rapr du su,ra lBqJ aeq l6uplno^r (1uq1 dus pFo^r aq tlla1yrllud uap.ru8 aq1dn pe1 8ulaq eJB a^r lsql paculauor s! aq a.rotu aq1 (acuapr^a aql lB $[ool aq eroru eql(.ra,re,ro11 'Suryorus qlpr palulrosss s{slr eql 8u1q1eu1ulru Jo Eu$uap u! rarltla palsa-ralu! lou q aq lsql puu (spuno.rE uul.regaqll uo dla.rnd a{orus ol lq8lr aql spuaJapaq lBrll ,(gucl.roEa1Br pelqs sdenlu s€rl eH .)IBaJJ ulrus:ll^ puB JpBuuJ sseulu (raqorus-uou B sI O) t6B6I u! rolrarlq u3ludruu3 sB JSf,UOg paulof oq,n 'aruul 's06 eqlJo UBls eql Ulun uguSe rup{ r{ll,rr dn laau l6up;p lnq Zg6Ir erual laur lsrg I'aruulllvuslrBiloqla eql Jo r(.rqe.rce5 puB uulr€uaqlT Eulpual u s.r (atuel s.rrrtr3 tJsf,uof, Jorolrarl11 aq;, G) '(occeqog Buplour5 ,(o[ug or rqBIU eql roJ uo11uquu3.r6 uopae.rg)JStrUOg dq paquuS.ro acuara;uor u papuapu I'266T rIrrBI I q1tr 'r{up.rn1us uO

dn ppV t,uoq satn8rfl aqJ - &nnuary puv Sut4otag3s'tf oN|HISNOS ONV 9NtyOU\S




stated that, [r]esidents in large towns of England and Wales have always been sub-ject to higher death rates than country dwellers... [t]wo diseases for which the urbanexcess is very pronounced are bronchitis and lung cancer..." (11) Okay, we don'thave pea-soupers anymore, but there are more cars and lorries on the road nowthan ever, more planes in the air, and literally thousands of chemicals being releasedinto the enviromnent, many of them of very recent genesis and, therefore, their long-term effects on human beings as on the rest of the eco-system are totally unknown.

On 7th April 1993, I travelled to Oxford where I interviewed Professor Sir RichardDoll, who is hailed as one of the world's leading experts on cancer, if not the leadingexpert. (12) Sir Richard, a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed eighty-one year old, stateduncategorically that smoking and smoking alone is responsible for 150,000 prema-ture deaths a year in Britain. (13) This is nearly double the figure issued by theHealth Education Council in its 1986 fifteen volume monstrosity The Big Kill. (14)And it is three times the figure given by Dr David Owen in 1977 when he stated that"50,000 deaths in the United Kingdom were due to smoking, and could have beenprevented by people stopping smoking." (15) Such figures are, from my experience,plucked out of thin air; more charitably, Professor Eysenck says they are "extrapo-lations from epidemiological evidence...and have no scientific meaning of any kind.

Just how correct is that statement was vindicated by the late Professor Burch, whoproduced a devastating critique of The Big Kill, demonstrating it to be total non-sense. (17) Burch commented that "The biologically ignorant but numerate readermight be forgiven for concluding that epidemiology is not only a rigorous science butan incredibly accurate one, with an implied error in mortality estimates of less thanone part in 77,774." (18)

I certainly qualify as biologically ignorant. Numerate? Well, I did one year of ALevel; I didn't get much further than quadratic equations, but my mathematics isgood enough to tackle this. Here is my analysis:

In 1990, (the latest year for which figures are available at the time of writing), thetotal number of deaths in the UK was 641,799, (314,601 men and 327,198 women).(19) Professor Doll would have us believe that 150,000 of these deaths, - that's 23.4%- are premature and due to smoking. But that is not the whole story. Of the 314.601male deaths in 1990, 41,103 were of men aged 85 years and over. Whilst any death isregrettable, a man who dies aged eighty-five cannot in any meaningful sense be saidto have died prematurely. Because women live longer than men, a great many moreof them survive to a great age. In 1990, 101,421 of the recorded female deaths wereof the age group 85+. When one deducts both these figures from the total, one is leftwith 499,275 deaths. If 150,000 of these deaths are "premature and due to smoking",that makes a total of 30.04%. But we are still not finished.

SMOK]NG AND SOMETHING ELSE

rtut.a that, " [r]esidents in Iarge towns of England and Wales have always been sub-ject to higher death rates than country dwellens...[t]wo diseases for which the urban

excess is very pronounced are bronchitis and lung cancer..." (11) Okay, we don'thave pea-soupers anymore, but there are more cars and lorries on the road now

than ever, more planes in the air, and literally thousands of chemicals being releasedinto the environment, many of them of very recent genesis and, therefore, their long-term effects on human beings as on the rest of the eco'system are totally unloown.

On 7th April 1993,I travelled to Oxford where I interviewed Professor Sir RichardDolI, who is hailed as one of the world's leading experts on cancer, if not fie leadingexpert. (12) Sir Richard, a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed eighty-one year old, stateduncategorically that smoking and smoking alone is responsible for L50r0fi) pneura-ture deaths a year in Britain. (13) This is ne:irly double the flrgure issued by theHealth Education Council in its 1986 fifteen volume monstrosiff The Big KilL $ )And it is three times the figure given by Dr David Owen in1977 when he stated that

"501000 deaths in the United Kingdom were due to smoking, and could have beenprevented by people stopping smoking." (15) Such frgures are, from my experiencAplucked out of thin air; more charitably, Professor Eysenck says they are "extrapo-lations from epidemiological evidence...and have no scientific meaning of any ldnd."(16)

Just how correct is that statement was vindicated by the late Professor Burch, whoproduced a devastating critique af The Big KiIl, demonstrating it to be total non-sense. (17) Burch commented that "The biologically ignorant but numerate readermight be forgiven for concluding that epidemiology is not only a rigorous science butan incredibly accurate one, with an implied error in mortality estimates of less thanone part in771774." (18)

I certainly qualify as biologically ignorant. Numerate? Well, I did one year of ALevel; I didn't get r,nuch further than quadratic equations, but my mathematics isgood enough to tackle this. Here is my analysis:

In 1990, (the latest year for which figures are available at the time of writing), thetotal number of deaths in the UK was 641.1799, (314,601 men and 327rI98 women).(19) Professor Doll would have us believe that 1501000 of these deaths, - that's 23.4%- are premature and due to smoking. But that is not the whole story. Of the 3141601

male deaths in L990,41,L03 were of men aged 85 years and over. Whilst any death isregrettable, a man who dies aged eighty-five cannot in any meaningful sense be saidto have died prematurely. Because women live longer than men, a great many more

of them survive to a great age. In L990rl0lr42l of the recorded female deaths were

of the age group 85+. When one deducts both these figures from the total, one is leftwitlr' 499,275 deaths. If 150,000 of these deaths are "premature and due to smoking",that makes a total of 30.04Vo. But we are stiil not finished.

4




A further 8,754 of the male deaths and 4,903 female deaths - a total of 13,657 - were

of persons aged 24 years and under. It is totally inconceivable that any of those deaths can have been attributable to smoking in any meaningful sense of the word. When this further 13,657 is deducted from the previous 499,275, we are left with

485,618 deaths in which smoking may have played a meaningful role in killing the victim. This means that, according to Professor Doll's figures, 150,000 out of 485,618

- 30.88% of the available group - were killed by their habit. Yet in 1990, only 31% of men and 29% of women smoked. (20) Figures for previous decades are as follows. (21)

Year % of smokers (males 16+)

1961 71.9 1971 64.5 1981 50.0

% of smokers (females 16+)

1961 43.7 1971 42.3 1981 36.9

Obviously, Professor Doll's claims are nonsense of the first order. If smoking kills so many people, and if it causes so many cancers, in particular cancer of the lung,

that doesn't leave many victims for other carcinogens to kill. This is the accepted dogma and the one which is espoused by the anti-smoking lobby: ASH, the HEA etc.

If the evidence for smoking=lung cancer is weak, the evidence for the smoking/co- ronary heart disease nexus is even weaker, but that, unfortunately, is beyond the

scope of the present study.

Professor Doll: Senile, Bent Or God's Gift To General Motors?

There are really only three possible conclusions one can draw from all this: either Professor Doll is lying, or he is suffering from senile dementia, or he has learned

subconsciously that he will be very well-rewarded if he says increasingly outrageous things about the ill-effects of tobacco.

Professor Doll is certainly not senile, and although two of my correspondents have told me that he is an outright crook, my impression of the Professor is that he is not

a conscious liar but has, as Simon Wolff points out, " ...done some simple and limited palFuII pue alduls atuos auop"',, lno slugodJJIoA\ uotuls su (suq lnq Jsll snolcsuor €

lou s! ar1 lur{l sI rossaJord aql;o uolssa.rdrul ,(ru 51oort 1q8J.r1no uB s.r aq luql atu plole^sq quapuodsa.rroe du;o o,r1 qEnoqllu puu 'a11uas 1ou ,{plugeJ sI IIo( JossaJoJd

'orruqolJo qreJJa{[ aql lnoqu s8ulqtsnoa8urlno d18u1searcu1 sdus eq JI paprs^ral-Ila^{ fra,r eq ru,lr erl 1uq1 ,{lsnolrsuocqnspauJBaI seq eq.ro (e11uauap epues ruo{ 8u1.ragns q eq Jo (3u1,{1 q 11011 JossoJoJdJeqlla :sgl IIB ruo.t; ^rBJp usr euo suolsnlcuoc elqlssod aaJql d1uo,{gea.r aJB eJerIJ

esrorory lurauag oJ tfig s,pog rO taag bpuag :noe rossalord

aq1 puoraq q {,(laluuqroJun ,reqr lnq 6.ra4uan uaae s[ ,;f:f:JJrH'irTf?:ffi:-ocpup4otus aql JoJ acueplla aq1 r4ua,r,r sI JaJUBJ 8un1=Suutorus JoJ aJuappa eqf JI 'cla Vf,H aql (HSV :dqqol Eupqous-11uu erll,(q pasnodse s.r qrlq^r auo eql puu uruSoppaldacce aql q slr{J, T6{ o1 suaSougcr€r Jeqlo roJ srullJla fueru a^ual l6usaop lurll (6un1 aql Jo JaJUBJ .rulnclgud u.r 'sracuec ,(ueu os sasneJ ll JI pue 'aldoad fuuru osqg4 Suplorus JI 'JepJo ls.ru eql Jo asuasuou eJ€ sru1ulc s,[o(I JossaJoJd (rt1sno1,lq6

6'9€tzvL'EV

I86IIL6I196T

(+91 saluruay) s.reloursJo ob

0'0ss't96'IL

(+91 saluu) $a{otusJo 06

I86IIL6TT96T

JEaA

Gz) 's^fo1oJ sB aJ€ sap€rap snop,a.rd .ro; sarn8gU (OZ) 'pe{ous uoruo^r Ja 0/06z puu ueruJo o/o1Efluo'9661 uI ta1 ?lqBrl4aq1,tq pa11q areril - dnorE aIqBIIs^s aqlJo o/ogg.1;-gI9(Sg?Jo lno 000t0S1 'sa.rn8g s.[o(I rosseJoJd ol Eu.rproccu luql susaru Ert,L.uqlrraq1 Eugpl q alor 1n;Eupuaru u pa,{u1d a,ruq deu Suplotus qcyl,tr u.r sr{luap glg,Sgtqll,r. lJaI ere alr 'SLZ'66V snoprard aqt ruo{ patrnpap sLSg(tI raq}rnJ slq} ueqr!\'pJo^r aql Jo esues lng8quaau ,{uu u1 Su.qours ol aIqBlnqIJ$B ueaq aa€rl u€r sql€apasoql ;o duu l€ql alqu^Iacuoru! Ige1o1 q lI .rapun pua s.read p7 pa?v suos.rad ;oera/$ - LSg'ElJo Islol € - sql€ap aIEruaJ 806+ pu€ sqluep eleru arllJo VSL.gJarIunJ V

3S-13 9NlHl.tt/\OS ONV oNUOI S




work which has provided a partial answer capable of satisfying the less curious",and that he has "clearly.. .been rewarded for providing this right answer...He is askilled diplomat, always on automatic pilot, with an instinct for knowing how to dis-similate and reassure." (22)

So, as we have seen, the picture painted by Professor Doll and his fellow "lifestyleacademics" is that lung cancer is primarily caused by smoking. Forget about air p01.

lution or any other pollution, forget about psychological factors, including stress. If

you want to save lives, concentrate on increasing the tax on tobacco and every other

conceivable tactic fair and foul to encourage people to give up the demon weed. Inhis letter of 13th May, 1993, Professor Wolff said of Professor Doll's view that

"very heavy air pollution [is] possibly contributing a 10% excess risk in smokers' isnonsense of the first order. The studies he quotes do not exist. His work has helped

make sure they were never carried out." (23)

Hopefully, this publication and those which follow will contribute in some small

measure to smashing the false paradigm which Professor Doll has been instrumentalin constructing. Here then, without further comment, is what Simon Wolff has tosay:

Professor Simon P. Wolff MA DPhil, Senior Lecturer, Toxicology, University Col-lege and Middlesex School of Medicine, interviewed Wednesday, 13th May, 1992.

Question: For years, doctors have been telling us that smoking causes cancer, par-ticularly lung cancer. Surely there is no medical fact more certain under the sunthan this. Are you telling us now that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?

Simon Wolff: There is no doubt that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, butthere is also no doubt that air pollution, particularly from diesel, is a contributoryfactor, so important that perhaps with out air pollution we would see a much lowerrate of lung cancer than we have. For example, in rural China, where people tend tosmoke very heavily and where air pollution is much less, the differences in lungcancer rates between smokers and non-smokers is very small, also, the lung cancerrates are about one tenth of the lung cancer rates in industrialised countries. This

observation was made time and time again in the 50s and 60s when there was greatdebate about the cause of lung cancer. One of the mysteries was why was the blamefocused solely on tobacco smoking.

Question: Originally it wasn't just tobacco that was suspected of being the viJiain

SW: Thre was an idea and there was much debate as to whether it was air pollu-tion from the newfangled diesel lorries and buses or whether it was cigarette smok-


work which has provided a partial answer capable of satisfying the less curious",

and that he has ;'clearly...been rewarded for providing this right answer...He is a

skilled diplomat, always on automatic pilo! with an instinct for knowing how to dis'

similate and reassure." (22)

So, as we have seen, the picture painted by Professor Doll and his fellow "lifestyle

academics" is that lung cancer is primarily caused by smoking. Forget about air pol-

lution or any other poilotioo, forget about psychological factors, including stress.If

you want to save lives, concentrate on increasing the tax on tobacco and every other

conceivable tactic fair and foul to encourage people to give up the demon weed' In

his letter of L3th May, ':ggg, Prof,essor wolff said of Professor Doll's view that,,'very heavy air pottuiion [is] possibly contributing tl|Vo excess risk in srnokers' b

,rorrr"or. of the first order. The studies he quotes do not exist' His work has helS

make sure they were never carried out'" (23)

Ilopefully, this publication and those which follow will contribute in sore sBell

,rr*ur,rr. to smashing the false paradigm which Professor Doll has been instrwutal

in constructing. Heie then, without further comment, is what Simon Wotfr hs b

say:

Professor simon P. Wolff MA DPhil, senior Lecturer, Toxicology, University c-oL

lege and Middlesex School of Medicine, interviewed Wednesday, L3th Ma&l''L

euestion: For years, doctors have been telling us that smoking causes cans' Inr-ticularly lung cancer. surely there is no medical fact more certain under & m

than this. Are you telling us now that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer?

Simon Wolff: There is no doubt that cigarette smoking causes tung canerr but

there is also no doubt that air pollution, particularly from diesel, is a contribuffi5r

factor, so important that perhaps with out air pollution we would see a much lower

rate of lung cancer than we have. For example, in rural China, where peop'le t€ild b

smoke very heavily and where air pollution is much less, the differences in llng

cancer rates betweln smokers and non-smokers is very small, also, the lmg ceru

rates are about on-e tenth of the lung cancer rates in industrialised cnuntrie- IAb

observation was made time and time again in the 50s and 60s when there rs grcd

debate about the cause of lung cancer. One of the mysteries was why wm ft h

focused solely on tobacco smoking.

Question: Originally it wasn't just tobacco that was suspected of being fu riEeLE

SW: There was an idea and there was much debate as to whether it was air pollu-

tion from the newf,angled diesel lorries and buses or whether it was eigaretle mk-

6




ing, and I think the blame just got allocated to cigarette smoking and all critical ap- praisal of air pollution as a lung cancer threat was very rapidly dropped.

Question: Very rapidly? I was under the impression that this was some thing that took decades to decide.

SW: Not really. What happened was that although the medical profession had known for some time that there was something bad about smoking - it had been known since the 20s and 30s that smokers tended to die younger than non-smokers

- the thing was that there had never been any specific disease blamed on smoking. From the 30s onwards they began to realise that there was this entity of lung cancer which seemed to be increasing.

By and large the medical profession are very conservative; when they're given a new idea, they take years to accept it, and really they converted to the idea that cigarette smoking was the single cause of lung cancer over a two year period, and it took

longer of course for it to become generally accepted throughout society, but the me- dics had decided within a couple of years that that was the thing. And I think that

decision was rather helped along.

Question: At one time something like 90% of the population used to smoke?

SW: Yeah, all the men, just about. What is remarkable is that it was possible to put the blame on cigarette smoking because it was so culturally normal. It must be so

difficult to accept that something that everybody did socially, normal activity, could actually be damaging as opposed to in the very vaguest of terms.

It's remarkable that people were persuaded so quickly that it was something that was very damaging. Even now it's very hard to change people's behaviour even

when they know that a form of activity is very injurious.

Question: The obvious example is AIDS.

SW: Yes, what could be simpler than safe sex, but people seem to be very resistant to this idea.

Question: You say that it's been known for many years that smokers don't live as long as non-smokers. I remember reading somewhere that if you apply for life assur-

ance, and you're a non-smoker, they will actualise you as though you were four years younger. When we say that smoking kills people, what exactly do we mean?

An oft' quoted statistic is that smoking is directly responsible for 100,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. That sounds very emotive and very drastic, but what

does that statement really mean, and is it accurate?

L

aalBJnrJB ll s.r puu .uueru fgua.r luaualels lerp saoplsq,tr lnq

(o11surp f.ra,r pue aÎloue dra,r spunos lBqI .rear( ,{raâ Xn eql q sql€aparnleurard 000(00I JoJ alqlsuodsa.r ,{11ca4p sl Euplous luql q cllslluls palonb .lJo uV;uBaru a.d\ op dllcexa lBr{,ra

(aldoad q1p1 Suplous l€ql dus a,r uarllll ..ra8uno,{ srea.{JnoJ aJaa nod q8noql su no,{ asIlEnlJu 1g,n ,iaq1 (.ra>1orus-uou B eJ6no.d puu (eJuB-Jnssu aJII JoJ flddu no,{g IBIJI aJalllratuos Eu.rpua.r Jaquarual I'sJa{ous-uou su 3uo1su e^[I l,uop sJa{orus 1uq1 sread ,tuuru JoJ u,trolf)l uaaq s6ll 1uq1 ,tus no1 :uoJlsan$

'Bapr srql olluulslsal ,{ra,r aq ol ruaas aldoad 1nq

(xas eJBs uurll.ralduls eq plnoJ luq,r. .saa :115

'SflV q aldruuxa snoraqo aq; :uorlsan$

'snor.rnfug f.ra,r s1 f1r.L11ru Jo ruJoJ B tsq] ,rou[ ,(aq1 uaq,nuaAa JnolAuqaq s,aldoad eSuuqJ ol pJ€q fra,r sr11 ̂\ou uelg .Supeurep dra,r su,tr1eq1 Sulqlaruos sa,tl r lgrll f14c1nb os pap€nsJad aran aldoad turll aIqB{JBrraJ s6lr

'stural go lsan8ua ,ira,r aq1 ur o1 pasoddo se Sq8uurup aq fgunlcuplnor (,(1rar1cu

Iururou (dlu1cos p1p dpoq,fuaâ lBrll 8u1qlauos 1eq1 ldaccE ol llncgJrp

os aq trmtII lI '[BruJou f11u.rn11nr os sB^r 1[ asnBcaq Suplorus a11aru31c uo aruBlq aql1nd o1 alqlssod seâ lI l€rtl q eXqu>lrsruar sI l€rlAl Tnoqu lsnf

(uaru aq] IIE (qeaa :11g

aa{orus ol pasn uollulndod eql Jo 0/006 al1Sulqlaruos erull auo 1y :uo11san}

'Euo1u padlaq reqlur s€,,tr uolslrapfuqf {u1ql I puy '8ry{t aq} suia lBrI} lurll sruaf ;o aldnoc B uIqlIA paplrep psrl srlp-aru aql 1nq

(f1a1ros lnoq8norql paldaccu ,tlu.raua8 eruoJaq ol lI JoJ asJnoJ go .ra8uol

)tool 1l puu 'pol.rad .rear{ o,{al u Jeao Jaouec 3un1;o asneJ a13u1s aql sBAr Surlorus a11ar'u31c 1eq1 Bap! aql ol paueûoc r(aql dguar puu tll ldaccu ol s.rua,{ a>1q daql reapl ,r.auu ua.L13 ar,daql uaq^r la,ry1u,r.rasuoc dra,r eJ€ uolssaJord lucrparu aq1 a3.re1 pue dg

'Sursuercu! eq ol pauaas qcFl,raJeJuBc 3un1;o f111ua sFIl su^r eJarp leql asJleer o1 uuSaq /(aql spru,lr,uo sog aqt ruoJf,'8up1orus uo petu€lq es€aslp aglcads duu uaaq Jaaeu pBrI aJerll lurll sg^r Fu1q1 eq1- sJe{orus-uou u8rll.raSuno,t elp ol papuel sJa{orus l€ql sog puB soz aql eJuls u,$orDluaaq pBq 11 - Suplorus lnoqB pBq Sqqlaruos ss^r eJarll lErll aull aruos JoJ u^rorDlpuq uolssaJo.rd pclpau aql q8noqllu luql su,ra pauaddeq lBrIAl .,{1ua.r loN :AIS

'aplJap ol sap€rep {ool1eq1 3qq1 euros s€,ra s.rql lBql uolssardun aql Japun sura I ;r(1p1du.r ,{ra1 :uo11san}

'peddorp zilpldel r{raa se,r lua'rrll Jacu€r Funl u su uollnllod r;ugo luqe.rd-du-1uc11rrc IIB pug 8u.n1ours oga.ru81c ol peluJollu 1oB 1sn[auulq aql )tuHl 1 puu .Bu.r

3S1f eNtHr=l 0s cNV eNHoy\sPDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor



SW: I'm not sure what it really means. Let's say for a second that tobacco smokingis the only cause of lung cancer. We know how many cases there are a year - in theUK there are about fifty thousand. (24) We know that people with lung cancer arevery likely to smoke or to have smoked, over 90% of them. Quite a lot of non-smo-kers contract lung cancer too, but by and large, the lung cancer patients are thosewho are smokers or ex-smokers. So when one talks about all these premature deaths,they would allocate all these deaths and a proportion of those dying from heart dis-ease and other cancers to smoking.

The Health Education Authority put out a booklet in which they allocated 95% ofall lung cancer deaths to smoking, a certain proportion to another disease, and soon. The four years you mentioned is I think an actuarial observation - you can look

at how long people live and then determine whether they are smokers or not.Whether you could say that the loss of four years was due entirely to smoking or tosome other behaviour is, I think, an entirely moot point. Smokers tend to drinkmore, for example.

Question: This is a good point, to what extent is smoking symptomatic of an un-healthy lifestyle? Smokers don't run or exercise much generally speaking.

SW: For a lot of people smoking might be part and parcel of their lifestyle anyway.Most sportspeople smoke less: footballers smoke, marathon runners don't. Butsmoking (and other habits) are socially acquired.

Question: Would you say that smoking has nothing to recommend it?

SW: It's really bad for you though it does protect against Parkinson's Disease forfairly well-defmecl biochemical reasons.

Question: Can you explain this?

SW: There's an idea that Parkinson's Disease is caused by an accumulation of acertain type of chemicals in a certain part of the brain over the years. There is aseries of chemicals in cigarette smoke called methyl-pyriclines which seem to preventthe uptake of these nasty, damaging agents in these parts of the brain. So people whosmoke tend to have less Parkinson's Disease. There are other diseases too which aremodified positively by smoking.

Question: I've never heard this before.

SW: It's hardly broadcast, is it?

Question: Is it possible to have your cake and eat it, by extracting these chemicals

say?


SW: Itm not sure what it really means. Let's say for a second that tobacco smoking

is the only cause of lung cancer. We know how many cases there are a year ' in the

UK there are about fifty thousand. (24) We know that people with lung cancer are

very likely to smoke or to have smoked, over gOVo of them. Quite a lot of non-smo-

kers contract lung cancer too, but by and large, thg lirng cancer patients are those

who are smokers or ex-smokers. So when one talks about all these premature deaths,

they would allocate all these deaths and a proportion of those dying from heart dis-

ease and other cancers to smoking.

The Health Education Authoriff put out a booklet in which they allocated 957o of.

all lung cancer deaths to smoking, a certain proportion to another disease, and so

on. The four years you mentioned is I think an actuarial observation - you can look

at how long people live and then determine whether they are smokers or not.

Whether you couta say that the loss of four years was due entirely to smoking or to

some other behaviour is, I think, an entirely moot point. Smokers tend to drink

more, for examPle.

euestion: This is a good point, to what extent is smoking symptomatic of an un-

neattny hfestyle? Smokers dontt run or exercise much generally speaking'

SW: For a lot of people smoking might be part and parcel of their lifestyle anyway.

Most sportspeople smoke less: footballers smoke, marathon runners don't But

smoking (and other habits) are socially acquired.

Question: Would you say that smoking has nothing to recommend it?

SW: It's really bad for you though it does protect against Parkinson's Disease for

fairly well-defined biochemical reasons.

Question: Can you exPlain this?

SW: Therers an idea that Parkinson's Disease is caused by an accumulation of a

certain type of chemicals in a certain part of the brain over the years. There is a

series of chemicals in cigarette smoke called methyl-pyridines which seem to prevent

the uptake of these nasty, damaging agents in these parts of the brain. So people who

,rnok tend to have Iess Parkinson's Disease. There are other diseases too which are

modified positivelY bY smoking.

Question: Itve never heard this before.

SW: It's hardlY broadcastr is it?

euestion: Is it possible to have your cake and eat it, by extracting these chemicals

say?

8




SW: That's quite interesting if you bear in mind that the technical fix to lung cancer was to introduce low tar filter tips. In principle you could reduce the toxic

content of cigarette smoke but it's not the in-thing to do. There's no reason for example why cigarette smoke should contain so much carbon monoxide.

Question: How could you reduce this?

SW: You could have a catalytic converter on the end of the cigarette. It's possible.

Question: Have you mooted any of these suggestions?

SW: No, I wouldn't dream of it, but we can do this for cars. The point I wish to make is that diesel and vehicle exhaust particulate contains stuck on its surface hundreds of thousands of nasty, DNA-damaging chemicals which we can inhale deep

into our lungs and where no doubt they cause damage to the delicate cells which are able to give rise to tumours. I don't think that matters very much until you have a

chronic irritation, inflammation, and one thing about cigarette smoke is that it is a chronic irritant, it's very irritating stuff with all sorts of nasty, irritant particles.

Question: You're using the word 'chronic' here in the medical sense?

SW: Yes: long term. From our understanding of cancers and the evidence we have, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that air pollution by vehicles is a powerful initia-

tor of cancer and that the irritants in cigarette smoke are powerful promoters of cancer. Generally speaking, with cancer you need to have both an initiator and a

promoter in order to get the full tumour.

Question: Earlier, you mentioned the Chinese peasant study. (25) Was this a one off? An aberration?

SW: No, it's not, that was just nice because it was an accidental observation. A team went out there to see if atmospheric radon affected cancer rates. One thing about trying to look at health effects in developed countries is the enormous effects

of socio-economic status on health: if you're rich, you live a lot longer than if you're poor.

Question: That's understood?

SW: Yes, the observation is understood, there is a gradient like this from social class one to social class four. [As he speaks he moves his hand diagonally upwards

indicating that the rich live longer on average that the poor.] People say the poor smoke more, they don't eat the right foods and all the rest of it. But also, the poor

tend to live in the most densely trafficked urban areas. 'sueru ueqrn pa{rUJB4 dlasuap lsoru eql q aÛ ol pualrood aq1 'oqu 1ng ?I Jo Nar eql IIB puu spooJ lq8g aq1 lse l.uop faql (a.rour a{ous.rood aq1 i(es a1doa6 ['.rood aql luql a8era,le uo ra8uol a^11 r1rlr erll lsql Sullucgpurspru,ndn ,(11uuo3u1p pusq srq saôu aq srluads eq svl .rnoJ ss€lr [BIJos ol euo ssulrIBIJoS ruo.r; slql a)t[ lualp€.r8 u q alaql (pools.rapun fl uorlulJasqo aq1 (saa :tr1g

apoolsJapun s.lerltr :uo11san[

'.rood

al,no,t JI u€ql ra8uo1 lol B a^rl nor( (qcg a.r,nof Jr :qtleaq uo snl€ls JrruouoJe-olJos JoslJa.ga snorrrroua eql q salJlunor padola.l,ap uI qra,IJe qlluaq lE {ool ol Bud.rt lnoquSuIrIr auo 'saluJ JocuBJ palreJJg uopuJ cl.raqdsoulg JI aas ol eJarlt lno lua,rl ruualv

'uollu^Jasqo luluaplJJu uB s€ta lI asneJeq aelu lsnf sel{ luq} (1ou s.ll ,oN :r[s

;uollBrraqu uv aJJoauo B slql sBAt $7)

',(pn1s luesuad esauJrlC.aqt peuolluaur no,{ ..raq.rug :uopsan}

'Jnorunl IInJ aql la8 ol JepJo ul.ralourord

3 puu rolulllq uB qloq a^€q ol paau no,{ JeJu€J q11,r,r .8up1uads ,{gurauac .JaJuBJ

Jo sralouoJd lng.ranod eJe e{ous aga.ru8lc q quBlIrJ! aql lsql pua JaJu€J Jo Jot'Blllq 1nj.ra,tod B s! seIJIrIe^r,tq uorln1od J.rB 1eq1 1sa33ns ol elquuosua.r ,{1ar11ue s.r lI(a,ruq e,{a aJuepraa eql pu€ sJeJuBr;o EurpuulsJapun Jno ruorf, .ruJal Buol :saa :11g

aasuas le4patu aql u! eJaq 6cluoJr[]6 pJo^r aq13u1sn a.r6no1 :uorlsan[

'sa1c1gud luellrr! 6,{1suu;o slros IIe q}Iiil JJqs 3u11u11"rr1 fraa s.l! .1uu11.r.q rluorqtB sl l! lBrll q a{ous a11a.ru3;c }noq€ SuFIf euo puB (uolluunuuuu-r suollBllrJr rTuoJqrB aaBrl no,{ glun rlJntu ,{.ra,r sraperu lBrll {uHl lruop J .sJnoun} o} aslJ a.,r,g8 o1 alquaJB qrlqa sIIaJ el€rIlap aql o1 a8utuup asnsJ faql lqnop ou eJarl^r pue s8unl Jno olu.rdaap aluqul uur e^r rlrrrlia Eurlureqr SulSuruupVN( ,&seu Jo spussnoql Jo sparp-unq ecsJJns s1I uo {Jn$ supluoc alulncgged lsnuqxe elaFla^ pus leselp tuql s.r e{utuol rlslia 1 1u1od aq; 'sJBr roJ s.rql op uuJ era lnq !g go uuarp l.uplno,rl I

(oN :AlS

lsuopsaSSns asarllJo r(uu paloour no,{ a,ru11 :uorlsen}

'a1q1ssod s6ll'e$eru81c aq1;o pue eql uo rapaauor clglqur B a^Bq plnor no1 :lls

;$rll eJnpar no,{ plnoJ,rlo11 :uo11san}

'apFouoru uoqJuJ rlJnru os ululuoc ppoqs e{ous allare8lc rtqn aldruuxaJoJ uos€eJ ou s6aJerII 'op ol EuIqt-uI eql lou s.ll tnq e{ous a11aru8rc Jo lueluorcFol aql acnpal plnoJ nod a1dlcu1.rd u1 'sdp.ra11g JBI ^rol aJnpoJlul ol sB,ta JerusJ3un1 o1 xU Isrlurlrel eql lcql pqru uI rueq no,{ g 3u11sa.ra1ul atpb s.lurll :l\S

3SI:I 9NIHI3IÎOS CNV ONIYOI/\ISPDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor



The purpose of the Chinese rural peasant study was that if you want to study theeffects of very subtle carcinogens on the population, you have to do it somewherethere are no gross differences in socio-economic status. What the research team didwas take fifty thousand people in one province where there was high radon, fiftythousand in a province where there is very low radon, and compared the two. Whenthey did this they found there was no difference in the rates of lung cancer betweenthe two provinces, which would seem to indicate that radon is not the cause of lungcancer. They also found, contrary to expectations, that although most of the mensmoked, the women didn't, yet they had the same rates of lung cancer.

This was surprising. What was equally surprising was that these people had aboutone tenth of the lung cancer rates of those living in developed countries. And. as youmove into the cities, you find that the lung cancer rates creep up. If you were a Mar-tian epidemiologist, you would say that there is something about cities which con-tributes to the incidence of lung cancer. (26)

Naturally the team [Hofmann, Katz and Chunxiang] reported this, but similar ob-servations have been made in broadly similar studies involving work on cancer ratesin towns. At the time of the Doll lung cancer debate there were people looking at thelung cancer rates in various areas of New Zealand, South Africa and in the U1.town and countryside. What happened there was that there was a very powerful"pro-air pollution lobby", as it were. The [claim made was that] urban cancer rateswere higher because people who live intowns smoked more...end of problem. Therewas no scientific basis for this, but all the same it led to the search for a possible linkbetween air pollution and lung cancer being rapidly dropped.

Question: The point is that everybody knows (quote unquote) that smoking causeslung cancer, now you come along and say that it's not as simple as that. Whos goingto believe you?

SW: To start with, not very many people, but we have enormous problems at themoment, an enormous number of people contract cancer in its various forms.. Weare actually quite concerned about environmental epidemiology and the causation ofdisease. We are gradually becoming much more aware of air pollution and we arestarting to be a bit more specific about it. I think also that as people are now ben-ning to look at passive smoking they will naturally turn towards air pollution as an-other possible source of cancer, and that my speculations will be borne out.

Question: Speculations?

SW: Observations. I speak to so many clinicians about lung cancer and they saythat the lung cancer thing is all tied up. Tell them about the air pollution connection.especially the young ones, and they look surprised, as though they haven't heard it -all before. There's been such enormous clinical focus on cigarette smoking that it'sbeen hard to look at anything else.

10


The purpose of the Chinese rural peasant study was that if you want to study theeffects of very subtle carcinogens on the populationr you have to do it somewherethere are no gross differences in socio-economic status. What the research team didwas take fifty thousand people in one province where there was high radon, fiftythousand in a province where there is very low radon, and compared the two. Whenthey did this they found there was no difference in the rates of lung cancer betweenthe two provinces, which would seem to indicate that radon is not the cause of lungcancer. They also found, contrary to expectations, that although most of the mensmoked, the women didntt, yet they had the same rates of lung cancer.

This was surprising. What was equally surprising was that these people had aboutone tenth of the lung cancer rates of those living in developed countries. An4 fl; youmove into the cities, you find that the lung cancer rates creep up. If you wene a l[ar-tian epidemiologist, you would say that there is something about cities which con-tributes to the incidence of lung cancer. (2Q

Naturally the team [HofmannrKatz and Chunxiang] reported this, but similar observations have been made in broadly similar studies involving work on canccrretesin towns. At the time of the Doll lung cancer debate there were people looking et thelung cancer rates in various areas of New Zealand, South Africa and in thc IIK,town and countryside. What happened there was that there was a very pmtrftI"pro-air pollution lobby", as it were. The [claim made was that] urban canccrrrtuswere higher because people who live in.towns smoked more...end of proh- Thcrewas no scientific basis for this, but all the same it led to the search for a pmdble linkbetween air pollution and lung cancer being rapidly dropped.

Question: The point is that everybody knows (quote unquote) that smkirg crtrecsIung cancer, now you come along and say that it's not as simple as that Tgho'sgsingto believe you?

SW: To start with, not very many people, but we have enormous problem d &cmoment, an enormous number of people contract cancer in its varios frm. Wcare actually quite concerned about environmental epiilemiology and the causetfur ofdisease. We are gradually becoming much more aware of air pollution ard *t erestarting to b-e a bit more specific about it. I think also that as people ane nor bcgiFning to look at passive smoking they will naturally turn towards air pollutir rs e&other possible source of cancer, and that my speculations will be borne out.

Question : Speculations?

SW: Observations. I speak to so many clinicians about lung cancer and thcy saythat the lung cancer thing is all tied up. TeIl them about the air pollution connectbqespecially the young ones, and they look surprised, as though they haven't hcard itall before. There's been such enormous clinical focus on cigarette smoking that it'sbeen hard to look at anything else.

10




Question: Before we go any further, you're not in the pay of the tobacco companies?

SW: No.

Question: They might love you for saying this, but certain other people aren't going to.

SW: I don't think the tobacco companies are particularly interested because they've now got to the stage where they daren't say anything that is in any way pro- tobacco or try to diffuse any of the arguments, I think they've given up, but that's

also part of it because when it came to the original debate over the cause of lung cancer, the motor and oil industries won because they had so much more money,

their lobby was so much more powerful.

Question: Without postulating any fanciful conspiracy theories here, can we talk a little about the possible subversion of science by vested interests.

SW: Yes, I think that's happened.

Question: Who funds this laboratory?

SW: This laboratory is funded partly by the Medical Research Council and partly by various medical research charities.

Question: Is there any vested interest here? Are you ever told that you must not research in a certain direction?

SW: No. I'm not very sensitive to this sort of thing. Frankly, if the tobacco industry offered me money I'd probably take it. If Greenpeace offered me money or British

Nuclear Fuels or Shell, I'd probably take it, but in fact the funding of science doesn't actually work like that. You put in rather specific proposals for specific bits of re-

search and they are funded on that basis.

Question: What I meant was that nobody bites the hand that feeds them; is there something more subtle operating further up?

SW: It is true that it has become almost impossible to in any way question the single role of smoking as a cause of lung cancer. It's harder to get funding, but it

doesn't actually stop you saying things or doing research into it.

Question: But if you can't question something, that is dogma, not science.

SW: That happens in a lot of areas of medical science; there is no such thing as the pure pursuit of truth. Scientists thieve, lie, cheat and steal like everybody else.

11 II

'aqa,{poq,fta^a ary IBa}s puu luarlJ (a11(alalql slsllualcs 'qlnJlJo lrns.rnd a.rndaql s€ Eulqf qJns ou sl araql lacualcs lellparu Jo suaru Jo lol u u1 suadderl IBrII :A\S

'aJuaIJs 1ou (eruSop sI leql

(Eulqlauos uolpanb l(uur no,{g 1ng :uo11san}

'lI olu1 qilsaseJ 3u1op.ro s8ulq18ug,tus no,{ dols f11un1cu l(usaopl! lnq '8u1pun; 1aB o1 rapJsq s6ll 'JaJuec 3un1Jo asnar u su Eul4orus Jo alor a1Eu1seql uollsenb fun duu u1 o1 alqlssoduq Noruls auoraq sBrI lI lur1t an4 s.r fI :A{S

idn.raqgq 8u.r1u.rado apqns eJoru Eulqlauosaraql s1 !uaq1 speal luql puur1 aql setrIq ,(poqou lurll su^r luuaru I fertr,&l :uo11sanQ

'slsuq luql uo papunJ aru,{aql pus qJJuas-ar Jo s11q cglrads roJ Eusodo.rd cgrcads .raq1e.r q lnd no1 .lerp o{H {Jo^r f11un1cel6usaop acualrsJo Eulpuny eql trBJ uI lnq 'lI a{u1 dlquqo.rd prl ,[aqs ro slan{ reelrnNrlslilJfl.ro ,(auoru alu paJaJIo acuaduaa.rc JI '11 a4q z(lqeqord p,1 ,(auou elu peJeJJod.rlsnpul oJJBqol arpJI (dp1uu.rg '3uq1go lros qql ol a^Illsuas d.re,r lou ru6l .oN :AlS

-ar rou lsnu no,t r€ql plol.ra,ra nod arv eaJaq lsaralur t$:1t;;lt,:"?iil:":il"fft'sallrJurlJ rlJJ€asa.r IBJlpeu snolrul fq

,(1gud pus llrunoC qrruasag lerlpatr tr aqf fq d11red papunJ q ,(rolu.roqul qqJ :AtS

;,{rolu.roqq s.rql spunJ oq1\ :uorlsan$

'pauaddeq set€r{l {uFIt 1 'saa :119

'qsarelu.r palsa^ dq arualcsJo uorsralqns alqlssod aqt lnoq€ aIUIB )ttul a^r uuJ 6araq salroaql ,fae4dsuor InJIrue;,(uu 3u11u1n1sod lnoqll1l :uo11san|

1n;rarod eroru qrruu os ssta dqqo1.4eq1'r[auour aJoru qJnru os puq daql amucaq uo,ra sag5npuJ l_ro pus Joloru eq1 tecuecEunl go esnuc arll reao alsqep luqEgo aql ol aruuc lI uaq^r esnareq 1r;o lrud oqusrlu{l 1nq

(dn ua,rg8 a,r.,{aq1 {ugl 1 (quarun8Ju aql;o ,{ue asrUJIp ol ,t4 Jo oJJuqol

-ord r(eia r(uu ug sl lur1l Euyq$ue ,{es 1,ua.rup f,aqf a.req/ra a8uls arll ol loE,raou e,r,,{aq1esnareq palseJetq ,{gelnclgud aru saguudruoc oJcuqol eql {uql l,uop I :AlS

'01

Sulo8 l.uaJu aldoad raqlo ulBUeJ lnq (sFIl Sup(us.ro; nof a,ro11qEpu,(aql :uo11san[

'oN:l!ls

lsapud-ruoo oJJBqol eql ;o dud eql uI 1ou ar,nort (.raqgn; due oB e^r aroJag :uorlsan|

3Sr3 9NrHl_3U\rOS ONV eNHOy\S




Question: I've read a lot of popular science; all these authors say that you collectyour facts, frame your hypothesis, which then becomes a theory, then a law, and if atany time, even two thousand years later, someone like Newton or Einstein comesalong and throws a spanner in the works, you have to discard the entire paradigm,the only caveat being that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Inother words, scientists must always be totally unbigoted, they must constantly re-examine their most treasured beliefs and unhesitatingly reject those which observa-tion or experiment refutes. In reality though it doesn't work like that.

SW: That's complete b******s. Galileo, he spent his time changing his arguments.trying to dupe his opposition, using dirty tricks, and we think of him as a greatscientist. He was a very good scientist, but where he couldn't convince the oppositionby force of argument, he resorted to all sorts of nasty tricks. This is something a lotof scientists do; often it's far easier to trip up the opposition than to promote yourown theory.

Question: Can we talk a little bit more about poisons in the air? If you walkthrough Central London on a hot summer's day you can actually see the haze.We're supposed to have cleaner air now than before the Clean Air Act was intro-duced way back in 1956 but although we don't get pea-soupers anymore. the air inthe capital, and indeed in most British cities and cities throughout the world, is atro-cious. What sort of muck are we inhaling now, and in what quantities?

SW: I don't know about cities in particular, but I have worked out that road trans-port in the UK churns out one million tons of known carcinogens every year.

Question: That's just the carcinogens?

SW: That's just the chemicals which are known to cause cancer, about a million

tons.

Question: Can you itemise some of them?

SW: You've got the soots then you've got all the polyaromatic substances - lots of

six chain rings stuck together with interesting nitrogen/oxygen groups stuck ontothem. These are some of the most reactive and unpleasant carcinogens that we knowchurned out in vast quantities. Something like 5% of the output of a car is benzene.which is a well-known cause of leukemia. We breathe levels in parts of Londonwhich are starting to be discussed as what should be the sorts of limits which shouldbe occupational standard for an industrial setting. It's now reached the stage that ifTottenham Court Road were an American laboratory, it would run the risk of being

closed down.

There are vast quantities of different sorts of nasty, reactive, complicated chemicalsin the exhaust from cars,.and which we breathe. You've got to imagine that you are

12


Question: I've read a lot of popular sciencel all these authors say that you collect

your facts, frame your hypothesis, which then becomes a theory, then a law, and if at

any time, even two thousand years later, someone like Newton or Einstein comes

along and throws a spanner in the works, you have to discard the entire paradigm,

the only caveat being that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In

other words, scientists must always be totally unbigoted, they must constantly re-

examine their most treasured beliefs and unhesitatingly reject those which observa-

tion or experiment refutes. In reality though it doesn't work like that.

SW: That,s complete b*****ts. Galileo, he spent his tirne changing his arguments,

trying to dupe his opposition, using dirty tricks, and we think of him as a great

scientist. IIe was a very good scientist, but where he couldntt convince the opposition

by force of argumen! he resorted to all sorts of nasty tricks. This is something a lot

of scientists do; often it's far easier to trip up the opposition than to promote your

own theory.

Question: Can we talk a little bit more about poisons in the air? If you walk

through Central Inndon on a hot summer's day you can actually see the haze.

We're supposed to have cleaner air now than before the Clean Air Act was intro-

duced way back in 1956 but although we don't get pea-soupers anymore' the air in

the capital, and indeed in most British cities and cities throughout the world, is atm-

cious. What sort of muck are we inhaling now, and in what quantities?

SW: I don't know about cities in particular, but I have worked out that road trans-

port in the UK churns out one million tons of known carcinogens every year.

Question: That's just the carcinogens?

SW: That's just the chemicals which are known to cause cancer, about a million

tons.

Question: Can you itemise some of them?

SW: You've got the soots then you've got all the polyaromatic substances'lots of

six chain rings stuck together with interesting nitrogen/oxygen groutrls stuck onto

them. These'are some of the most reactive and unpleasant carcinogens that we how

churned out in vast quantities. Something hke SVo of the output of a car b benzene'

which is a well-known cause of leukemia. We breathe levels in parts of I-ondon

which are starting to be discussed as what should be the sorts of limits which should

be occupational standard for an industrial setting. It's now reached the stage that if

Tottenham Court Road were an American laboratory, it would run the risk of being

closed down.

There are vast quantities of different sorts of nasty, reactive, complicated chemicals

in the exhaust from cars,.and which we breathe. You've got to imagine that you are

t2



SMOK!N3 AND SOMETHING ELSE

taking stuff which has been compressed and heated over a few million years, you're taking it out, putting it in a car and burning it under conditions of high pressure and

temperature. This is a good way to make nasty chemicals. Part of the petrol is burned, you get the energy out of that, but all the rest of it just comes straight out of

the back.

Most of these very reactive chemicals are bound to the soot, and this is the sort of muck that accumulates on London window sills. You're breathing that in aH the time, it doesn't actually get out very well, and most of it can actually penetrate

deeper into the lungs than cigarette smoke does.

Question: It affects smokers far worse than non-smokers but it affects everybody?

SW: Yes, it does, there is a definite lung cancer risk even for non-smokers so that although their pollutants and the smoking together are a good way of guaranteeing yourself lung cancer, certainly it's true that the nasty compounds which we breathe

in during our day to day activities are able to produce cancer in some people.

Question: What fringe benefits are us city dwellers eligible for besides lung cancer?

SW: One thing which I find rather distressing is that a lot of carbon monoxide is

poured out by cars. You often come up against the idea that these levels are too low

to have measurable health effects, but one thing we do know is that carbon monoxide tends to accumulate in the blood of unborn babies, in the fetal haemoglobin, I'm pretty sure that's going to be a risk for low birth weight babies; women who live

on busy roads tend to give birth to low birth weight babies.

You've got the nitrous oxides as well, which are respiratory tract irritants. Air pol-

lution probably also contributes to emphysema, mainly because there are things in air pollution which are very oxidising, very unpleasant, and again it's not only smo-

kers who contract emphysema, although if you want to contract emphysema it's helpful if you smoke.

Question: Would you like to see smoking banned?

SW: Let me put it this way, you would have to be consistent. If you wanted to ban smoking, you would have to eradicate air pollution at the same time.

Question: What can and ought we do about air pollution as far as cars are concerned?

SW: A total moratorium on all road building, not an inch on any road. There should be a graded increase in all forms of taxation on vehicles so that running a car

costs about twenty times as much as it does now. You asked. I have thought about this.

13 €I

'sIq}

lnoqu lqSnoql a^Bq I 'pa{su no1 'rrou seop ll sB rlJntu sB sau.rl ,{1ualq lnoqu slsot.rur e SuluunJ lutll os salJlrla^ uo uollsxul Jo stuJoJ IIB uI as€arJul papur8 B aq plnoqsaJaql 'pBoJ ,{ue uo qJuI uB 1ou

(3u1p1{nq p€oJ lle uo runlJoleJotu lulo} V :AlS

ipauJaJ-uoo a.ra SJBJ sa rBJ sB uo11n11od JI€ tnoqu op e,{a lq8no puu uuc lstt1l :uo11san}

'atup eruus eql lB uo11n11od JIB elsJIpEJa ol eûq plno^r nor( 6Suryours

u€q ol paluulr nod g 1ualqsuoJ aq ol a^Bq plno,{a no,( {z(e,ra sIIp lt 1nd au la.l :AtS

epauueq 3u14orus aas ol a>g1nof plnoA\ :uol1san[

'a>lotus nodg lngdlaqs,ll uruas,{qdua lJsJluoJ ol lus. \ nod g q3noq11e (uruasr(qdrua

lJalluoJ oq/a sJa{-ous r(1uo 1ou s,ll u1u3e puu 'luusualdun fra,r (3u1s1p1xo .{raa aJB rlJlrl.r\ uo11ngod.r1uur s3u1q1 aJB aJaql esn€Jaq ,(1ugeu (uruasrtqdure ol salnqlJluoo oslu ,(1qeqo.rd uo11n1

1od.r1y'sluBllJJI lcurl ,{rolurldsar eJe qJlqna (ga,r su saplxo snoJ}Iu aq11oB al.no1

'salqsq 1q8ra,r,r r{1rlq ,!rol of qfJlq a,r,13 ol pual spuoJ dsnq uoa^ll oq^\ uaruol.t isalquq 1q8ran qrJlq ^{o[ JoJ {slJ B aq o13u1o8 selsr{l arns ,{11ard tu,1'qqo1?oruauq Islal arlt q (salquq uroqun Jo poolq aql u.r elulnrunJJs ol spual aplx-ouoru uoqJ€c l€ql q ,rour{ op a,ll. 8t!qf auo lnq

(slra;ga qlluaq alqeJnsuaru aûq ola\o[ oo] aJB slaâl asaql lsql €apl aq1 1su1e3e dn auroc uelJo no1 'sJuJ dq 1no parnodq appouotu uoqrur Jo lot € tuql s1 8u1ssa.r1slp raqlur pug I r1rlq,r 3r$Il auo :A\S

iraruer 3un1 saplsaq roy elq1311e sralle^rp ftlc sn eru sq[auaq aSut{7eq7r7:uo11san[

'aldoad atuos u! JatuuJ ecnpord ol elqe aJ€ seltlÎlce r(up o1,{up rno 3u1rnp u.raqluaJq ona r{Jlrlna spunoduoc dlsuu oq} l€tt} anJ} srll ,(1u1egar (JaJuBJ 3un1g1asrno,{8u1aa1uu.ren8 go du,ra, poo8 E eJu .raq1e3o1 3u14orus aql puu sluulngod .r1oq1 q8noqlp

luql os sJa{orus-uou JoJ uaâ {sIJ JaJu€J 3un1 agugap B s! a.rarll 'saop 11 (saa :1119

l,tpoqd.ra,re slJa.gu l! lnq sJa{orus-uou uurp esJo^r JEJ sJa{ous slJaJJs 11 :uo11san}

alarlaued rr11 u n1 cu ucc rr ro rsoru J:"Pr:l"H::ti'#i:?T;til1ff :Jl":tJiitil;arll IIB uI tur1l Su.rqluarq aJ.no1 'sIUs ̂lopulAr uopuorl uo salslntunJJ€ luql {JruuJo uos aql s! qql pue loos aq1 ol punoq aJs slBrIrueIIJ aÎlrua.r f.ra,r asaql Jo lsotr [

Tlr8q eql

Jo lno 1q31er1s saruoJ $nf lI Jo lsar erlt IIB lnq leql Jo lno d8raua aq1 1aF no,( (paurnq

s1 1o4ad erll Jo 1red 'stuqruaqJ flsuu a{sru o1 fu,r,r poo8 u sI s.rrtrJ 'arn}u.radrual

puu arnssard q31q Jo suolllpuor rapun 11 Sulurnq pu€ rer B uI lI 3u111nd lno lI Sottt*lar.r1o,( {sree{ uoIIFu ,{eJ u Jaao palBarl puE passardruoJ uaaq sBrI rlJlrltr gnls 3up1e1

SSlf eNlHl-3t OS CNV 9NryOy\SPDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor



We should move rapidly towards electric vehicles or alternatively to internal com-bustion with methane and oxygenated fuels which are much less toxic. There shouldbe plans basically to force cars out of towns and cities; instead of moving outwards,we should move inwards. In London, something like 15% of city land is derelict, sotaxation should be arranged to encourage moving back into the urban certain ratherthan vice versa. Extensive pedestrianisation.

Question: Cheap transport?

SW: Lots of people have been saying for years that we only pay about 10% of thetotal cost of private travel; somebody's paying for that, we ought to switch this hugesubsidy. We don't need fancy new Underground systems; trams are dead cheap andthey seem to work well on the Continent. Above all I think, it's land use. We oughtto stop centralising our amenities so that people don't have to drive everywhere. Aban on out of town superstores would encourage people to shop in the neighbour-hood. It's only recently that we've had this tremendous need for travel, and that'sreally the result of bad planning.

Question: What about aircraft? There are an awful lot of them now and they doburn a tremendous amount of fuel.

SW: I agree, I think that's a new problem. It is true that carbon dioxide emissionsfrom aircraft are going to outstrip those from land transport in about five or tenyears time if the projections are met. There have also been reports of much too muchlung cancer around Heathrow.

Question: Is this clustering - a statistical freak - or is it real?

SW: No, it's a real effect, if you look around Heathrow, there's too much lungcancer around there.

Question: What about other airports?

SW: I don't know, but Heathrow is one of the better illustrations.

Question: So what do we do about this? We can't do away with planes entirely.

SW: You've got to ask the question: why are people travelling? It seems odd thatyou end up talking to a toxicologist about transport planning. We know why peopleuse cars a lot, it's because they've got to. We [in Britain] travel about 60% morethan people do in Holland because every thing has become so spread out, so badlythought out. Little things that you tend not to think about like people now being ableto choose what school they can send their kids to, so they can choose the nicer sort ofschool ten miles away which means that they've got to do an enormous round trip

14


We should move rapidly towards electric vehicles or alternatively to internal com-bustion with methane and oxygenated fuels which are much less toxic. There shouldbe plans basically to force cars out of towns and cities; instead of moving outwards,we should moye inwards. In London, something like lSVo of city land is derelict, sotaxation should be arranged to encourage moving back into the urban certain ratherthan vice versa. Extensive pedestrianisation.

Question: Cheap transport?

SW: Lots of people have been saying for years that we only pay about l0%o of thetotal cost of private travel; somebody's paying for that, we ought to switch this hugesubsidy. We don't need fancy new Underground systems; trams are dead cheap andthey seem to work well on the Continenl Above all I think, it's land use. We oughtto stop centralising our amenities so that people don't have to drive everywhere. Aban on out of town superstores would encourage people to shop in the neighbour-hood. It's only recently that wetve had this tremendous need for travel, and thattsreally the result of bad planning.

Question: What about aircraft? There are an awful lot of them now and they doburn a tremendous amount of fuel.

SW: I agree, I think that's a new problem. It is true that carbon dioxide emissionsfrom aircraft are going to outstrip those from land transport in about five or tenyears time if the projections are met. There have also been reports of much too muchIung cancer around Heathrow.

Question: Is this clustering - a statistical freak - or is it real?

SW: No, it's a real effect, if you look around Heathrow, there's too much lungcancer around there.

Question: \Yhat about other airports?

SW: I don't know, but Heathrow is one of the better illustrations.

Question: So what do we do about this? We cantt do away with planes entirely.

SW: You've got to ask the question: why are people travelling? It seems odd thatyou end up talking to a toxicologist about transport planning.

'We know why people

use cars a lot, itts because theytve got to. We [in Britain] travel about 60Vo morethan people do in Holland because eyery thing has become so spread out, so badlythought out. Little things that you tend not to think about like people now being ableto choose what school they can send their kids to, so they can choose the nicer sort ofschool ten miles away which means that they've got to do an enonnous round trip

L4




along with other parents to get to that school whereas twenty years ago you just walked to school half a mile or a mile away.

Little things like that make an enormous difference as far as people travel. As far

as air travel is concerned, I don't know. I think that's due to the fact that somebody has to be subsidising air travel a lot because it's ridiculously cheap. I don't see why it's come down in price so much. I remember flying to Paris over twenty years ago and it was about two hundred quid!

[Nowadays you can buy a return ticket to New York for less than that, which, if

you take inflation into account, means that the real cost of air travel has fallen dra-

matically.]

The real cost of transport is being very happily subsidised, and I would guess that the people who are subsidising it are the people at the destinations who think they

are getting lots of money out of tourism when in fact they are suffering massive environmental degradation at tourist resorts.

Question: You mentioned alternative fuels, methane and the like, what sort of in- vestment are we talking about here? And what about catalytic converters?

SW: Catalytic converters don't really work; they make no difference to air poiiii- tion in towns. Methane is a natural gas; we have a natural gas pipeline which is fair-

ly extensive. I've spoken to engineers about this. A methane powered car would have

a slightly smaller range - you'd need a larger tank which you would have to refill more often. In terms of performance it's not much. Somebody even said to me you could power the entire UK fleet from the natural gas which leaks out of our system

every year anyway.

Question: What waste products does burning methane produce?

SW: A little bit of carbon dioxide, water, a little bit of formaldehyde if the thing isn't tuned very well. If you had a methane-powered car with a catalytic converter then it would just produce carbon dioxide and water.

Question: As opposed to how many chemicals which come out of regular engines?

SW: Thousands. Thousands.

Question: Is diesel worse than petrol?

SW: I'd say so. It produces more soots, and I think soots act as very good carrying agents to get things deeper into the lungs.

15 SI

's8unl aql olu!.radaap s8qqr 1a6 o1s1ua8eEu1,{.r.ruc pooS d.ra,r su IJB s}oos {ulql I puu (s1oos aroru sacnpo.rd lI 'os ,(us p,1 :1115

;1or1ad usql asJo/a lasalp q :uo11sanQ

'spuEsnoql'spu€snoql :als

lsaupua .rqnEa.r Jo lno aruoJ rIJIrI,r{ slsJlruaqt ,{uuru ,lroq ol pasoddo sy :uopsan}

'ralu^r pu€ apFolp uoqrur acnpo.rd 1sn[p1non lI uaqtJeUaauoJ c1f1u1ec B qll,tr JBt peJaaod-auuqlau € p€q nor( y1 '11a,rr, d.raa paunl l6usrSuHr er.ll Jl apr{qappuroJ Jo llq aInII B 5ra1un (apgolp uoqruc Jo flq aIr{I V :AtS

lacnpo.rd eu€qlatu Su.rurnq saop slJnpo.rd alsun lsr{Al :uo11san}

',{ea,{uu rea,t r(ra.{auals,ts Jno Jo lno srleel qrlqa suE 1u.rn1eu aql ruo{ teag Xn eJllue aq1 .ra,tod plnornod atu ol pIBs uala dpoqauos 'qJn[u 1ou s5ll eJuuruJoJJad;o sur.ral uI 'uailo eJoru

IIUaJ Ol a^sq plnoa nort qc1q,r luq .ra6rq e paau prno,t - a8ue.r Iallsrus ,(11q3r1s eaûq plnoia JBJ paJa,rod auuqlaru V'slqt lnoq€ sraaul8ua ol uaqods ea6l'aalsuaga ,{1-JISJ sI rtrlrt,ra eqlad;d se81e.rn1uu u aaBq e,{r ise8 Is.InlBu u s-r euBqlaIAJ'su/raol u! uoll-n11od JIs ol eJuaJaJJIp ou e{Bru ,{eq1 !>1ro,rr i(11uar lruop sJaualuoJ cr/1u1u3 :1119

esJelJeauoc c1/1u1ue lnoqu lerl,ra puv eeJaq lnoq€ 3u-np1 a,{a aJE luerulsaa-ul Jo uos lBIIia ta{11 aql pue au€qlaru (qan; aÎluuJallu pauolluaru noa :uopsan[

'sgosa.r ls1Jnq lu uoll€puJEap luluauuor-1a.ue eÎssetu Eupragns a.ru ,{aq1 IJBJ u! uaq^r us.rJnol Jo lno ,(auoru Jo slol 3u111e8 a.rudaql qu1q1 oq^r suolluullsap eql lu aldoad aql ar€ 11 Eulqplsqns ere oq,u eldoed

".$1uq1 ssanS plno,ra I puu laslplsqns fLtdduq f.re,r Sqaq q godsuu.rl Jo lsor l€ar aqJ

t'fgeclleur-sJp uaIIBJ suq leûJl JlB Jo lsot IBoJ eql tur1l suuatu 'lunolcu olur uoll€[Iu1 a1u1 nod

J.r tqqr{,r{ !eq1 uuql ssal JoJ {JoI aaN ol lo{JI} rrJnlar u ,{nq usc nort sfepunog]

iplnb paJpunq o^q lnoqu su^r lI pueo8e suar( ,{tua,rorl Jeao slJsd o1 Eu1,{g Jaqruerual I 'qJnt[ os ac1.rd q u,&rop eruoJ s.lldq,ra aas l,uop 1

'duaqc rtlsnopclplr s6l! emuJaq lol B [a^BJf 48 Su.rqplsqns eq ol suq,(poqauros lsql lrBJ erll ol enp s6luql {ulql I ',rou[ l,uop 1{pauracuoJ sI IO^84 4s sEJBJ sV'Ia^Br1 aldoad ss JsJ sB eJuaraJJlp snorrrJoua uB a{uru leqt a{n s8u1q1 anrla

',{u,re elrrr B Jo alpu BJ1urt looqJs ol pa{I€ar

1sn[ nod o8u srua.{ ,{1ua,rq sueJerl,r{ IooqJs l€ql ol 1aE o1 s}ue.rud Jerpo qlpn 3uo1u

3SI3 9NIHI=IAOS CNV ONHOYIS




[Professor Wolff added] We know that our overall improvements in health, longerlives, better quality of life and so on over the course of this century have little to dowith modern curative medicine. Rather they have a lot to do with nutrition, sanita-tion, water...There is a view these days that everything has been fixed, so the cause ofcancer is a bit of a mystery. Medical science can cure these, we just have to wait awhile. In reality though, transport and land use are the next great public health is-sues which we have to tackle. We don't have to go back to the Stone Age as somepeople have suggested, but it is possible to have economic development withoutpeople having to travel further and further afield. That really is the cause of our airpollution.

It's not just air pollution; if you move things further and further apart, if you buildsupermarkets out on the ring roads, this inevitably means that all the small shopsdisappear, in part because they're competed out and in part because the rich tend todrive out to the new mega-stores. This means inevitably that the rich have the bestdiets and the poor are disenfranchised in that way. That may sound trivial, butthough surveys have shown that the national diet has improved overall in terms ofVitamin C, fibre and so on, that improvement has occurred only in the car owners.We have scurvy now in this country. That is an enormous achievement of the Britishplanners that they have re-introduced scurvy. We'll be having rickets again soon.

Question: To what extent?

SW: Mainly it's in the poor and the elderly, frank Vitamin C sub-nutrition and afew cases of scurvy. And that's bad, we shouldn't have scurvy. And that is entirelydue to the fact that we've got rid of high street shopping and replaced it with onestop mega-stores to which you drive every weekend and fill up your fridge-freezer.It's great if you're rich, but if you're poor, elderly or you can't drive or if you're dis-abled, it's disastrous. And a lot of people fall into one or more of these categories,something like 40% of the population.

Conclusion

Although the evidence is not yet all in - is it ever? - an elementary critical examin-ation of the facts as presented by Professors Doll, Wolff and others, makes twothings abundantly clear: smoking manifestly does not kill 150,000 people premature-ly in Britain every year. As Eysenck says, it may not even be possible in anymeaningful sense of the word to apportion any deaths at all to smoking. It is clearthough that as well as the proven correlation between lung cancer and smoking, andindeed between tobacco and many other "smoking-related diseases", there is astrong connection between "smoking-related diseases" and air pollution, particular- -ly diesel. The big difference between tobacco and diesel is that no one has to use to-bacco, but for the overwhelming majority of people in Britain and indeed

16


[Professor WoUf added] We lcrow that our overall improvements in healthr longer

lives, better quality of life and so on over the course of this century have little to do

with modern curative medicine. Rather they have a lot to do with nutrition, sanita-

tion, water...There is a view these days that everything has been fixed, so the cause of

cancer is a bit of a mystery. Medical science can cure these, we just have to wait a

while. In reality though, transport and land use are the next great public health is-

sues which we have to tackle. We don't have to go back to the Stone Age as somepeople have suggested, but it is possible to have economic development without

people having to travel further and further afield. That really is the cause of our air

pollution.

It's notjust air pollution; if you moye things further and further apart, if you build

supermarkets out on the ring roads, this inevitably means that all the small shops

disappear, in part because they're competed out and in part because the rich tend to

drive out to the new mega-stores. This means inevitably that the rich have the best

diets and the poor are disenfranchised in that way. That may sound trivialr but

though suryeys have shown that the national diet has improved overall in terms ofVitamin C, frbre and so on, that improvement has occurred only in the car owners.We have scuryy now in this country. That is an enormous achievement of the Britishplanners that they have re-introduced scurvy. Wetll be having rickets again soon.

Question: To what extent?

SW: Mainly it's in the poor and the elderly, frank Vitamin C sub-nutrition and a

few cases of scurvy. And that's bad, we shouldn't have scurvy. And that is entirelydue to the fact that we've got rid of high street shopping and replaced it with onestop mega-stores to which you drive every weekend and fill up your fridge-freezer.It's great if you're rich, but if you're poor, elderly or you cantt drive or if youtre dis-abled, it's disastrous. And a lot of people faII into one or more of these categories,something like 4AVo of the population.

Conclusion

Although the evidence is not yet all in - is it ever? - an elementary critical examin-

ation of the facts as presented by Professors Doll, Wolff and others, makes two

things abundantly clear: smoking manifestly does not kill150,000 people premature'

ly in Britain every year. As Eysenck says, it may not even be possible in any

meaningful sense of the word to apportion any deaths at all to smoking. It is clear

though that as well as the proven correlation between lung cancer and smoking, and

indeed between tobacco and many other "smoking-related diseases", there is astrong connection between "smoking-related diseases" and air pollution, particular-

Iy diesel. The big difference between tobacco and diesel is that no one has to use to-

bacco, but for the overwhelming majority of people in Britain and indeed

l6




throughout the developed world, air pollution is something we have no choice but to tolerate. (27)

It was Max Planck, the father of quantum mechanics and one of the greatest scientists of all time, who said, "The new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing

its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents event- ually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."(28)

Professor Sir Richard Doll is now eighty-one years old. He is also a very pleasant, charismatic and imminently likable fellow; I hope that in due course he receives his

telegram from the Queen. But let us hope too for the sake of future generations - that, unlike those other pseudo-scientists Franz Boas, Siegmund Freud and Karl

Marx -

the evil he has done does not live after him.

17 LI

'rulrl JaIJE a^I[ lou saop auop s€q oq F^e aq] - XJBW

lJuX pu€ pnaJ[ punuEels (suog zu€Jd s]qtuelJs-opnasd Jarllo esoql aqlJnn 61uq1- suopeJaua8 a.rn1n; Jo e{Bs aql JoJ oo1 adoq sn lal 1ng .uaan} aql urorJ ruu.rEalalqq sa^lacar aq a rnor enp u! tsql adoq 1 !no11a; alqq1 flluaupurul pue qluurslrsrlr31uusea1d d.ra,r e osIB s! aH'pto s.rea,{ auo-z{1qfta ,rrou q 11oO pJBqJ.rU 45 JossaJoJd

(gZ) ,,'tI qll,t.r JBIIpUUJ s.r lsql dn s,s,o.r8 uollu.rauaE ,$eu B puu .agp ,{gun-luaaa sluauoddo sll esnsreq raqlur lnq 1q311 aql aas uaqt Supleru pu€ $uauoddo q18ulau1,ruoc ,(q qdung.rl lou saop qln.rl JUIluaIJs aeu aqJil .p1us oq,r,r ,noql IIB Jo slql-ualJs 1sa1uar3 aql Jo auo puu srluurlJeru urnluunb Jo JerIlBJ aq1 b1cue16 x€tr J suta lI

(17)'e1urcp1ol tnq aJloqc ou aaurl a,u 8u1q1auos q uollnllod.qu ,p1.ro,lr padola,rap aql lnoq8no.rql

fslS eNtHrSu\os cNV 9NtvovlsPDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor



Notes and References

Often under the pretext of eliminating racism, sexism or some such non-existentmental illness. Also in this connection it should be borne in mind that film censorswere initially regarded as defenders of public morality. At one time it was not per-missible to portray such characters as corrupt police officers, presumably becausethere was no such animal. In view of the plethora of well-documented fit-ups whichhave come to light in recent years: the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, CardiffThree et a!, this was wishful thinking of the most fanciful (and dangerous) sort.

The two most obvious examples are prostitution and selling "dangerous" drugs.Repulsive as they are, whores do provide a service which no man is obliged to seekout. The principal objection to drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin and of late,crack, is that they are recreational. Millions of people in this country and countlesshundreds of millions throughout the world buypoison everyday. *

* The same day I wrote this I purchased a box of 120 halibut liver oil capsules from

my local Superdrug store. One capsule contains 400 mternational units (10 micro-graniines) of Vitamin D, four times the recommended daily intake. Clearly, VitaminD is hundreds of times more toxic than marijuana.

3) The exact quote is "...the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Thosewho deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.", from page132 of the essay Racism, from The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, byAyn Rand, published by Signet, New York, (1964).

A phrase - probably of American origin - popularised by Times journalist Ber-

nard Levin.

RISK FREEDOM AND PATERNALISM, introduced by Lord Harris of HighCross. The other speakers were Gordon Read of Choice In Personal Safety, PiersMerchant, Public Affairs Director of the Advertising Association and ChristieDavies, Professor of Sociology at the University of Reading.

Tame is now Director; Marjorie Nicholson (flee Brady) is currently CampaignManager.

Tame is in fact extremely well-read on many matters related to the health of thehuman organism. Just as important, he knows how to read between the lines. In1992 in his role as Director of FOREST he published a pamphlet on "junk science"* which exposed the false propaganda of the American Environmental ProtectionAgency.

18

SMOI(NG AND SOMETHING ELSE

Notes and References

(1) Often under the pretext of eliminating racisnt, sexism or some such non'existent

mental illness. Also in this connection it should be borne in mind that'frlm censors

were initially regarded as defenders of public morality. At one time it was not per'

missible to portray such characters as corrupt police officers, presumably because

there 1ou, ro such animal. In view of the plethora of well-documented frt-ups which

have come to light in recent years: the Guildford Four, Birmingham Six, Cardiff

Three et al, this was wishful thinking of the most fanciful (and dangerous) sort.

(2) The two most obvious examples are prostitution and selling "dangerous" drugs.

Repulsive as they are, whores do provide a service which no man is obliged to seek

out^. The principal objection to drugs such as marliuana, cocaine, heroin and of late,

crack, is itrat they are recreational. Millions of people in this country and countless

hundreds of millions throughout the world buy poison everyday. *

* The same day I wrote this I purchased a box of 120 halibut liver oil capsules from

my local Superdrug store. One capsule contains 400 international units (L0 micro'

grammes; olViturnio D, four times the recommended daily intake. Clearly, Vitamin

D is hundreds of times more toxic than marijuana.

(3) The exact quote is "...the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those

who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.", from page

I3Z ofthe essay Racism, from The Virtue of Selfishne,ss.'A New Concept of Egoism, by

Ayn Rand, published by Signet, New York, (1964).

(4) A phrase - probably of American origin - popularised by Times iownalist Ber'

nard Levin.

(5) ruS6, FREEDOM AND PATERNALISM, introduced by Lord Harris of High

Cross. The other speakers were Gordon Read of Choice In Personal Safety, Piers

Merchant, Public Affairs Director of the Advertising Association and Christie

Davies, Professor of Sociology at the University of Reading'

(e Tame is now"Director; Marjorie Nicholson (nee Brady) is currently Campaign

Manager.

(7) Tame is in fact extremely well-read on many matters related to the health of the

human organism. Just as important, he knows how to read between the lines. In

1992 inhis role as Director of FOREST he published a pamphlet on "junk science"* which exposed the false propaganda of the American Environmental Protection

Agency.

18




* "Junk Science" In Action: Critical Notes on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), by Chris R. Tame, published by FOREST, London, (June, 1992).

I had previously interviewed Goldsmith for a magazine feature.

Although in my humble opinion, the rewards of smoking are minimal if they exist at all, most smokers clearly disagree. For example, some people fmd it relieves

stress.

The consequences of smoking can be a decline in purchasing power (due almost entirely to punitive taxation); halitosis; yellow teeth; body odour; smokers'

cough; increased susceptibility to infection including bronchitis and emphysema; chronic obstructive lung disease; increased risk of cancer; premature death.

CANCER AND BRONCHITIS MORTALITY IN RELATION TO ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSIT AND SMOKE, by Percy Stocks, (page 74), published in the British Medical

Journal for January 10, 1959, (pages 74-9).

It was Doll, along with the late Sir Austin Bradford Hill (regarded as the founding father of modern epidemiology), who first established the link between smoking and lung cancer. Their famous (and grotesquely flawed) Doctors' Study

(not to be confused with the Soviet Doctors' Plot) is still regarded as the bedrock on which research in this field is based. The Doctors' Study has not only been severely

criticised but in at least one country it is held up as a crowning example of how not to study epidemiology.

So that the reader is in no doubt exactly what Professor Doll means, I repro- duce here the following fragment from this interview:

Question: The latest set of figures given us by the anti-smoking lobby is 150,000 premature deaths a year due to smoking.

Sir Richard: That's right, yes.

Question: That gives the impression that if everybody stopped smoking there would be 150,000 people less a year dying. That's nonsense, isn't it?

Sir Richard: That's nonsense, yes, they'd just die ten years later, older, losing actually on average about fifteen years of life, the ones who die of smoking-related dis-

eases.

Question: As much as that?

Sir Richard: Yes, it's a great deal.

19 6I

'Isap tBar8 € s6ll (sa^ :pr€rl4u Jls

it"-rll s8 qrntu sv :uollsano

'sasaa

-slp palelar-8uplotus Jo e1p oq.tr sauo aql 'a,ITI Jo srua,{ ueatJg lnoqu aisrale uo fgenl-ce Eu1so1 (.rap1o (.ra1e1 sreaf ual elp 1sn[ p,,{aql 'sa,{ 'asuasuou srlu{I :pJutlc1y JrS

;lI trusl .asuasuou s.l€q;,.8u$p rear( u ssal eldoad 00060sI eqplno.tr aJarp Sup4orus paddols dpoq,{ra,raJI lur{l uolssarduq aq1 saap l€r[J :uopsan[

'sa,{'1qigr s,lurll :pr€qJIU J.rS

'8up1orus ol enp.rua,{ u srlluap arnleruard

000(0SI s1 ,tqqo1 Suplorus-pus aql fq sn ua,r13 sarn8g Jo las 1salq aq;, :uo11san$

:,tral^Jallq slql uro4luaru8ur; Suprogo; aql a.raq eJnp-o.rdar 1

{suuatu 11o(I rossaJoJd lsll,ra dllcexa lqnop ou u! sI rapua.r eql l€ql oS (gf)

'd8o1onuap1da r(pn1s o1

lou ^roq;o alduruxa 3u1u,norJ s ss dn plaq s1 11 ,t:1unoJ euo ls€el lu q lnq pastrllrJJdlararras uaaq ,{1uo lou ssq ,{pqs .sJolJoO aqJ 'paseq s.r pIaU qqf u-r qJruasal r1Jlq,ruo {roJpaq eql sB papre8al ru$ s.t (1o14 ,s.rolco11 lepos aql qlIA pesnJuor eq o11ou)dpqs 6sJolJoO (panug ,{lanbsaror8 puu) snorusJ J.raqJ 'Jacuuc 3un1 puu 3u5r1ousueaaqaq {u11 aql paqs[qqsa 1srg oq,r '(,{3o1opuap1da urepou Jo JeqlBJ Stqpuno;arp sB pap.ruSar) IIIH proJpsr{ upsnv 45 alq aql qll,r{ 3uo1u '11o9 se,ra I (ZD

' G-V t sa8ud)' 6961 661,{runuef to1 lournofIDrypaW Llsltlrg a{f u1 paqqlqnd 6(p4 a8ud) 's{ao}S ,(c.ra4 f,q'4XOWS ANV ilSOdgAUV4HilSOWTV OJ NOIJWW NI AJITVJVOW SIJIH)NOV{ ANV V4JNV) GT)

'qluap arnletua.rd !.raeuec;o {sF pasualcul'lasuaqp 3un1 a^llrnJ$qo JTuoJrIrleruasfqdue puu splqrrrorq Supnlcq uoptaJlrl o1 ,{ggqpder$rs pasuertul lq8noo

6sJa>lours !.rnopo dpoq lqtaat ato11a,t lqsolquq !(uo11exq e,rlgund o1 ,{1a.41ua lsoru-1e anp) .ra,rlod Eu.rseqcrnd u.r euJlcap s aq uuc Su.rxorrrs Jo sacuanbasuoc aq; (61)

'ssa4s

salallal fI puIJ aldoad aruos {qdurexa.rog 'aar8usrp ,{1.rua1c sJa{orus lsour 'gu ls lqxodaqf ;1 Isur.ru1ur a.ru Euplours Jo spJuireJ arll 6uop.rdo elqunq dru u.r q8noqryy (6)

'arnlsal aulzeieru u roJ qllusploC paiaa!^relu! f,lsnonard p€q I G)

'(Zeet (aun1') 'uopual'ISflUO{ Iq paqqqnd'arue;'U sr.rq3 [q'$ag)Kcua8y uolpapJd lvlualuuoJ'ruug aqt uo satoq IDJ11?JJ :uouJv uI tpJuans lunf,, x

3Sl3 oNIHI3NOS CNV 9NtXOr\tSPDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor



Question: When we use the term smoking-related diseases, I recall the case of a 25year old non-smoker who died of lung cancer earlier this year. Obviously that's arather exceptional case, but would you say in your opinion that there are 150,000premature deaths a year in this country due to smoking alone?

Sir Richard: Yes, I would say that 150,000 more people died as a result of theirsmoking than would have died without smoking. For smoking to do so much dam-age.. .giving up can't [prevent] it all.

Question: We're talking about years here?

Sir Richard: Yes, we're talking about years of life lost.

(14) The Big Kill: "Smoking Epidemic In EnglandAnd Wales. ", (in 15 volumes), Editedby John L. Roberts and Paul A. Graveling, published by the Health EducationCouncil, * (1986).

This publication, which was produced jointly with the BMA, purports to be abreakdown region by region of smoking fatalities and hospitalisations.

Page 5 claims or implies that smoking has killed three million adults in Englandsince the end of the war. Two pages previously the claim is made that the number ofdeaths given is an underestimate.

The entire publication is complete nonsense cover to cover and a waste of publicmoney, for example:

Volume 1, page 38 estimates that in Carlisle, 168 people died from smoking duringthe course of the year.

Volume 2, page 62 estimates that in Glanford and Scunthorpe, 149 people diedfrom smoking during the course of the year.

Volume 3, page 105 estimates that in Sheffield, Brightside, 201 people died, and soon for fifteen volumes, throughout England and Wales. (Separate volumes werepublished for Scotland and Northern Ireland). And so on.

The Big Kill estimates the number of people killed annually by smoking in Englandand Wales at 77,774! It also professes to calculate the number of beds filled by smo-kers and to itemise the cost to the National Health region by region.

* Now the Health Education Authority.

20


Question: When we use the term smoking-related diseases, I recall the case of a 25year old non-smoker who died of lung cancer earlier this year. Obviously thatts arather exceptional case, but would you say in your opinion that there are 150,000premature deaths a year in this country due to smoking alone?

Sir Richard: Yes, I would say that 1501000 more people died as a result of theirsmoking than would have died without smoking. For smoking to do so much dam-age...giving up can't [prevent] it all.

Question: We're talking about yeans here?

Sir Richard: Yes, we're talking about years of life lost.

(L4) TIte Big KiII: "Smoking Epidemic In EnglandAndWales.", (in 15 volumes), Editedby John L. Roberfs and Paul A. Graveling, published by the Health EducationCouncil, {'(L980.

This publication, which was produced jointly with the BMA, purports to be abreakdown region by region of smoking fatalities and hospitalisations.

Page 5 claims or implies that smoking has killed three million adults in Englandsince the end of the war. Two pages previously the claim is made that the number ofdeaths given is an underestimate.

The entire publication is complete nonsense cover to cover and a waste of publicmoney, for example:

Volume L, page 38 estimates that in Carlisle, 168 people died from smoking duringthe course ofthe year.

Volume 2, page 62 estimates that in Glanford and Scunthorpe, 149 peopte diedfrom smoking during the course of the year.

Volume 3, page 1"05 estimates that in Sheffield, Brightside, 20L people died, and soon for fifteen volumes, throughout England and Wales. (Separate volumes werepublished for Scotland and Northern Ireland). And so on.

The BigKil/ estimates the number of people killed annually by smoking in Englandand Wales at77r774l It also professes to calculate the number of beds filled by smo-kers and to itemise the cost to the National Health region by region.

* Now the Health Education Authoritv.

20




Cited by Hans Eysenck in Smoking And Health, (page 19), his contribution to Smoking and Society: Toward a More Balanced Assessment, Edited by Robert D. Tolli-

son, published by Lexington Books, Lexington, (1985).

Eysenck, page 19, (ibid).

Can epidemiology become a rigorous science? How big is The Big Kill? was originally published in 1986. It was later republished posthumously (pages 243-56) in

The Biological Basis of Disease: Selected papers by P.RJ. Burch, Edited by M.S. Ches- ters and J.E. Burch, Leeds University Press, (1989).

Susan Chesters PhD., who works in the Department of Medical Physics in the University of Leeds, was a collaborator of Professor Burch; Jane Burch PhD., his

widow, now retired, worked in the Department of Biochemistry and was au fail with her late husband's work. Professor Burch, like Simon Wolff, Hans Eysenck and

others, was totally unimpressed with Professor Doll's claptrap; he also developed a unique (and yet to be refuted) theory of disease which he expounded in his book The Biology of Cancer: A New Approach, published by MTP, Lancaster, (1976). The Biol- ogical Basis of Disease contains a complete bibliography of Professor Burch's scien-

tific writings.

Burch, Biological Basis of Disease, page 243, (ibid).

These and all the figures that follow are official government figures compiled by the Central Statistical Office and are published in the Annual Abstract of Statistics,

(No 128 Edited by Geoff Dennis), published by HMSO, London. These figures are from the 1992 edition. As I write these words, the 1993 edition has appeared in

Westminster Central Reference Library.

Press cutting from Daily Mail, (Lincoln Hannah MediaScan dated 4th Septem- ber 1992, supplied by Judith Hatton of FOREST).

From pages 27-8 of UK Smoking Statistics, by Nicholas Wald and Ans Nico- laides-Bouman, Second Edition, published by the Wolfson Institute of Preventive

Medicine, London, (1991).

Male figures are for all smokers; female figures exclude pipe smokers.

Personal correspondence from Professor Simon Wolff, May 13, 1993. The right answer is a reference to Professor Doll's award of the 1979 General Motors Prize.

The following extract is from our interview, 7th April, 1993.

Sir Richard: I've been very lucky in the awards I've been given. The first one was the United Nations Award For Cancer, which I think was based on three things: our

study on smoking, the work I've done on radiation, and the work on asbestos, show-

21 IZ

-^roqs bolsaqsu uo ryo^r aql pus ruollulper uo auop aA.I {Jo^r aq1 tEuplours uo dpnls.rno :s8ulql aaJql uo passq s€,ra {ulql I qclqa (.racuu3 Jotr pJ€r{av suoll€N pelrun eqts€a auo $Jg ar{I 'uaag6 uaeq aa.I spJuiae aql u! ,{>1cn1 ,iraa uaaq a^6J :pJBIIJIU JIS

'E66I tll.rdv q14 (,trapr.relu1 Jno ruo{ sl lrsJua 3u1,no11oy eq;'azvd $rolotr{ IBJauac 6L6T ew Jo pJs^rB s,IIo(I JossaJoJd ol aJuaJaJaJ u sI Ja^rsuBry?y aqa'E66I tgl ,{uIAI $toU. uou4s rossaJord ruo{ acuapuodsarroc luuosratr (97)

'sra{orus adld apnlcxa sa.rn8.g elerual ls.ra4orus IIB JoJ a.ru sa.rnSg aI€I l

'(tOO t) 'uopuol 'au1cJpa1,n

a^puaaard Jo alnlpsul uosJlo1l arlf dq paqqlqnd tuolqpf, puocas (ueunog-sap1u1-orlN suv puu plu/r{. s€lorlrlN f,q (s4tqrutg Sut4outg Xn Jo g-17 sa8ed uorg (19)

'fi,SgUO.f Jo uolluH rlrpnf dq paqddns'266I rq-ueldag qlt palup uBrSBIpaI tr quuuuH ulocurl) 'UoW {Iloe ruo{ 3u.r11ne ssartr (gg)

'iirurq.tl eJuaJaJaU [B4uaJ Jalsupulse1lu1 paruaddu s€q uolllpa €66I ar{f (spro,r asaql a}!r^r I sV 'uolllpa Z66T aql ruo.r;ere sarn8g asaql 'uopuoT 'OSI trI fq paqqlqnd ((quua(

Jloa3 ,(q pattpg gZI oN)$tt7s11o1gto poqsqvpnuuva\l ur paqsgqnd a.ru puu aogJo Isrrlspuls IBrlueJ eql,tqpalldruoc sa.rn8g tueurureao8 luloggo aru ̂rolloJ 1eq1 sarn8g aqr IIB pus asaql (61)

' (ptql) ( gp7 a?ed, ( a so a n q to st so g 7o cd op! g (qrrng (g 1)

's8q1gu. cgp-ualJs s6qerng rossaJordJo dqdur8o11q1q alaldruoJ u sululuor asoanq lo s?svg 7nn3o-p!g aTI '$rcD (.ra1sucuu1 'dtrI I ,iq paqqtqnd,3r1cootddy MaN V :ncuo3 lo tSo7otgaqJ>IooqEII q papunodxa aq qrlr1^r. asuaslp;o,{roaq1 (palnyar aq ot ta,{ puu) anbpnu padola,rap osIB aq lde4dulJ s6IIo( JossaJoJd rlt!^r passa.rdur.run,{pu1o1 su,t's.raq1opue {ruas,{g sue11 t$toAl uouqs aqg 'qcrnfl JosseJoJd Trora s.puuqsnq alul Jaqq77rl^ tlot lro sar.r puu d.rlquaqJol{ Jo lueruUudag aq1 u-r pa{Jo^r .pa41a.r nou (,nopln

slq "Oqd qrJnfl auuf :rIJJnfl JossaJoJd Jo JolBJoqslIoJ B s€ia 6spaal go flgsra,rgpeql u! sa1s,{q4 IBJIpatr tr Jo luauiludaq aqt u.r srlro^r oq^r ..11qd sJalsaqJ uusns

'(OSOf) 6ssa.r4,{11sra,lp11 speaT 'qorng .f,'f puu sral-saq3 'S'ru Iq patlpf, (t1cmg'fy'd {q stadodpapaps :asoaslqto nsog TonSoyo?g aqJrr1 $S-EVZ sa8ud) ,{lsnounqlsod paqqlqnda.r relel su^r fI .996I uI paqslqnd f,11eu.r-31ro se,ra fnry 4U aW s! 39 uo11 Zaruans snoto&tt o atilo)aq {8o7orutaptda uo3 Q1)

(plqD (61a8ud tcuas,{g @1)

'GSO1) (uo13ug*1's{oofl uo13u1xr1 dq paqqtqnd suos-{IoI 'O ilaqo1 dq pafpg (luatussassyparuDlog arory D prD^4oJ :,Qa7cog puo Suolorugol ugllnqrrluor sFI 6(61 a8ud) 'qtloag puy 3u77outg u1 >1cuas,{g suBH ,tq pellC Gt)

3Sl3 eNtHt_3t OS CNV 9NtyOy\SPDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor



ing that asbestos was a cause of lung cancer. That was all work which I did in the1950s. The United Nations hasn't given any other awards for cancer research, al-though it gave three on that occasion.

I've also had the General Motors Award. That's a major award that General Mo-tors started in 1979 and I was fortunate enough to get one of the first three. Theywanted to encourage people to do research into cancer, and announced they wouldgive a reward every year. It is a very substantial one, and has continued ever since.

Undoubtedly, Sir Richard does believe these awards are attributable to "luck"Though if Rothmans or Embassy had awarded a very substantial prize "to encour-age people to do research into cancer", the rubes back on main street would longsince have woken up.

Ibid.

The recorded deaths for malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lungfor 1990 were 34,375 in England and Wales; 4,123 for Scotland; and 771 for North-ern Ireland; a total of 39,269 for the UK in total or about 6% of all deaths. Thesefigures have been more or less constant for the past fifteen years. Annual Abstracts,(op cit).

Reported by Werner Hofinann, Robert Katz and Zhang Chunxiang in LungCancer Risk at Low Doses of Alpha Particles, published in Health Physics, (pages 457-68), Vol 51, No 4, (1986).

Again, Sir Richard is way off beam, as the following extract clearly shows:

Question: There is though a connection between living in towns and lung cancer?

Sir Richard: Well, yes, a small relationship there was, though it's disappearingnow, but this could be explained almost wholly if not wholly by the difference in ci-garette consumption between towns and the countryside, particularly people in thecountryside tended to go on smoking pipes longer; they switched over to cigaretteslater, and on average they smoke less than people in towns.

Now with the change in smoking habits we've seen mortality in London goingdown, and some of the Northern cities where it's gone up, so it's not even true to sayit's in towns now, it's in selected towns.

Perhaps it's time you retired, Sir Richard.

In view of Professor WolfPs revelations - which, as noted, are not new - it is allthe more remarkable that the anti-smoking lobby has been able to get away with itsspecious crusade against passive smoking. If, over the past forty years, the media

22


ing that asbestos was a cause of lung cancer. That was all work which I did in the

L950s. The United Nations hasn't given any other awards for cancer research, al-

though it gave three on that occasion.

Itve also had the General Motors Award. That's a major award that General Mo-

tors started in 1979 and I was fortunate enough to get one of the first three. They

wanted to encourage people to do research into cancer, and announced they would

give a reward every year. It is a very substantial one, and has continued ever since.

Undoubtedly, Sfo Richard does believe these awards are attributable to "luek"Though if Rothmans or Embassy had awarded a very substantial prize "to encour-

age people to do research into cancer", the rubes back on main street would long

since have woken up.

(23) Ibid.

(24) The recorded deaths for malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung

for 1990 were 34,375 in England and Wales; 4,123 for Scotland; and 771for North-

ern Ireland; a total of 391269 for the UK in total or about 67o of all deaths. These

figures have been more or less constant for the past fifteen years. Annual Abstracts,

(op cit).

(25) Reported by Werner Hofmann, Robert Katz and Zhang Chunxiang in Lung

Cancer Risk at Low Doses of Alpha Particles, published in Health Pltysics, (pages 457-

68), Vol51, No 4, (1986).

(2Q Again, Sir Richard is way offbeam, as the following extract clearly shows:

Question: There is though a connection between living in towns and lung cancer?

Sir Richard: WelI, yes, a small relationship there was, though itts disappearing

now, but this could be explained almost wholly if not wholly by the difference in ci-

garette consumption between towns and the countryside, particularly people in the

countryside tended to go on smoking pipes longer; they switched over to cigarettes

later, and on ayerage they smoke less than people in towns.

Now with the change in smoking habits we've seen mortality in London going

down, and some of the Northern cities where it's gone up, so it's not even true to say

itts in towns now, itts in selected towns.

Perhaps it's time you retired, Sir Richard.

(27) In view of Professor Wolffs revelations - which, as noted, are not new - it is all

the more remarkable that the anti-smoking lobby has been able to get away with its

specious crusade against passive smoking. If, over the past forty years, the media

a ,




had paid half as much attention to diesel and other pollution as it has to passive smoking over the past ten, some of the suggestions Professor Wolff outlined in our interview may have been put into practice. And if Professor Doll had paid the slight-

est attention to it, he might have made a positive rather than a retrograde contribution to cancer research. On the other hand, he probably wouldn't have received the

General Motors Award.

(28) As cited by his fellow German and unquestionably one of the greatest psycho- logists of all time Hans Eysenck, in his autobiography, Rebel With A Cause, (page 67),

published by W.H. Allen, London, (1990).

23 EZ

'(OOef) (uopuol,uailV .H.Af {q paqqlqnd 'Q9 afled) (asno3 v r#la pqatr ',(qdu.r8olqolne $q u1 !cuas,(g runHi"qr ilu yo qqEol

'oqc,{sd lse1ua-r8 arll Jo auo ,{lqeuollsanbun puu uurrrrac aoIIaJ qq .iq pellr sv (gz)

'pre/av srolotr tr lBreuacaql pa^raJeJ a^€q l6uplnoar ,{lquqord eq spuuq Jarllo eql uo .qJJ8aser JeJuBr ol uoll-nqrrluoc apu.rEo.r1a.r B uBql JarllBJ a,rl11sod B apBru aauq lqEpu oq ,lI ol uolluailB lsa 'lq8lls eql p;ud pBrtr ilo(r JossaJordJI puv.ecllrerd o1u11nd uaaq a,r,uq,{uru'^ral^JalulJno u! pau{lno JIIoal JosseJoJd suo11sa33ns aql Jo aruos .ual pud aql Ja^o Eq40usa.,r1ssud ol sBr[ l! ss uolln110d .raq10 puB lesalp ol uollua$B qrilu ss JrBrI plud puq

3St3 eNtHlSt OS CNV gNIyOy\lS



Published by InfoText Manuscripts, 93c Venner Road,

Sydenham, London SF26 5HU.

England.

+44 (0)81 659 7713

ISBN 1 871473 66 7 L 99 ELVILS I NflSI

ETLL 6se rs6) pt+

.puepuE.0HS gZgS uopuoT

'ruequap.{g.peog Jeuua1 Jg6 'stdrrrsnuBtr4l

1xa;oJu1 i(q paqnJqn4



smoking and something else

Documents

lung cancer

air pollution

air pollution

lung cancer

lung cancer

professor

professor

encourage