h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

...I'll say this here.

Roy Castle died of lung cancer. The passive smoking bit was self diagnosed and there is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence to say that passive smoking caused the cancer.

'Passive smoking killed Roy Castle' is unsubstantiated twaddle. Until it can be verified it has no place in an anti-smoking debate.

Am I wrong in thinking that lung cancer existed a long time before smoking did?

Christopher Reeve's wife Dana also died of lung cancer, she was a life-long non-smoker who lived with only one husband, also a non-smoker.

I'd say you have a case Roymondo

Info for you: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4782686.stm and here's my recommended entry: A13065257 where I mention it

Crivvens, I wasn't expecting that! Of course, the 'Castlers' would say that, as she was a singer, she probably worked in smokey clubs...

As someone who delves deeper into health scares instead of just beleiving what the media tells me I have to applaud you Roymondo... I'm sick and tired of people telling me all about Roy Castle dying of passive smoking.

I can't be bothered Googling the links, but people are genetically pre-disposed to lung cancer and smoking is not the prime, only or probable cause of lung cancer in such people.

The anti-smoking lobby ignores the fact that the current oldest man in the UK is 117 and smokes. In a newspaper today I read of a 100 year old man who smokes 30 cigs a day and also has a large whisky daily. More surprising and life-threatening I would suggest, have been his five wives

The scientific argument against smoking causing lung cancer is established enough now that knowledgeable anti-smoking activists have shifted their focus onto asthma, emphysema and heart disease.

Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column (or site, for those that don't read The Guardian) should be compulsory reading. I haven't read a single tabloid health story without picking holes in it since I came across Mr G. And I have no medical background whatsoever: unless you count a 'B' in GCSE Biology as a medical background. Mind you, that's more than McKeith's got!

Mind you, the 'Castlers' might have a point - the carcogenes in cigarette smoke are quite likely to enter the lungs of non-smokers in smoky clubs, albeit at lower concentrations than for smokers (due to gradual dispersion into the atmosphere and initial adsorption into smokers' lung tissue).

I was gonna say something about genetic disposition for developing tumours is probably the key to developing lung cancer but I was beaten to it! However, I do still think that breathing in cigarette smoke (willingly or not) is a major contributing factor in most cases - quite a few studies on passive smoking have shown at least a 25% increase in the incidence of lung cancer for non-smokers when they are regularly exposed to smoky air. (The increase for smokers is substantially higher, but this is still a significant difference for non-smokers.)

In the studies: were the passive smokers from an environment that contained no carcinogens other than cigarette smoke? Where did they live? Did they lead similar lifestyles to those that *didn't* get cancer (assuming there's a control group)? How were the levels of passive smoke measured? What was the history of cancer in their families? Who paid for the studies?

I'm not for one second saying that passive smoking can't lead to cancer; I'm just saying that passive smoking is one of a number of factors that could contribute to it, a fact the 'Castlers' choose to ignore.

As far as I am aware, we all carry the cancer gene.

Therefore, we all have the ability to get cancer.

There are contributory factors, one of which is smoking or being around a smoker.

There is also a possibility that someone who works in a smoky environment may get cancer while being a non-smoker everywhere else. There is just as much likelihood that they won't - it's all to do with vulnerability to gene mutation, I suppose?

It's very sad that Roy Castle, or indeed anybody else has to die. But the fact is, we do. All of us. Loads of people died on trains in Mumbai today & it's a fair bet lots of them were smoking cigarettes at the time (most men smoke in India & Pakistan; if they are poor, it's one of the few pleasures)

I smoke, but if i went to someone's home who doesn't, obviously i would go outside. If they can't stand the smell of smoke upon my nasty filthy body, they probably also can't stand the smell of on my breath; so basically, we are incompatible as RL acquaintances. These things happen.

As for the "Entertainers shouldn't be exposed to passive smoking"; sorry, but as a semi-professional entertainer at various points in my life, it's part of the job. All careers have job related risks. Ask any miner, doctor, vet, shop assistant, taxi driver. Take your pick of emphysema,AIDS, rabies, mugging or road accidents.

Or just simply step off the kerb & find a rather large vehicle heading towards you. Last thought "Oh hell, i could have had that last ciggy!"

zdt