409 



- 3 - 



V .'•■ 

 2. If (rtprettes caug* lung cancer, why is it reportgd that 10 to 



ease 



20?« of lung cancer ttpcors in non-smokera'> Why should they get the dls 



at all? This casts -^oth«r doubt on the claim that cigarettes cause lung 



\ 

 cancer. ^c:^ 



3. If a smoker geU lung cancer, why is it that the number of years 

 he has smoked or the number of-"ci^ar«ttes he smokes a day seems to have so 

 Dttle bearing on whether he gets it earlier or later in life? Light smokers, 

 heavy smokers and even non-smokers — if ^^y are going to get lung cancer- 

 tend to g4v it at about the same age. If cigarfir^es wer« the cause, surely 



J 



the smoker Wjji} started young and has been a heavy sipolcer for many years 

 should be affecteit>Qpner than the non-smoker. c^^ 



4. ' Also, g^jnedian age of lung cancer incidence >^ reported to be 

 advancing. People seem f^ave taken up smoking at earlier ag€« over tt>e 



last 30 years. Yet the mediah'S^e at death from lung cancer for white males 



'^ 

 in 1949 was reported to be age 61 aif^n 196S the median age had increased '^. 



to nearly age 65. If cigarette smoking eM^es lung cancer, should not the 



median age have decreased? "V-. 



5. Men get lung cancer more often thair^women. The paradox here 

 concerns the ratio. In 1950, the ratio of lung cancer -to, men as compared to 

 women was 4.7-1. That is, men were reported to get luri^cancer almost 



5 times more often than women. In 1965, that ratio had widened to 6. 1-1; ? 



6 times more often in men than in women. This happened even thougr^the '^ 

 proportion of women to men smoking had increased steadily for years. If o 



cigarettes cause lung cancer, then one would expect this ratio to narrow no: 



