410 



widen. It is the r*»€rse of what one would expect. 



I 



6: Anoth 



JiJ^r r»a 



r f»asoD to question the anti- cigarette theory is that the 



incidence of lung ca)>^er •bows little correspopdepce to cigarette consumptlop 

 on a geographical basig i<->The »ccompanying chart (Fig. 1), based on ooe from 

 the 1964 Surgeon General's t>port on smoking and health, shows the per capita 

 consumption of cigarettes in IsMaod the death rate from lung cancer io 1950 

 'la various countries. The reason srooljing rates in 1930 are compared with 

 lung cancer rates in 1950 is that the Surgeon GeneraJ's Advisory Committee 



in its l964 Report assumed a 20-year induction period for the appearance of 



V "'"• V 



lung cancer. Q /^ 



K» you"^*! see. Great Britain and the Dnitecf^tei h»ve rather 



high levels of>fr capt^ cigarette consumption. But look at<1^e Ab)^ cancer 



in these countries. The LTOted States, which has the higher raw of smoldsg. 



also has the lower rate of lung'^ncer. Great BriUio. with a lower smokinj 



rate than the U. S. , has almost t»i<f»<lhe lung cancer rate. Two countries •.;• 



\- . 

 with high rates of smoking, but no appafeta relationship in lung cancer 



incidence. 'Vv 



Look at Canada and Holland, both with low per capita consumption 



of cigarettes. Canada has a lung cancer rate f*T belo^*;ilolland, yet the smoking 



rates are about the same in both countries. If cigarettes ciuse cancer, how 



then is one to account for this large disparity between the use oMhe product 9 



and the incidence of the disease? .-^._ |5 



o 

 Incidentally, you may find it of interest to know that regardless of g 



» 



OD 



Whether a 20-year interval is usee, as the Surgeon General's Advisory Com- 



