Science has shown that smoking causes cancer. Which is an example of how society responded to this information?

Answer 1

One example of how the public has responded is:

Has it? Extremely flawed, cherry-picked, biased and obsolete epidemiological studies have SUGGESTED that smoking MAY INCREASE THE RISK of cancer. Smoking is just one of many SUSPECTED CONTRIBUTING FACTORS for cancer. For example, there are at least sixty suspected contributing factors for lung cancer - alcohol, dairy products, fumes from gas appliances, owning a colour TV set or a refridgerater, family history of cancer, traffic pollution, asbestos, radon, sawdust and wood burning stoves being a few.

Smoking prevalence has decreased significantly in the developed world yet the incidence of cancer has INCREASED just as significantly. WHY? That is the question that requires an answer.

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.

Don't fret over list of cancer 'risks'

"We are being bombarded" with messages about the dangers posed by common things in our lives, yet most exposures "are not at a level that are going to cause cancer," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society's deputy chief medical officer.

Linda Birnbaum agrees. She is a toxicologist who heads the government agency that just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk.

"Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam," she said. Levels of styrene that leach from food containers "are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.

Carcinogens are things that can cause cancer, but that label doesn't mean that they will or that they pose a risk to anyone exposed to them in any amount at any time.

Now,Im glad to see the ACS admitting to the dose response relationship finally!

So now we understand why the following is factual:

are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

ETS between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers

OSHA the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded

JUST AMAZING ISNT IT

...

Answer 2

warning labels are required on all packs of cigarettes

Answer 3

One example of how the public has responded is:

Has it? Extremely flawed, cherry-picked, biased and obsolete epidemiological studies have SUGGESTED that smoking MAY INCREASE THE RISK of cancer. Smoking is just one of many SUSPECTED CONTRIBUTING FACTORS for cancer. For example, there are at least sixty suspected contributing factors for lung cancer - alcohol, dairy products, fumes from gas appliances, owning a colour TV set or a refridgerater, family history of cancer, traffic pollution, asbestos, radon, sawdust and wood burning stoves being a few.

Smoking prevalence has decreased significantly in the developed world yet the incidence of cancer has INCREASED just as significantly. WHY? That is the question that requires an answer.

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.

Don't fret over list of cancer 'risks'

"We are being bombarded" with messages about the dangers posed by common things in our lives, yet most exposures "are not at a level that are going to cause cancer," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society's deputy chief medical officer.

Linda Birnbaum agrees. She is a toxicologist who heads the government agency that just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk.

"Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam," she said. Levels of styrene that leach from food containers "are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.

Carcinogens are things that can cause cancer, but that label doesn't mean that they will or that they pose a risk to anyone exposed to them in any amount at any time.

Now,Im glad to see the ACS admitting to the dose response relationship finally!

So now we understand why the following is factual:

are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting," where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

ETS between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers

OSHA the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded

JUST AMAZING ISNT IT

...