If this study is substantiated will cigarettes be seen as less harmful?

Great Debates
41

The study cited by the OP doesn’t really add to what we already know about lung cancer (since it found that two-thirds of cases are attributable to environmental factors, which largely involve smoking). Nor does it contract epidemiologic evidence linking smoking to other cancers (i.e. those of esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, liver, pancreas, stomach, cervix, colon, and rectum, as well as acute myeloid leukemia*). It does shed some light on the frequency random mutations occurring in other cancers which are not felt to be smoking-related (i.e. prostate and brain neoplasms).

And while these debates commonly overfocus on cancer risk, it should again be noted that a high percentage of cancer-related deaths are due to cardiac and pulmonary disease which likely do not depend on de novo mutations.

One limitation of the new study is that it apparently relies on limited data from cancer registries in which there’s been some form of DNA sequencing - which is a tiny percentage of all cancers.

*list helpfully provided by cancer.gov.

42

Ah, but that’s a scientific journal article, not a popular science article. Those have to read more like stories. And the more satisfying the story, the wider the audience is likely to be.

I fully believe that the actual journal articles are cool.

43

To correct an apparent instance of brain cramp in my previous post, the line should read:

"And while these debates commonly overfocus on cancer risk in smokers, it should again be noted that a high percentage of smoking-related deaths are due to cardiac and pulmonary disease which likely do not depend on de novo mutations.