OCR Text |
Show Cigarettes Are Big Polluters Cigarette smoking is a greater cause of respiratory diseases than air pollution, according to a nationwide health cost analysis published in the Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association. AN EVALUATION of major lung disease studies, prepared by two Georgia Tech researchers, shows that cigarette smoking was found to be responsible for 70 percent per-cent of respiratory diseases, with an estimated annual health cost to the nation of $4.23 billion. Urban air pollution, long believed to be the main culprit of the most prevalent respiratory diseases-cancer, chronic and acute bronchitis, pneumonia, emphysema, asthma, and the common cold-has now been cited as responsible for about 15 percent, per-cent, with various other causes responsible for the remainder. THE ANALYSIS was conducted con-ducted by J.R. Williams and C.G. Justus, of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, to determine what the effects of major respiratory respira-tory diseases meant to the nation in terms of health costs Williams, who is associate professor of Mechanical Engineering, En-gineering, and Justus, associate as-sociate professor of Aerospace Aero-space Engineering, reviewed major respiratory disease studies and found that most apportioned a part of respiratory respira-tory diseases to air pollution. THE USUAL procedure was to compare the incidence of lung diseases in urban and in rural areas and to attribute the difference to air pollution in urban areas. The ratio of urban incidence to rural incidence in-cidence is commonly referred to as the "urban factor." One study, the researchers found, questioned this approach. If air pollution constituted the urban factor, then several assumptions were possible: THE URBAN factor (air pollution) should be higher in those counties having the highest population; as city population increases, the urban ur-ban factor should also go up. Longtime urban residents should have a greater incidence in-cidence of lung cancer than those former rural dwellers who had migrated to urban areas; women should be affected af-fected by community air pollution as much as men. WILLIAMS and Justus found that none of these assumptions as-sumptions were borne out by statistics. Thus, they concluded, the urban factor-may factor-may be something else, such as greater occupational exposure, ex-posure, population density, infections, or smoking. The researchers found that the Surgeon General's 1964 Report on Smoking and Health was supported by more evidence than most others. IT CONCLUDED that heavy cigarette smokers experience up to 20 times more lung cancer and other respiratory diseases than non-smokers. If cigarette smoking-not air pollution-caused the "urban " factor," it would explain why .urban dwellers did not necessarily neces-sarily have a greater incidence in-cidence of lung cancer than migrants to urban areas, they concluded. Also, since more men smoked than women, it was understandable why lung cancer occurred more frequently among males than females. THE SURGEON General's report found, too, that cigarette smoking is the most important cause of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. A later report by the Environmental Environ-mental Protection Agency concurred, saying, "that smoking causes three times as much respiratory disease as air pollution." Williams and Justus completed their evaluation with the determination that although the incidence of respiratory res-piratory diseases in urban areas is greater than in rural communities, the facts do not support the contention that the "urban factor" is due primarily to air pollution. "THERE IS evidence that air pollution is a contributor to the urban factor," they said, "but it is not the only contributor, and possibly not even the major contributor." |