View report page

37
With regard to item (d), the hypothesis that smokers inherit
susceptibility to unidentified environmental influences is not borne
out in a recent comparison between a non-smoking religious sect
and a control group. Incidence of lung cancer among the sect was
only one eighth of that of the control group and, moreover, in contrast
with a much higher incidence in males in the control group,
there was equal sex distribution in the religious sect. As cancer
of other sites not associated with smoking occurred with equal frequency
in both groups, the inference is clear.
In item (g), road haulage workers would have been expected
to return a higher than normal rats for lung cancer due to exposure
to exhaust gases but this has proved to be not so.
Only in item (h), which asserts that general air pollution has
some relationship with cancer, does there appear to be any substance.
Evidence in this lespect is somewhat conflicting for, in
Finland, a country of heavy smokers and where the population is
predominantly rural, the lung cancer rate is the second highest in
Europe, being only slightly less than that for England. Conversely,
immigrants from the United Kingdom to South Africa and New
Zealand who have the same level of smoking as the native born inhabitants,
show a higher lung cancer rate than the indigenous population,
which suggests an exposure in early life to an environmental
factor which pre-disposes them to cancer of the lung. This factor
might well be atmospheric pollution and the Report suggests that
a reduction in air pollution would reduce the risks involved in
smoking.
It is important to remember that although the Royal College
of Physicians has made an excellent case against the smoking habit
it is fair to state that their report does not indicate that every heavy
smoker will get lung cancer nor that every non-smoker will avoid
it.
Certain preventive measures are suggested, namely:—
(i) More education and especially school children.
(ii) Restrictions on the sale of tobacco to children.
(iii) Restriction on tobacco advertising.
(iv) Wider restriction on smoking in public places.
(v) Increased tobacco tax.
(vi) The analysis of the tar and nicotine content of tobacco
smoke to be displayed on each cigarette packet.
(vii) The setting up of anti-smoking clinics.