
Smoking and Health (1964) - apsec112
https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/ResourceMetadata/NNBBMQ
======
aklemm
The story (possibly apocryphal) in my family goes like this: My grandfather
who smoked regularly was driving when he heard the first reporting on radio
about these findings. He threw his pack out the window (anti-littering didn't
take hold til the 80s) and never smoked again.

~~~
orblivion
> anti-littering didn't take hold til the 80s

That's kind of amazing to think. Did it seriously not occur to people that
litter just doesn't look nice? Did people not think about cleaning up their
rooms either?

~~~
esotericn
It's hard to explain.

I guess we thought that the world was infinite.

You just had the idea that, well, it'd blow away in the wind, and that would
be that.

It's obvious now that this isn't the case.

Much like, I imagine, smoking was obviously fine, until it wasn't.

------
leoh
I wonder -- if this report had come out today, would as many people have
believed it? Would huge numbers of people question it much like people
question global warming?

~~~
baron_harkonnen
Even at the time there were articles in Nature protesting this just like
people do global warming today:

>THE curious associations with lung cancer found in relation to smoking habits
do not, in the minds of some of us, lend themselves easily to the simple
conclusion that the products of combustion reaching the surface of the
bronchus induce, though after a long interval, the development of a cancer.

This is the first sentence of the abstract "Cancer and Smoking" published in
Nature in 1958, by the father of modern frequentist statistics: Ronald A.
Fisher.

Fisher published a fair bit on why claims that smoking caused cancer were
preposterous arguing that "correlation does not equal causation". Fisher was
already a very well respected figure in the statistics community and, despite
being a paid researcher for tobacco companies, biographers suggest that his
motives were person, he loved smoking and disliked puritanical views on how
people should live.

So despite being one of the greatest statisticians of all time, Fisher still
failed to properly assess the risks of cigarette smoking and cancer.

~~~
hapless
Fisher's later work on smoking was funded by the tobacco industry.

He was paid not to properly assess anything. (Not to mention, Mr. Fisher
enjoyed tobacco himself.)

------
smartbit
_During the decade 1950-1960, at various dates, statements based upon the
accumulated evidence were issued by a number of organizations.... The
consensus, publicly declared, was that smoking is an important health hazard,
particularly with respect to lung cancer and cardiovascular disease._ page 6

------
m3nu
> In comparison with non-smokers, average male smokers of cigarettes have
> approximately a 9- to 10-fold risk of developing lung cancer and heavy
> smokers at least a 2O-fold risk.

I'm waiting for similar conclusions to surface for added sugar.

~~~
mixmastamyk
> I'm waiting for similar conclusions to surface for added sugar.

Haven't they? I saw "sugar coated" several years ago (
[http://sugarcoateddoc.com/](http://sugarcoateddoc.com/) ). Not on Netflix any
longer, but can still be found on Kanopy I believe. Also, one of the main
doctors has videos on Youtube about added sugar and fructose (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM)
).

------
hackeraccount
The weird thing about smoking rates in the U.S. is that it topped out in 1960.
[https://www.nap.edu/read/11795/chapter/4#42](https://www.nap.edu/read/11795/chapter/4#42)

Why then? People were saying that smoking was bad for you ever since it was
brought to Europe. From 1900 to 1959 everyone went - Eh, who cares what they
say I want a drag and then in 1960 there was some class of people who it seems
reasonable to say would have but for something bought a pack of smokes decided
not to.

