How
likely is it for a woman to develop lung cancer through secondhand smoke from
her husband? The study on the results of non-smoking wives of heavy smokers
sums up that wives of heavy smokers had a higher risk of developing lung cancer
than non-smoking husbands. The correspondence of heavy smokers and their wives
depended on the age of the couple, what the husband’s occupation was, and where
they lived. Lung cancer was not the only sickness to be passed on from secondhand
smoking; asthma and emphysema were also developed diseases. The results of this
study show the possible reasons why women in there midlife develop lung cancer
without ever smoking a cigarette.
One
of the most interesting things about the dated collected is, women were more
likely to develop lung cancer from secondhand smoking if they lived in a more
rural area, particularly in agricultural families. The study suggests this to
be true because the husband and wife have more mutual contact throughout the
day because the husbands work on farms, where as husbands who work in an urban
area are only home for a short amount of time throughout the day, meaning the
couples that live in an urban area have less of a chance of developing lung
cancer. The data is also interesting because it tests other issues like a
husband’s drinking habit and whether or not that led to lung cancer. Also, it
studied if secondhand smoke led to any other cancers. All results pointed
fingers at secondhand smoke leading to lung cancer as the only cancer
developed.
One
of the advantages of doing a cause and effect study design is that it
identifies the underlying causes, such as lung cancer. Another advantage to
this study is it shows a better understanding for the effects. Lastly, cause
and effect cases are relatively cost effective. They focus on getting straight
to the point of the underlying causes without costing too much.
I
personally believe the study shows that secondhand smoke is the cause of lung
cancer. The article explains that husbands drinking habits led to no effect on
their wives lung cancer. Also, the smoking habits didn’t lead to any other
cancers like, stomach or cervical cancer. All of the data showed that the
majority of women with lung cancer were wives of heavy smokers. With these
statistics, I strongly believe that lung cancer developed in non-smokers is
strictly from secondhand smoke.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLaura,
ReplyDeleteGreat summary of the article. Regarding your response to question 2, I agree that it's an interesting finding about the rural vs. urban issue. As you alluded, this probably has a lot to do with the time couples spend in contact with one another in rural settings.
I'm not sure I quite understand your response to question 3. You state this is a cause and effect study. Perhaps this is also called a randomized control study? This one in particular is a prospective design because it follows people over a long time. When you talk about getting straight to the point and not costing much, remember how many people were enrolled in this study. (this could actually make things super expensive). Also, remember how many variables they looked for (geography, alcohol, etc etc), so it took many years to really understand from this that 2nd hand smoking was the probable culprit.
In question 4, this is asking what tools we have to establish causality between two phenomena? So, recall Hills criteria from your text for this question. For instance, some of the criteria are as follows: strength of association, consistency, specificity, etc. You start to get a little bit into the biological plausibility of Hills criteria, but be sure to review this in your text.
Erin