
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, June 8, 1994                   TAG: 9406080091
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL                    PAGE: A-1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Knight-Ridder/Tribune|
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

DOCTORS AFFIRM RISK FROM OTHERS' SMOKE

Nonsmoking women face a significantly higher risk of developing lung cancer after long-term exposure to secondhand smoke at home, work or social settings, a new study by the American Medical Association has found.

Women who live with a smoker face a 30 percent greater chance of lung cancer. If they work around smokers, the risk jumps to 39 percent. In social settings - at least two hours a week on a regular basis - they face a 50 percent greater increase.

The findings, released Tuesday, come on the heels of government initiatives to impose widespread smoking restrictions in public facilities and workplaces.

``There should be a strong public outcry for regulating tobacco,'' said Randolph Smoak, a member of the AMA's board of trustees. The AMA began calling for the regulation of cigarette products in 1989.

Preliminary results of the secondhand smoke study were published in a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that blamed environmental tobacco smoke for causing lung cancer in 3,000 nonsmokers per year. Researchers said the final results make the case against secondhand smoke even stronger.

To determine the risk of secondhand smoke, researchers studied women over five years in five cities - Atlanta, Houston, New Orleans, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area.

The women - none of whom had smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes - were divided into two groups: 653 with lung cancer and 1,253 without.

Researcher Peggy Reynolds of the California Department of Health Services said the study is important because earlier research had focused only on nonsmokers in the home.

Although the risk appeared to be highest in social settings, researchers said they do not consider the difference statistically significant.

The tobacco lobby immediately countered the study's conclusions. The Tobacco Institute released a statement claiming that the study's risk assessment was scientifically weak. ``We believe that many of the people even in the AMA are trying to indict environmental tobacco smoke in the court of public opinion and are not prepared to be bound by generally applicable scientific principles,'' said Tobacco Institute spokesman Thomas Lauria.

by CNB