Cancer Research UK on Google+ Cancer Research UK on Facebook Cancer Research UK on Twitter
 
 

Tobacco is the single biggest cause of cancer in the world

Experts agree that tobacco is the single biggest avoidable cause of cancer in the world. Smoking causes over a quarter (28 per cent) of cancer deaths in the UK and nearly one in five cancer cases.

And smoking doesn’t only cause cancer. It also causes tens of thousands of deaths each year in the UK from other conditions, including heart and lung problems 3. Worldwide, tobacco caused an estimated 5.1 million deaths in 2004 – that’s one every six seconds.
Around half of all regular smokers will be killed by their habit if they continue to smoke. And half of those will  die in middle age, losing between one and two decades of life compared with non-smokers.

Smoking causes many different types of cancer

Smoking increases the risk of at least 14 cancers, including cancer of the lung, larynx (voice box) oesophagus (gullet), mouth and pharynx (upper throat), bladder, pancreas, kidney, liver, stomach, bowel, cervix, ovary, nose and sinuses as well as some types of leukaemia.There is some evidence that smoking could cause breast cancer.

After lung cancer, the upper aerodigestive tract cancers (mouth, upper throat, voice box and gullet) have the highest proportions of cancer cases caused by smoking – population attributable fractions, or PAFs, of more than six in 10.

 

Smoking greatly increases the risk of lung cancer

More than four in five UK lung cancers are caused by smoking. Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK and accounts for around two thirds (68 per cent) of smoking-related cancer deaths.

People who smoke were first shown to be more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers in 1950. This study found that people who smoked around 20 cigarettes a day had 26 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers. And people who smoked around three cigarettes a day still had six times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers.

After these first results came out, UK scientists began a large long-running study of smoking in British doctors, which Cancer Research UK has helped to fund, that has told us a lot about the dangers of smoking. This study has found similarly huge risks associated with smoking. Men who smoked at  25 or more cigarettes a day had over 24 times the risk of dying from lung cancer as people who had never smoked.

There are long time lags between changes in the number of people who smoke and the number of people who develop lung cancer due to smoking. So rates of lung cancer in the UK reflect smoking rates decades earlier.

 

Lung cancer risks are highest in people who smoke more cigarettes per day, for more years, from a younger age

We cannot exactly calculate a person’s lung cancer risk based on how many cigarettes they smoke or the number of years they have been a smoker. But research has shown that lung cancer risk is greatest among those who smoke the most cigarettes, over the longest period of time, having started at the youngest age.

Although both have an effect on risk, the number of years someone has spent smoking is more important than the number of cigarettes they smoke a day. This means that overall, smoking 20 cigarettes a day for 20 years is even worse for you than smoking 40 a day for 10 years.

 

 

Even light or occasional smoking is bad for your health

Although the risk of an early death increases the more you smoke, people who think of themselves as light or occasional smokers also have an increased risk compared to people who don’t smoke. One study found that people who smoked up to four cigarettes a day were about 50 per cent more likely to die prematurely than non-smokers. And the Million Women study found that women who smoked up to 10 cigarettes a day were twice as likely to die prematurely than non-smokers.  

Large studies looking at the health risks of smoking, such as the British Doctors Study and the Million Women Study, have found that people smoking between 1 and 14 cigarettes a day are at least seven times as likely to die from lung cancer than people who have never smoked. And one study found people who smoked between 5 and 9 cigarettes a day had a higher risk of dying from lung cancer, or any type of cancer.

 

Stopping smoking can reduce the risk

A large number of studies have shown that stopping smoking can greatly reduce the risk of smoking-related cancers, compared to continuing to smoke. And the earlier you stop, the better. 

The latest results from the British Doctors’ Study show that stopping smoking before the age of 30 meant  that life expectancy remained similar to that of a non-smoker. And even people who quit smoking when they were about 60 years old lost fewer years of life to smoking than those who continued.

 

Cutting down is a good start, but the big benefits come from quitting

The evidence for the health benefits of cutting down the number of cigarettes you smoke is mixed. Some studies have shown that reducing your cigarette consumption, compared to carrying on smoking the same amount, has benefits for lung cancer risk and overall survival. But other studies found benefits only with quitting completely.

However if you reduce the amount you smoke you may be more likely to stop smoking in future. So although you only experience the full health benefits if you stop smoking altogether, cutting down can be a good first step, if you find it too difficult to quit completely in one go.

 

 

Tobacco smoke contains many dangerous chemicals

Scientists have identified over 5,300 different chemicals in tobacco smoke. The International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC), the gold standard for establishing the causes of cancer, state that there are more than 70 chemicals in tobacco smoke that have been found to cause cancer in studies involving people or in the laboratory. And many of the other thousands of chemicals are toxic and harmful to your health, including carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia.

In 1994 tobacco companies in the US released a list of 599 different cigarette additives, which included chocolate, vanilla, sugar and liquorice as well as common herbs and spices 35. Although these don’t make cigarettes any more toxic, they are meant to make cigarettes taste nicer and ensure that smokers want to continue smoking. Flavoured tobacco, such as menthol or chocolate-flavoured cigarettes, will be banned in Europe from 2016 under the Tobacco Products Directive. 

Although additives necessary for manufacturing tobacco can continue to be used, including sugar lost during the curing process, tobacco companies will have to do more research into additives with the possibility that those found to be more harmful or addictive could be banned from use.

 

Chemicals in tobacco smoke can damage the body in many ways

Chemicals found in tobacco smoke can damage DNA. For example, studies have shown that benzo(a)pyrene damages a gene called p53 that normally protects our cells from cancer. While polonium-210 becomes concentrated in hotspots in smokers’ airways, subjecting them to very high doses of high-energy alpha-radiation that damages the DNA of nearby cells.

The cocktail of chemicals in tobacco smoke is even more dangerous as a mix. Toxic metals found in tobacco smoke, like cadmium, arsenic, and lead, stop our cells from repairing DNA damage. This worsens the effects of chemicals like benzo(a)pyrene that damage DNA and makes it even more likely that damaged cells will eventually turn cancerous.

Many tobacco poisons disable the cleaning system that our bodies use to remove toxins. Some substances including formaldehyde and acrolein kill cilia, tiny hairs in our airways that help to clear away toxins.

 

Nicotine is a very addictive drug

Most smokers do not smoke out of choice, but because they are addicted to nicotine. This was highlighted in a report by The Royal College of Physicians into the effects of nicotine. They also compared nicotine to other supposedly ‘harder’ drugs such as heroin and cocaine. They looked at many things including how these drugs cause addiction, how difficult it is to stop using them and how many deaths they caused. The report concluded that nicotine is a highly addictive substance, particularly when people are exposed to it through using tobacco, and that tobacco dependence is at least as serious as addiction to ‘harder’ drugs.

People associate smoking with feeling less stressed and anxious, but the evidence suggests this is only because it temporarily relieves the unpleasant symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. If anything, current smokers seem to feel more stressed and anxious than ex-smokers or people who have never smoked.

Smokers can also make mental links with abstract things like the smell of cigarettes, objects related to smoking like ashtrays and lighters, and situations in which they usually smoke. These can all act to reinforce the addiction to smoking.

 

Smokers are still exposed to dangerous chemicals if they smoke filtered or ‘low-tar’ cigarettes

Current smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer than former smokers or never smokers, whatever type of cigarettes they smoke. There is no difference between the risk of dying from lung cancer for smokers of cigarettes ‘rated’ as medium, low and very low in tar. But smoking unfiltered high tar varieties makes the risk even higher.

The amounts of tar or nicotine associated with a particular variety of cigarette are based on machine measurements of smoking. But the measurements don’t accurately reflect the amounts actually received by a smoker. Research that measured markers of nicotine and certain cancer-causing chemicals in smokers found that they took in the same amounts whatever the tar rating of the cigarettes they smoked. Smokers change the way they smoke – such as taking bigger or more frequent puffs, blocking filter holes or smoking more cigarettes in total – in order to satisfy their nicotine cravings.

In 2003 EU legislation came into force banning tobacco companies from using phrases like ‘light’, ‘mild’ or ‘low-tar’ to describe their products because these could mislead people into believing such products were safer or healthier.

 

Alcohol worsens the effect of smoking

Alcohol has also been shown to be a cause of mouth, oesophageal and liver cancers, among others. And scientists have found that together, the effects of alcohol and tobacco are worse than for either one of them by itself.

 

Passive smoking causes cancer and other diseases

There is clear evidence that breathing in other people’s smoke causes cancer in non-smokers. Second-hand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke or passive smoking, exposes people to cancer-causing chemicals.

People who have never smoked have their risk of lung cancer increased by around a quarter if they have colleagues who smoke at work or have a spouse who smokes. The risk increases the more second-hand smoke they’re exposed to, workers exposed to the highest levels can have their risk of lung cancer doubled.

Second-hand smoke can reach high levels in enclosed spaces such as within the home or inside a car. Studies have shown that even when you open the windows levels can be dangerously high.

Second-hand smoke also causes other health problems in non-smokers including heart disease and respiratory diseases including asthma in children. And it may increase the risk of pharyngeal and laryngeal cancers.

 

Tobacco in pipes, cigars, bidis and shisha can also cause cancer

It’s not just cigarettes which increase the risk of cancer – other ways of smoking tobacco including pipes, cigars, bidis and shisha are also linked with the disease. Reviews of the evidence by the International Agency for Research on Cancer have concluded that smoking cigars, pipes or bidis increases the risk of lung, mouth, throat, voice box, gullet (oesophagus) and stomach cancers. And cigar smoking has also been linked with pancreatic cancer. Shisha smoking has been less well studied but the evidence suggests it is linked to lung cancer and possibly other cancers.

Because they think it is healthier, some cigarette smokers switch to smoking a cigar or pipe. But aside from the health risks associated with pipes and cigars, research has also shown that because these people are more likely to inhale the smoke than people who have only ever smoked a cigar or pipe, the switch makes little difference to their chance of dying as a result of smoking.

 

Smokeless tobacco can also cause cancer

There are a wide variety of smokeless tobacco products used around the world. In the UK chewing tobacco, which may be used as part of betel quid, paan or zarda, is popular with South Asian communities. Tobacco can also be chewed or sucked by itself, or taken as snuff.

Smokeless tobacco has been shown to cause mouth, gullet (oesophageal) and pancreatic cancers. Chewing betel quid with tobacco has also been shown to cause cancer of the mouth, upper throat and gullet (oesophagus). The size of the cancer risks associated with using smokeless tobacco are likely to vary depending on the type of product and the way it’s used.

It has been suggested that smokeless tobacco could be used to help people stop using smoking tobacco, and that falling smoking rates in Sweden have been linked to people switching to a type of smokeless tobacco called ‘snus’. But a review of the evidence by the IARC in 2007 concluded that the available evidence does not support these claims.

There are many cancer-causing chemicals present in smokeless tobacco, including in ‘snus’. Studies have shown that these harmful chemicals, such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), are taken up by people using these products.

Smokeless tobacco also contains nicotine, and is therefore addictive.

E-cigarettes have not yet been proven to support smoking cessation

Although some users have claimed that e-cigarettes have helped them stop smoking, there is not enough scientific evidence to show whether they are effective, and as safe as current licensed cessation aids, such as nicotine patches). So far there has only been one trial comparing the use of e-cigarettes to another stop smoking aid (patches in this case). Unfortunately this trial was too small to show a significant difference between the likelihood of quitting.

However e-cigarettes are almost certainly far safer than smoking tobacco. E-cigarettes may play a role in helping smokers quit but larger trials are needed as scientific evidence that they really work, to explore how best to use them and to see how they  compare to other methods of quitting.

No Error

Rate this page:
Submit rating
Rated 4 out of 5 based on 17 votes
Rate this page
Rate this page for no comments box
Please enter feedback to continue submitting
Send feedback
Question about cancer? Contact our information nurse team

Visit our A-Z topic pages

 

References

  1.  Doll, R. and R. Peto, Epidemiology of Cancer. Oxford Textbook of Medicine, ed. D. Warrell, et al. 2003, Oxford: OUP.
  2.  IARC, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. . Vol. 83. 2004, Lyon: IARCPress.
  3.  Sasco, A., et al., Tobacco smoking and cancer: a brief review of the epidemiological evidence. Lung Cancer, 2004. 45: p. S3-S9. PubMed
  4.  Peto, R., et al., Mortality from smoking in developed countries, 1950-2000. . 2nd ed. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Parkin, M., et al., The fraction of cancer attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors in the UK in 2010. BJC, 2011. 105, Supp. 2, 6 December 2011.
  6.  Vollset, S. E., et al., Smoking and deaths between 40 and 70 years of age in women and men. Ann Intern Med, 2006. 144(6): p. 381-9. PubMed
  7.  Doll, R., Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years' observation on male British doctors. BMJ, 1994. 309: p. 901-911. PubMed
  8.  Peto, R., et al., Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950-2000: Indirect estimates from National Vital Statistics. 1994, Oxford: OUP.
  9.  CancerStats. Lung Cancer and Smoking - UK. 2004 Link
  10.  Doll, R. and A. Hill, Smoking and carcinoma of the lung; preliminary report. Br Med J, 1950. 2: p. 739-48. PubMed
  11.  Doll, R., et al., Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors. BMJ, 2004. 328: p. 1519. PubMed
  12.  Doll, R. and R. Peto, Cigarette smoking and bronchial carcinoma: dose and time relationships among regular smokers and lifelong non-smokers. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1978. 32: p. 303-13. PubMed
  13.  Bjartveit, K. and A. Tverdal, Health consequences of smoking 1-4 cigarettes per day. Tob Control, 2005. 14(5): p. 315-20. PubMed
  14.  Polesel, J., et al., Tobacco smoking and the risk of upper aero-digestive tract cancers: A reanalysis of case-control studies using spline models. Int J Cancer, 2008. 122(10): p. 2398-402. PubMed
  15.  Bjerregaard, B. K., et al., The effect of occasional smoking on smoking-related cancers : In the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Cancer Causes Control, 2006. 17(10): p. 1305-1309. PubMed
  16.  Wiencke, J., et al., Early age at smoking initiation and tobacco carcinogen DNA damage in the lung. J Natl Cancer Inst, 1999. 91: p. 614-9. PubMed
  17.  Gandini, S., et al., Tobacco smoking and cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer, 2008. 122(1): p. 155-64. PubMed
  18.  Kenfield, S. A., et al., Smoking and smoking cessation in relation to mortality in women. JAMA, 2008. 299(17): p. 2037-47. PubMed
  19.  Botteri, E., et al., Cigarette smoking and adenomatous polyps: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology, 2008. 134(2): p. 388-95. PubMed
  20.  Nieters, A., et al., Smoking and lymphoma risk in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Am J Epidemiol, 2008. 167(9): p. 1081-9. PubMed
  21.  Brennan, P., et al., Cigarette smoking and bladder cancer in men: a pooled analysis of 11 case-control studies. Int J Cancer, 2000. 86: p. 289-94. PubMed
  22.  McLaughlin, J., et al., International renal-cell cancer study. I. Tobacco use. Int J Cancer, 1995. 60: p. 194-8. PubMed
  23.  Johnson, N., Tobacco use and oral cancer: a global perspective. J Dent Educ, 2001. 65: p. 328-39. PubMed
  24.  Bosetti, C., et al., Tobacco smoking, smoking cessation, and cumulative risk of upper aerodigestive tract cancers. Am J Epidemiol, 2008. 167(4): p. 468-73. PubMed
  25.  Iodice, S., et al., Tobacco and the risk of pancreatic cancer: a review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg, 2008. 393(4): p. 535-45. PubMed
  26.  Ladeiras-Lopes, R., et al., Smoking and gastric cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Cancer Causes Control, 2008. 19(7): p. 689-701. PubMed
  27.  Johnson, K. C., Accumulating evidence on passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk. Int J Cancer, 2005. PubMed
  28.  Lim, U., et al., Alcohol, Smoking, and Body Size in Relation to Incident Hodgkin's and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Risk. Am J Epidemiol, 2007. PubMed
  29.  Luchtenborg, M., et al., Smoking and colorectal cancer: different effects by type of cigarettes? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2007. 16(7): p. 1341-7. PubMed
  30.  Ha, M., et al., Smoking Cigarettes before First Childbirth and Risk of Breast Cancer. Am J Epidemiol, 2007. PubMed
  31.  Wakai, K., et al., Decrease in risk of lung cancer death in Japanese men after smoking cessation by age at quitting: Pooled analysis of three large-scale cohort studies. Cancer Sci, 2007. 98(4): p. 584-589. PubMed
  32.  US DHHS. The Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation: A report of the Surgeon General. . 1990 Link
  33.  Godtfredsen, N. S., et al., Effect of smoking reduction on lung cancer risk. Jama, 2005. 294(12): p. 1505-10. PubMed
  34.  Tverdal, A. and K. Bjartveit, Health consequences of reduced daily cigarette consumption. Tob Control, 2006. 15: p. 472-480. PubMed
  35.  Hoffman, D. and I. Hoffman, The changing cigarette: Chemical studies and bioassays. , in Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine (Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13). 2001, NCI: Bethseda. p. 159-191.
  36.  Fowles, J. and E. Dybing, Application of toxicological risk assessment principles to the chemical constituents of cigarette smoke. Tob Control, 2003. 12(4): p. 424-30. PubMed
  37.  Doull, J., et al., List of ingredients added to tobacco in the manufacture of cigarettes by six major American cigarette companies. . 1994, Washington DC: Covington and Burling.
  38.  Bernhard, D., et al., Increased serum cadmium and strontium levels in young smokers: effects on arterial endothelial cell gene transcription. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, 2006. 26(4): p. 833-8. PubMed
  39.  Korte, J. E., et al., The contribution of benzene to smoking-induced leukemia. Environ Health Perspect, 2000. 108(4): p. 333-9. PubMed
  40.  Kilthau, G. F., Cancer risk in relation to radioactivity in tobacco. Radiol Technol, 1996. 67(3): p. 217-22. PubMed
  41.  Little, J. B., et al., Distribution of polonium-210 in pulmonary tissues of cigarette smokers. N Engl J Med, 1965. 273(25): p. 1343-51. PubMed
  42.  Winters, T. and H. Franza, Radioactivity in cigarette smoke. N Engl J Med, 1982. 306(6): p. 364-365. PubMed
  43.  Grasseschi, R. M., et al., Cadmium accumulation and detoxification by alveolar macrophages of cigarette smokers. Chest, 2003. 124(5): p. 1924-8. PubMed
  44.  US Surgeon General, Smoking and health: a report of the Surgeon General. 1979.
  45.  dell'Omo, M., et al., Blood cadmium concentrations in the general population of Umbria, central Italy. Sci Total Environ, 1999. 226(1): p. 57-64. PubMed
  46.  Holtzman, R. and F. Ilcewicz, Lead-210 and polonium-210 in tissues of cigarette smokers. . Science, 1966. 153(1259). PubMed
  47.  Wallace, L., et al., Exposures to benzene and other volatile compounds from active and passive smoking. Arch Environ Health, 1987. 42(5): p. 272-9. PubMed
  48.  Nazaroff, W. W. and B. C. Singer, Inhalation of hazardous air pollutants from environmental tobacco smoke in US residences. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol, 2004. 14 Suppl 1: p. S71-7. PubMed
  49.  WHO, International Programme on Chemical Safety: Environmental Health Criteria 134. Cadmium. . 1992, Geneva: WHO.
  50.  Guo, H., et al., Risk assessment of exposure to volatile organic compounds in different indoor environments. Environ Res, 2004. 94(1): p. 57-66. PubMed
  51.  Denissenko, M., et al., Preferential formation of benzo[a]pyrene adducts at lung cancer mutational hotspots in P53. Science, 1996. 274: p. 430-2. PubMed
  52.  Feng, Z., et al., Chromium(VI) exposure enhances polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-DNA binding at the p53 gene in human lung cells. Carcinogenesis, 2003. 24(4): p. 771-8. PubMed
  53.  Hartwig, A. and T. Schwerdtle, Interactions by carcinogenic metal compounds with DNA repair processes: toxicological implications. Toxicol Lett, 2002. 127(1-3): p. 47-54. PubMed
  54.  Vleeming, W., et al., The role of nitric oxide in cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction. Nicotine Tob Res, 2002. 4(3): p. 341-8. PubMed
  55.  Yamaguchi, H., et al., Toluene at environmentally relevant low levels disrupts differentiation of astrocyte precursor cells. Arch Environ Health, 2002. 57(3): p. 232-8. PubMed
  56.  Kumar, V. and O. P. Tandon, Brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs) in tobacco smokers. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol, 1996. 40(4): p. 381-4. PubMed
  57.  Royal College of Physicians, Nicotine Addiction in Britain: A report of the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. 2000.
  58.  Epping-Jordan, M. P., et al., Dramatic decreases in brain reward function during nicotine withdrawal. Nature, 1998. 393(6680): p. 76-9. PubMed
  59.  Russell, M., et al., Relation of nicotine yield of cigarettes to blood nicotine concentrations in smokers. Br Med J, 1980. 280: p. 972-6. PubMed
  60.  Hammond, D., et al., Smoking Topography, Brand Switching, and Nicotine Delivery: Results from an In vivo Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2005. 14(6): p. 1370-5. PubMed
  61.  Benowitz, N., et al., Smokers of low-yield cigarettes do not consume less nicotine. N Engl J Med, 1983. 309: p. 139-42. PubMed
  62.  Kozlowski, L., et al., Prevalence of the misuse of ultra-low-tar cigarettes by blocking filter vents. Am J Public Health, 1988. 78: p. 694-5. PubMed
  63.  Benowitz, N. L., et al., Carcinogen Exposure during Short-term Switching from Regular to "Light" Cigarettes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2005. 14(6): p. 1376-83. PubMed
  64.  Djordjevic, M., et al., Doses of nicotine and lung carcinogens delivered to cigarette smokers. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2000. 92: p. 106-11. PubMed
  65.  Kuper, H., et al., Tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption and their interaction in the causation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Cancer, 2000. 85: p. 498-502. PubMed
  66.  Boyle, P., et al., European Code Against Cancer and scientific justification: third version (2003). Ann Oncol, 2003. 14(7): p. 973-1005. PubMed
  67.  Castellsague, X., et al., Independent and joint effects of tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking on the risk of esophageal cancer in men and women. Int J Cancer, 1999. 82: p. 657-64. PubMed
  68.  Sjodahl, K., et al., Smoking and alcohol drinking in relation to risk of gastric cancer: A population-based, prospective cohort study. Int J Cancer, 2006. 120(1): p. 128-32. PubMed
  69.  Boeing, H., Alcohol and risk of cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract: first analysis of the EPIC data. IARC Sci Publ, 2002. 156: p. 151-4. PubMed
  70.  Key, T., et al., The effect of diet on risk of cancer. Lancet, 2002. 360: p. 861-868. PubMed
  71.  Darby, S., et al., Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies. BMJ, 2004. Epub ahead of print. PubMed
  72.  Department of Health, Secondhand smoke: Review of evidence since 1998. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health 2004. Link
  73.  Taylor, R., et al., Meta-analysis of studies of passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent. Int J Epidemiol, 2007. 36(5): p. 1048-59. PubMed
  74.  Stayner, L., et al., Lung Cancer Risk and Workplace Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Am J Public Health, 2007. PubMed
  75.  Jamrozik, K., Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis. BMJ, 2005. Epub ahead of print. PubMed
  76.  Otsuka, R., et al., Acute effects of passive smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults. JAMA, 2001. 286: p. 436-41. PubMed
  77.  Royal College of Physicians, Smoking and the Young. 1992.
  78.  Vineis, P., et al., Environmental tobacco smoke and risk of respiratory cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in former smokers and never smokers in the EPIC prospective study. BMJ, 2005. Epub ahead of print. PubMed
  79.  Bjerregaard, B. K., et al., Tobacco smoke and bladder cancer-in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition. Int J Cancer, 2006. PubMed
  80.  Anderson, M., et al., Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and prenatal maternal smoking: rising attributed risk in the Back to Sleep era. BMC Med, 2005. 3: p. 4. PubMed
  81.  Kriz, P., et al., Parental smoking, socio-economic factors, and risk of invasive meningococcal disease in children: a population based case-control study. . Arch Dis Child, 2000. 83: p. 117-21. PubMed
  82.  Yolton, K., et al., Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and cognitive abilities among U.S. children and adolescents. Environ Health Perspect, 2005. 113: p. 98-103. PubMed
  83.  Larsen, L., et al., Stereologic examination of placentas from mothers who smoke during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2002. 186: p. 531-7. PubMed
  84.  Misra, D., et al., Maternal smoking and birth weight: interaction with parity and mother's own in utero exposure to smoking. Epidemiology, 2005. 16: p. 288-93. PubMed
  85.  Luciano, A., et al., The influence of maternal passive and light active smoking on intrauterine growth and body composition of the newborn. Eur J Clin Nutr, 1998. 52: p. 760-3. PubMed
  86.  Cnattingius, S., The epidemiology of smoking during pregnancy: smoking prevalence, maternal characteristics, and pregnancy outcomes. Nicotine Tob Res, 2004. 6(Suppl 2): p. S125-40. PubMed
  87.  Cogliano, V., et al., Smokeless tobacco and tobacco-related nitrosamines. Lancet Oncol, 2004. 5: p. 708. PubMed
  88.  Critchley, J. and B. Unal, Health effects associated with smokeless tobacco: a systematic review. Thorax, 2003. 58: p. 435-43. PubMed
  89.  Winn, D. M., et al., Snuff dipping and oral cancer among women in the southern United States. N Engl J Med, 1981. 304(13): p. 745-9. PubMed
  90.  Brunnemann, K. and D. Hoffman, Chemical composition of smokeless tobacco products, in NCI Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph. 1993. p. 96-108. Link
  91.  Benowitz, N., Pharmacology of smokeless tobacco use: nicotine addiction and nicotine-related health consequences. , in NCI Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph. 1993. p. 219-228. Link
  92.  Luo, J., et al., Oral use of Swedish moist snuff (snus) and risk for cancer of the mouth, lung, and pancreas in male construction workers: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet, 2007. 369(9578): p. 2015-20. PubMed
  93.  Zendehdel, K., et al., Risk of gastroesophageal cancer among smokers and users of Scandinavian moist snuff. Int J Cancer, 2008. 122(5): p. 1095-9. PubMed
  94. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 100E (2012) A review of human carcinogens: personal habits and indoor combustions. Link

 

Updated: 25 September 2009