Saturday
Jul232011
"Snipers could soon snuff out smoking"
Saturday, July 23, 2011 at 14:20 Let's put it down to bad timing.
This week's issue of the Luton Herald & Post (published on Thursday) describes in detail how people smoking on the streets of Luton should be shot by a "squad of licensed snipers" to save the Health Service the cost of looking after them in later years.
Oddly enough I can't find the article, by columnist Alan Dee, online (perhaps it's been removed following the news from Norway), but I've seen the digital edition.
Let's not be too po-faced about this but it's safe to say we haven't heard the last of it. Watch this space.
Reader Comments (80)
Rollo, I'll give you one thing, you certainly know how to twist things to suit your own agenda!
My thoughts about Konman Jamrozic are purely mine-the man was a fraudster, bending his (so called) scientific studies to suit the paymaster-Big Pharma. My illustration of his young age at demise is merely to show that cancer is no carer of age! It even takes one of your 'righteous brothers' supposedly before 'his time'.
Linda Buchanan-well, what can be said that has not already been said? Who did SHE think SHE was charging along a platform to finger-wag some bloke, 50 yards from anyone else, having a fag? Did she not think that informing the railway authorities was plentiful enough instead of becoming lawmaster extra-ordinaire. While I agree with the above poster, it was unfortunate she ended up on the track, she brought the whole situation upon herself by being one of the "I'm holier than thou" brigade. I truly wish that she had not fallen off the platform as the Roumanina guy could have simply claimed self-defence from a handbag wielding nagbag!
To your smoking carriages and now, non smoking platforms Rollo. You claim it is non smokers right to have smoke free platforms, trains etc then why weren't you and all the other self righteous plonkers up in arms about this! Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/4550247/Tornado-steam-train-arrives-at-Kings-Cross.html
instead of hordes of anoraks wallowing in the dirty, filthy, lethal SHS emitted by the Tornado-or is it simply that it wasn't a cigarette filling Kings Cross Station with lethal carcinogenic fumes?
Rollo,
I agree that rail operators have the right to ban smoking, I just dont understand why they would do so, given that ~1/5 of thier customers are smokers but then I don't understand why aggregating a bunch of random numbers can constitute an affect.
Maybe it's just me , maybe I am a bit thick but anyway. I ask you again.
What do you think of people that assert to someone that is dieing of lung cancer:
I doubt such as Rollo the Pious et al will want to hear this but it happens to be true:
My wife's family were a large family on her mothers side. Nine (9) have now died from various forms of cancer including a cousin aged a mere 34 yrs (spinal); the oldest being 90! Her mother died 2 yrs ago of stomach cancer-never smoked a cigarette, never a boozer (save a sherry at Xmas). Of the nine family members, eight didn't smoke or drink & six were regular God fearing church goers. The youngest one never smoked until he was diagnosed with cancer! The only one of the 'elders' that is left is her dad who smoked for 55 years before giving up because he 'got fed up of it' (his words). He is still alive & kicking.
Don't you find it strange that almost an entire family has been wiped out by cancer-yet never smoked? Don't you find it strange that various doctors have all opined that it 'is in the genes' and not one of them has apportioned blame to SHS, 3rd/H/S or even industrial pollution (as they all worked in factories). Her dad was a lorry driver, always out on the roads with a window open and a fag in his mouth-yet he is thriving!
How would YOU and the obviously "I must blame someone" person -Heather Crowe-explain this phenomena?
These people never once 'found something to blame', they simply accepted that 'it is the way it is' and coped. They were tolerant of other peoples situations, pleasures and bore no ill-will to anyone. In other words, they were normal folk, unlike the bigotted, intolerant breed now created.
@DaveA.
No I don’t. And, might I add, neither did the court, whose understanding of the circumstances of the case is a lot closer than yours.
I’ve seen the footage and she clearly did not bully him and she clearly did not wag her finger at him. She certainly walked along the platform faster than he did, but that it not a crime. She had to get past him because he was standing next to the footbridge. The footage also shows she was hardly there for an instant before he shoved her off the platform. Hardly time for her to “confront him and wag her finger at him”.
He was breaking station bye-laws for a start. If you think freedom of choice allows someone to smoke wherever they want, but doesn’t allow another person to complain about their smoking, even where it contravenes a law, bye-law or house rule, then you have a strange kind of logic.
Wrong. He was standing by the footbridge, which is near the middle of the platform. It is much more likely that she was simply trying to get past him.
What? Telling the truth?
@Phil J
No intentional twisting by me, I can assure you. If you think I’ve done so, I’d be interested in your reasoning.
Strange how you keeping making this serious accusations, but I don’t ever remember seeing you provide any reasons or evidence for these. You just resort to nasty, vindictive labels. I deeply disagree with Gian Turci’s arguments. But if I were involved in a debate about him, I would concentrate on critiquing his arguments, rather than simply labelling him as a liar or fraudster. And I most certainly did not glory in his untimely death.
Your account is as unreliable as Dave Atherton’s as the court verdict made clear.
In response to your attack on "Dave A", Rollo-one question!
"He was breaking station bye-laws for a start." .....and did this idiot woman think she was the station master then? was it any of her business apart from reporting the incident to the station master or relevant authority?
This was the sad result of a crap government expecting the non smokers to police the smokers!
Disgrace on Blair's government for being responsible for situations like this.
@Fredrik
Fredrik – They saw commercial advantage in doing so. And they knew they could enforce their policy. Being able to throw someone off a train before their destination or to call upon the British Transport Police were effective means of enforcement.
Well, I obviously don’t know what her oncologist, etc actually said. But the fact that she was paid compensation for a work-related illness suggests her circumstances were closely assessed and a view reached that it was much more likely that passive smoking at least contributed to her lung cancer than not. Note how she says “the only risk factor for lung cancer that I have”. She’s not suggesting passive smoking is the only possible cause of lung cancer for a non-smoker.
@PhilJ
No I don’t find it strange at all. Whoever said that smoking is the only cause of cancer?
Again, no I don’t find it strange at all. The only cancer which SHS has to date been shown to be a cause of is lung cancer.
All you are revealing Phil is your total failure to understanding the arguments of professional medics and scientists.
@PhilJ
As I said to Dave Atherton, she did nothing wrong. The CCTV clearly shows that Rapisca shoved Ms Buchanan off the platform almost as soon as she past him. She clearly couldn't have scolded him in that time, despite your bizarre claims to the contrary.
And, as I also said, the court considered the case in detail. It concluded that it was unprovoked GBH by Rapisca. I have much more faith in its interpretation of what happened than in your jaundiced nonsense.
@Rollo
You said: "I’ve seen the footage and she clearly did not bully him and she clearly did not wag her finger at him. She certainly walked along the platform faster than he did, but that it not a crime. She had to get past him because he was standing next to the footbridge. The footage also shows she was hardly there for an instant before he shoved her off the platform. Hardly time for her to “confront him and wag her finger at him”.
This is the BBC report: "During the trial the court heard that senior management consultant Ms Buchanan warned Rapisca not to smoke at the station, telling him: "I don't like the smell of cancer."
The following day, on 6 August 2008, Ms Buchanan encountered the carpenter again as she waited for the 0712 BST service"
So when she was shoved off the platform on a previous occasion had castigated them for smoking on the platform. It was not a one off event.
"All she did was walk past him. There was no altercation."
You wrote this on Taking Liberties on March 4, 2010 at 7:37 | Rollo Tommasi see link.
The BBC account rather disagrees with you.
Most importantly the BBC report below shows the footage. The 2 Romanian guys enter the platform and Buchanan can be seen clearly following them. One of them has his hands in his pockets and is clearly not smoking.
So Rollo you are mistaken or you are a bare faced liar. Maybe you will apologise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8547558.stm
http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/taking-liberties/2010/3/3/smoker-given-four-year-jail-sentence.html#comment7647905
@DaveA
Wow, Mr Atherton. You are changing your story! Let’s see if this one is any more logical.
In your previous post you claimed “I have seen the video of her sprinting like Usain Bolt down the platform to confront him, to bully and wag her finger at him.” I told you how you were wrong. The CCTV footage shows that this clearly did not happen. Your silence on this point now shows you admit you were wrong. So let me throw your accusation back at you. Either “you are mistaken or you are a bare faced liar. Maybe you will apologise.”
Yes, there was an argument the previous morning, as incidentally I mentioned in that previous thread. How on earth is that possibly a justification for Rapisca’s grievous assault on her? It provides absolutely no defence of provocation for his wicked deeds, as the court itself decided.
Only you are trying to taint Ms Buchanan and defend Rapisca’s foul act. The BBC report didn’t, despite your claims to the contrary. And the court verdict certainly didn’t.
So where’s your apology?
So, having remonstrated with them the morning before Rollo, you think that there was no provocation on her part? She purposely charged up the platform to confront them again instead of informing the proper authorities-a self appointed law master. reverse it and as!k what would she have said if they had charged up to her complaining at the stench of her perfume or body spray. After all, what's good in America usually comes here!
Blimey. It's amazing what stories Phil and Dave are prepared to invent, to have the world believe that this poor wee smoker was callously provoked into assaulting this woman.
Phil now claims "She purposely charged up the platform to confront them again". No evidence for this, of course. The media doesn't report this. The court didn't conclude this. And the CCTV shows no confrontation from her. No, it's just a figment of Phil's imagination.
Here's what the media did say about what happened that morning.....
And the court believed Ms Buchanan's account.
So all the provocation came from Rapisca. She tried to avoid eye contact with him. He made the provocative motion and noise. And when she responded, he shoved her off the platform.
Yet somehow, Phil and Dave still try to persuade the world with their made-up nonsense that this thug is the real victim!
I was always told as a kid that smoking stunts your growth. Seemingly, it stunts your sense of humour as well.
What comercial advantage? How is turning three smokefree carriages into four smokefree carriages a comercial advantage?
The only way I can see it, is that it is not a comercial disadvantage. So for example, if the rail operator were to ban smokefree carriages, people that do no smoke would still have to use trains because they have no other choice. However, I believe that rail operators should have smoke-free carriages and would encourage them to do so.
But why would you want to throw someone off a train for smoking in a non-smokefree carriage?
The point is that if one out of three carriages is non-smokefree then there would be no need for enforcment or throwing anyone off a train. I do not remember anyone smoking in smokefree carriages before the non-smokefree carriages were abolished, which would imply to me that these were rare events.
Agreed.
Nonsense. Even if we assume a supposed ~20% increased risk of lung cancer from working in the presence of smokers (on some unstated baseline) the chances are extremely high that her lung cancer was not caused by her employment. Given that ~2/5 people will get cancer (of some sort) and given that ~6% to ~10% the entire population (of Canada) will get lung cancer, and given that a large number of people work in the hospitality industry there is a probability of 1 that people
that work in the hospitality industry are going to get lung cancer. That would be true if tobacco had never been discovered. That will be true if these disgusting blanket smoking bans exist for years hence. So there is no way on this earth anyone could come to the conclusion that it was much more likely that passive smoking at least contributed to her lung cancer than not. And that is not even talking about a lack of a known mechanism, given that there are only
enough known carcingens in tobacco smoke to account for at most ~4% of lung cancers in smokers.
currently, [2007] it is only possible to account for <4% of the observed per pack-year risk for lung cancer.
Noted. Note how she managed come into contact with many people that could have reassured her that in all probability her lung cancer was not caused by passive smoking.
There are other risk factors such as:
1) That there is a probability of 1 that people working in the hospitality industry will die of lung cancer regardless of the existence of tobacco and or smokers.
2) Living old enough to get lung cancer.
3) Living after 1945.(ok I know this is not Canada but I have no data similar data for Canada)
4) Living in the wrong place.(ok I know this is not Canada but I have no data similar data for Canada)
Agreed. She did not make it very clear that she thought this. But clearly the people that advised her did a pretty poor job of pointing out to her that in all probability, her lung cancer was not caused by her employment.
Instead of hiring snipers...how about just banning the manufacture of cigarettes? Making it impossible to smoke. Oh right...big tobacco revenues and taxes up the wazoo. Its a fight they can't win, so lets just harass the poor schmuck who is addicted to them.
Oi, Rollo, Why the delay in your response?
I am still up for a bun fight.
@Fredrik – Sorry if you were missing my perspective. I really wasn’t sure I’d have much to add to what I’ve said previously.
Smoking on trains. Like I said before, the train companies took a commercial decision to remove smoking carriages. In part, I’m sure, it’s because many trains are short nowadays (2 or 3 carriages are common, at least up here), so designating one of those as a smoking carriage would severely restrict non-smoking accommodation. I also think I’m right that train companies are charged by Network Rail according to the length of their trains, so it’s not an easy commercial decision simply to add on a smoking carriage, especially now that most trains seem to be pre-formed multiple units. And, to repeat what I previously said, my experience on trains was that many smokers actually preferred to travel in non-smoking carriages anyway.
As for enforcement, I wasn’t trying to suggest that anybody would want to throw someone off a train. I simply wanted to make the point that it is a lot simpler for a train company to enforce a commercial decision to ban smoking than it is, say, for a pub landlord. After all, the police would not enforce a pub’s commercial decision and it would be difficult for a landlord to deal with a drunken and recalcitrant punter who insisted on lighting up.
The Canadian woman. This is what the CRUK website lists as the main causes of lung cancer other than smoking/passive smoking: exposure to radon gas; exposure to certain chemicals; air pollution; previous lung disease; a family history of lung cancer; past cancer treatment; previous smoking related cancers; lowered immunity. That woman and her advisers would have been able to make a reasonable estimate about how relevant these other risk factors were to her, based for instance on where she had lived and the medical histories of her and members of her family. It was clear she had been exposed to SHS at work. If they concluded that most or all of these other factors were unlikely to be relevant in her case, then it would be a reasonable judgment that exposure to SHS at work either caused or contributed to her lung cancer. And I doubt the insurance company would have paid out had it been doubtful that workplace exposure was partially or wholly responsible for her lung cancer.
Sorry Fredrik, but you have no grounds for concluding so firmly that "her lung cancer was not caused by her employment".
@Rollo
I hope you are well. For anyone to have contracted lung cancer from SHS you would have to show the person had the G to T transversion mutation of the p53 gene as a start. As the World Health Organization wrote in 2003 it is "rarely seen in non smokers."
The G to T transversion is also not unique in smokers either, it has been found in non smoking coal miners in Germany and the USA exposed to Argon. Also the cause of the G to T transversion, ingesting benzo(a)pyrene is also found in car pollution, wood/coal fires, BBQs and even burnt toast.
"The relative risk of obstructive lung disease is elevated to 3.2 (95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 4.8) in women who are nonsmokers but who are exposed to fumes from solid fuels."
Yes Rollo, I am near having indisputable evidence that at worst SHS is a purely speculative cause of lung cancer, or more probably has killed no one.
I am currently writing a paper which I hope will be published in a leading medical journal.
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/367.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374385/pdf/82-6690995a.pdf
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/128/1/6.full.pdf
@Rollo
Have a quick read of this paper, it includes:
"Solid fuels include coal and biomass (wood, dung, and crop residues) and solid fuels have
been associated with lung diseases. Delgado et al in Mexico City studied 62 patients with lung cancer, mainly adenocarcinoma (72%). They suggested that in 39% of the patients, wood smoke exposure was the etiologic factor."
"The authors looked for the presence of p53 mutation, phospho-p53, and the protein MDM2 in Western blot assays from blood samples in their 62 patients with lung cancer and in a group of 18 control subjects, which included patients with obstructive lung disease. The abnormalities in the above markers were similar in those patients in whom wood smoke was the etiologic factor and in the group of patients with a significant history of tobacco use."
Is this the SHS smoking gun (pardon the pun) which is the real cause of lung cancer in non smokers.
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/128/1/6.full.pdf
Excuse me? Logically 3/4 carriages bieng smokefree severely restricts the number of non-smokefree carriages. If it were the case that 1/4 carriages were smokefree then I would agree with you. But given the majority of carriages were smokefree I don't see how a single carriage being non-smokefree counts as a severe restriction. A severe restriction would be all the carriages smokefree or all the carriages being non-smokefree.
So what about the smokers that prefered to take advantage of the fact that there was a non-smokefree carriage? Because believe me they were used, I know this because I was one of them. I could just as easily point out that non-smokers would sit in the smoking carriage, this is not a reason to abolish the smokefree carriages. Clearly.
Her name was Heather Crowe.
Nonsense and no need to apologise Rollo because I made no such conclusion. What I in fact said was
And
I am not interested in CRUK's collective ipse dixit.
I am stating that even if tobacco had never existed there is a pobability of 1 that people (not all of them) working in the hospitality will get lung cancer for the reasons already stated. Even assuming a supposed ~20% increrased risk of lung cancer by being exposed to smokers, there is only one correct conclusion,
@Fredrik
I’m not sure why, in your argument, you’ve side-stepped my point about most trains (at least up here) being so short nowadays. Providing one smoking carriage on these trains would mean that only one or two carriages were smokefree. That would hardly be the best way to ensure available accommodation was allocated to best fit passengers’ preferences.
You say smoking carriages were used. I don’t disagree. You also say non-smokers would sit in the smoking carriage. I’m not disagreeing with that either, although I doubt in many cases this was due to a personal preference to sit in a smoking environment (it would more usually by in order to accommodate the “needs” of a smoker in the travelling party or because non-smoking accommodation was limited).
Ultimately, however, you are complaining that train companies used their commercial judgment to remove smoking provision. That is despite the fact that most supporters of your position (I don’t know about you) argue that landlords should have the commercial choice on whether or not to allow smoking in their premises. Or does the ability to “choose” only happen where an owner would only allow smoking in practice…..?
As for Heather Crowe, I stand by what I said. It is reasonable for me to say you “concluded so firmly” that her lung cancer was not caused by her employment, because your language was very close to definitive: “the chances are extremely high” and “in all probability”.
So what are your grounds for arguing this? Well, very little actually. You complain about my reference to “CRUK’s collective ipse dixit”. In fact, its assessment of the overall risk factors for lung cancer is a lot more comprehensive, informed and balanced than yours. You are offering no more than an “ipse dixit” of your own position, based on no understanding of Ms Crowe’s personal circumstances. Whereas Ms Crowe’s oncologist, etc do or at least should know her personal circumstances.
I think the point you are trying to make is that, if SHS increases the risk of passive smoking by 20-30%, then it is more likely that lung cancer is caused by another factor instead. But you are applying a global and general relative risk factor to an individual case. The relative risk for a particular individual, and also their absolute risk, might be considerably more or considerably less depending on their personal circumstances (notably how their bodies respond to exposure of potential carcinogens).
@DaveA
Yes I am well, thank you. Hope you are too. And I’m intrigued about your article – looking forward to reading it someday.
As for your latest posts, I don’t understand your points. You argue:
I really don’t know your basis for claiming this. None of the articles you cite states that lung cancer from smoking or passive smoking only occurs as a result of G to T transversion mutations.
And I don’t accept the argument that, if exposure to wood smoke, etc., can be a cause of lung cancer, that means it’s highly unlikely that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer. I have always acknowledged that there are a number of causal factors behind lung cancer.
Going back to your previous posts, I'm glad you're no longer trying to castigate Linda Buchanan as the true villain, nor are you accusing me of being mistaken or a liar who should apologise; although it's too much to expect that you'd either defend your own position or acknowledge your own errors. I'm also intrigued by your claim that "“At least your real agenda is exposed.” Whatever did you mean by that?
Hi Rollo, I'm well thanks. My original research came from this paper from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). They are an offshoot of the WHO of course. The purpose of their research was to prove that smoking caused lung cancer to counter tobacco companies view that it does not. The IARC based on the the G to T transversion being specific to smokers. Alas they also proved the harmslessness of SHS as it is very rare in non smokers.
"As soon as 1994, Curtis Harris at NCI and Monica Hollstein at IARC, had pointed out that there were special p53 mutations in lung cancers. They found that many mutations were of a particular kind called “G to T transversion”. This mutation consists into the replacement of one of the building block of DNA, guanine, by another (the thymine), at precise positions into the molecule. This induces a change in the meaning of the genetic code. This type of mutation is found in almost all types of cancer but is much frequent in lung cancers than in cancers not caused by tobacco."
"In 1996, Gerd Pfeifer and his collaborators at the City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, California, sought to determine how tobacco carcinogens could damage p53 and destroy its function. They used normal bronchial cells in culture and exposed them to one of the most damaging chemicals found in tobacco smoke, benzo(a)pyrene."
"In 1998, Pierre Hainaut and his collaborators at IARC analyzed the mutations in lung cancers that were at the time in the IARC p53 database. They found that the positions of damage by benzo(a)pyrene spotted by Pfeifer and his team were frequently the sites of mutations in lung cancers of smokers but RARELY IN LUNG CANCERS OF NON SMOKERS (my emphasis) That observation tied up the loop and gave very strong proof that tobacco smoke was indeed a mutagen for cells of the human lung."
I also have downloaded the other papers too. Most non smokers contract lung cancer from the mutation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EFGR). LC in non smokers and smokers are now viewed to have different aetiologies (causes), thus not induced by passive smoking.
"This is from a paper form Professor Aslaug Helland in 2009, "The K-Ras-gene is often mutated in tumours from smokers, but seldom in tumours from non-smokers; whereas the EGFR-gene is mutated in tumours from non-smokers, and not in smokers....INTERPRETATION: Lung cancer in never-smokers should probably be regarded as a different disease-entity than smoking-induced lung cancer."
As I have mentioned the cause of the p53 mutation is benzo(a)pyrene and as I mentioned it is found in wood/coal fires, BBQs, and vehicle exhausts. My hypothesis is that few if anyone has contracted LC from SHS.
The World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer by implication say so.
http://www-p53.iarc.fr/download/tobacco.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19844277
Strange how the EU law courts failed to accept SHS as a primary cause of lung cancer when Ms K Labat tried to claim for her husbands death due to having worked in a smoking environment for over 25 years! The claim was dismissed as !MANIFESTLY UNFOUNDED" - now there's a thing!
@Rollo
I should add this summary from the WHO/IARC paper which encapsulates my point entirely saying:
"However, the whole argument has been blown up by the identification of distinct mutations in the lung cancers of smokers and of non-non-smokers."
Yes, in their zeal to prove the link between active smoking and lung cancer the WHO/IARC also by implication proves that passive smoking does no cause lung cancer. The whole anti smoking project is based on bare faced lies.
"Responses of the Tobacco Industry
These findings were a cause of concern for the Tobacco Industry. At that time, the Industry had already understood that fighting against the idea that cigarette causes cancer was a lost battle. However, the industry was worried about the fact that Pfeifer’s and Hainaut’s findings could be used to make the point that smoke was the cause of lung cancer in individual patients. Until then, the industry has only acknowledged that there was a greater chance of getting lung cancer if you were a smoker. However, they reckoned that it was not possible to prove it at the individual level since, for one smoker patient with lung cancer, you could find another patient who is non-smoker but has the same cancer. However, the whole argument has been blown up by the identification of distinct mutations in the lung cancers of smokers and of non-non-smokers. Thus, they set up a concerted plan to tamper with this evidence."
http://www-p53.iarc.fr/download/tobacco.pdf
@DaveA: I've made the following point to you several times before, but you never address it.
You're claiming differences in the aetiology of lung cancer between smokers and non-smokers, in an attempt to argue that passive smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. But in order to do that, you would need to show that -
1. ALL smoking-induced lung cancer showed certain characteristics, and
2. these characteristics NEVER appear in the lung cancer of non-smokers.
But your arguments simply don't show either point.
By the way, how's your Norwegian? Or are you making claims about the Helland article based only on the abstract?
Hooray! This site is accepting posts again!!
@PhilJ – And what point are you trying to make, exactly?
All the Labat case showed was that the court was not satisfied that Mr Labat’s lung cancer was caused by passive smoking. It did NOT conclude that passive smoking is harmless.
@Rollo
"These characteristics NEVER appear in the lung cancer of non-smokers."
Was that not the point of the WHO/IARC paper?
@DaveA:
"Was that not the point of the WHO/IARC paper?"
No it certainly was not. The IARC paper discusses the Hainaut study. That study found G to T transversions in 30% of lung cancer cases involving smokers and in 10% of lung cancers involving non-smokers. That is certainly NOT "never".
And none of the reports you cite state that smoking-induced lung cancers will only ever present themselves through G to T transversions. So it is wrong on you to base the number of smoking or SHS-related lung cancers from that alone.
And I see you've ignored my question about whether you've actually read the Haland article. I'll take that as a "No" then.....