Critical reviews in environmental science and technology
Critical reviews in environmental science and technology
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/1352-2310(94)90055-8
复制
发表时间：
1994-02
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
J. Lodge
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Lodge
是的，弗吉妮娅，确实有一本这样的小册子。实际上，我已经冒昧地降低了一些单词的大小写;原文的标题中的每一个单词都是以大写字母开头的，甚至是”a”和”and”。文本大量使用了括号，但根据上下文，感叹号的使用比人们预期的要少。这位作家，除了他是一个自由意志主义者外，小册子几乎没有透露什么，显然是识字的;几乎没有语法错误。这篇文章的负担是，吸烟作为肺癌原因的影响被系统地高估了，而城市因素，特别是柴油烟雾。根据作者的估计，这件事的主要推动者是理查德·多尔爵士，他因为自己的努力而获得了通用汽车公司的癌症奖，这意味着他因为减轻了交通工具制造商的压力而获得了奖励。当然，作者避开了锡拉，遇到了卡律布狄斯。就他而言，柴油是唯一负责肺癌多尔认为香烟是。这回避了已知的协同作用，例如，吸烟和石棉。他确实准确地指出，多尔（以及几乎所有其他人）对吸烟造成的死亡人数的估计意味着更多的人死于吸烟，而不是死亡的吸烟者总数。现在，这可能是克兰默大主教最可悲的遗产之一;任何令人愉快的事情可能对你不利。生活是要忍受的，而不是享受的。(The作者提出了一个我以前从未见过的数字，即吸烟者患帕金森症的几率明显低于预期;这值得更多的研究。）作为一个长期的烟斗吸烟者，我根本不知道这对我来说意味着什么; Doll教授显然认为烟斗吸烟远没有吸烟严重，但许多地方（如国际航空航班，许多餐馆）禁止我吸烟，但允许我吸烟。他们是不是在强迫我增加患癌症的风险？
Yes, Virginia, there really is a pamphlet with that title. Actually, I have taken the liberty of lower-casing some of the words; the original has every single word of the title starting with capital letters, even" a" and" and". The text makes great use of parentheses, but rather less use of exclamation marks than one might expect, given the context. The writer, about whom the pamphlet reveals little except that he is a Libertarian, is clearly literate; there are few grammatical gaffes. The burden of this writing is that the impact of cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer has been systematically overrated, as against that of urban factors, specifically diesel smoke. By the author's estimate, the prime mover in this was Sir Richard Doll, who was rewarded for his pains with the Cancer Prize of General Motors, the implication being that he was rewarded for taking the heat off manufacturers of transport.Of course, the author avoids Scylla by running into Charybdis. So far as he is concerned, the diesel is as uniquely responsible for lung cancer as Doll feels the cigarette is. This dodges the known synergism between, for example, smoking and asbestos. He does accurately point out that Doll's (and just about everybody else's) estimates of the number of deaths caused by smoking would mean that more people died of smoking than the total number of deceased smokers. Now, this is probably one of the more lamentable legacies of Archbishop Cranmer; anything enjoyable is probably bad for you. Life is to be endured, not enjoyed.(The author calls out a figure that I had not seen before, that smokers have markedly less than the expected incidence of Parkinsonism; this deserves more study.) As a long-time pipe smoker, I am not at all sure what this should mean to me; Professor Doll clearly feels that pipe smoking is far less serious than cigarette smoking, yet many places (eg international air flights, many restaurants) forbid me to smoke my pipe, but allow me to smoke cigarettes. Are they enforcing something that increases my risk of cancer?