[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 15, 1995

Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Nonsmoking Women-Reply

Author Affiliations

Louisiana State University New Orleans
California Department of Health Services Emeryville
University of Southern California School of Medicine Los Angeles
University of California, Berkeley
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Cincinnati, Ohio
Emory University School of Public Health Atlanta, Ga
California Public Health Foundation Emeryville
Oregon Health Division Portland

JAMA. 1995;273(7):520. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520310011007

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


In Reply.  —We concur with Dr Kirkland that subgroups of exposure are of less interest than total exposure to ETS and, as noted in our report, some exposures are more likely to be accurately recalled and reported than others. However, to estimate the risk of exposure to ETS, it is necessary to ask specific questions about exposures in a variety of settings during different time periods and then to summarize those data as we did in Table 5 for all childhood exposures combined and in Tables 7 and 8 for all adulthood exposures combined. The study was designed to collect data on a finite number of subgroups and to combine the subgroup data to categorize study subjects into levels of exposure ranging from little or none to lengthy. The unit of exposure was "years," which does not presume a level of precision that is unachievable (eg, hours per day per

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview