Children of smokers are 22% less likely to have lung cancer?

I don´t quite believe that, but I wish it was that way. I´m an ex smoker´s daughter. My mother smoked heavily until about her 50th year of age. I smoked for 50 years (quit for money reasons). My children smoked for many years. Now they both quit but my grandaughter smokes. Let us hope they will all have less chances of developing lung cancer. I always think that the smoke of a ciggy is not as bad as all the pollution a big city had due to other causes. People overuse their cars, machines and A/C. A/C is not needed really unless you live in a very humid environment. And the pollution is WOW!!!

As the son of a smoker, I would very much like to believe that I'm 22% less likely to develop lung cancer than the son of a non-smoker. But I highly doubt that's the case. While secondhand smoke may not kill as many people as smoking does, it is toxic - it comprises 200 chemical compounds which are known to be poisonous - and claims thousands of lives each year. While it would be nice to assume that the children of smokers have some sort of immunity, the sad reality is that secondhand smoking may be responsible for thousands of new cases of asthma each year and that it may also be attributed to chronic respiratory symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. Being the child of a smoker also increases the risk of middle ear infection, eye and nose irritation, dental cavities, and irritability; and the children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy have an increased risk of SIDS. Having said all that, I doubt that lung cancer would be the one excemption to the obvious pattern of increased risk.

If it sounds like I'm doubting this because I'm against smoking, I'm not. I'm a pack/day smoker, myself. Moving on.. It sounds unlikely, but the sources seem to check out. Odd. I will say, however, that it could just be the size of the test groups. I mean, when you're dealing with a relatively small number of people, it is possible for the outcome to be 'lucky'. For example, you and I know that the odds of getting heads when flipping a coin are roughly 50%. But, if we took 10 people, and had them flip a coin, the odds could look like 80%, due to luck just favoring heads. However, if we had 10,000,000 people all flip a coin, the outcome would almost definitely be around 50% (Give or take a hundred tosses). I think a larger study could produce more accurate results.

Interesting result on that survey. I agree with the principle that the size of survey sample can influence the result. The fact that they tried to lose the report also shows just how statistics can be used or ignored by those who sponsor such studies.

i agree to this second hand smoking is dangerous. the ones around the smoker gets hit more than the person smoking. i feel sad for the very unfortunate young innocent kids with young lungs who are exposed to this second hand smoking. so for smokers out there better smoke in an open area distant to other people who might get caught by the smoke you are making.

Really? But I've seen in yhe youtube the video of that Indonesian kid who smoke 5 packs a day but still HEALTY I mean not that healty ,but he suffering no cancer or other heavy disease he just having a little cough Anyway,, who cares of that studies result...! if the kid will less likely to developed lung cancer than adult we STILL WON"T let them smoke no matter what right?

I had never heard this statement before. i would have the opposite would be true. I would think the children of a smoker would be more likely to have lung cancer. I hope this statement turns out to be true. It would be a blessing to children of smokers everywhere.

We shouldn't unbelieve it entirely.Human beings are surprising,aren't they? Although it showed that smoking might be good for our health,I still don't wanna smoke.I think there is more disadvantages than advantages... Wait for the further result...