The statistically significant cancer risk occurs when wood-burning occurs for more than 30 days a year. (Table 2).
Burning 1-29 days looks statistically insignificant unless I’m reading Table 2 wrong - HR of .88-1.12 with CIs including 1. Suggesting no statistically significant effect observed from incidental or short-term exposure…roasting chestnuts for Christmas in your fireplace seems a fairly safe bet for most.
As a point of public health calibration, women smokers are 13 times more likely to be a lung cancer victim than non-smokers, according to the American Lung Association.
“Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.” 2004 US HHS Surgeon General report
Wood smoke use for more than 30 days/year is a ~50% increase in lung cancer, according to this one study. Maybe focusing on the order of magnitude greater causal agent would be the wiser public policy choice, in the US at any rate.
Burning 1-29 days looks statistically insignificant unless I’m reading Table 2 wrong - HR of .88-1.12 with CIs including 1. Suggesting no statistically significant effect observed from incidental or short-term exposure…roasting chestnuts for Christmas in your fireplace seems a fairly safe bet for most.
As a point of public health calibration, women smokers are 13 times more likely to be a lung cancer victim than non-smokers, according to the American Lung Association.
https://www.lung.org/lung-health-diseases/lung-disease-looku...
“Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.” 2004 US HHS Surgeon General report
Wood smoke use for more than 30 days/year is a ~50% increase in lung cancer, according to this one study. Maybe focusing on the order of magnitude greater causal agent would be the wiser public policy choice, in the US at any rate.