Lung Cancer rare before 1960?

You look at history of the past and you don't see a lot of lung cancer before the 1960's. People smoked even in the 1700 and 1800's.

In some ways, I think this deal about smoking is somewhat hyped up. What about other exposures that may cause lung cancer?

Many of you may disagree. However, I think the media's "statistics" about things are sometimes biased rather than objective. How do we know that 80's of lung cancer deaths are contributed to smoking?
Okay- Smoking how much? 5 packs a day. 10 cigarettes a day (some are now saying smoking in moderation isn't bad for your health) I agree
Exposure to other chemicals? Working in a deasel factory? Putting asbestos on roofs? Genes? Eating very unhealthy?

It some ways it is like saying that a hamburger causes heart disease. Okay- eating a hamburger with 3000 other calories that day? along with sugar and hydroginated oils?

Or eating one hamburger a day with a healthy diet?

The media just gives their biased facts

Biased Facts?

Please list the sources of your "Fact" that lung cancer was rare before 1960!

grandfather smoked 3 packs a day for many many years
No Cancer in family before, didnt work with asbestos, or dangerous chemicals
in 1964 had to have 1/2 lung removed due to Cancer
lived only 6months after the procedure

Yes, the media is very biased. Yes, most people are too lazy or stupid to figure it out. Yes, lung cancer was probably pretty prevalent before the 1960's. However, we didn't have the same reporting system or diagnostic technology. People are living longer, giving them more time to develop cancer. We are finding it more because we are now looking for it.

There is no safe amount of cigarette smoke you can be exposed to. One a day will greatly increase your risk. However, asbestos, radon, and a zillion other things are bad for you too.