`Sodium,  While I generally like this well fleshed-out article I must point out some inconsistencies and present my reservations and remarks.  ``For lay people or for academics`` - this issue has not been tackled properly by Wikipedia community yet. It seems to be really hard to strike a balance between these two approaches. Obviously I am looking at this article from the professional's perspective and I feel the article is lacking something.  There is another thing, in the last decades medicine has changed considerably. Evidence-based medicine, large international studies and meta-analyses pave the way for everyday practice. We no longer take medical standards and medical knowledge for granted it must be well researched and put under scrutiny of double-blind randomised studies. A statement is never complete without references from respected peer-reviewed medical journals. Considering this health science articles seem incomplete or even sound like the medical knowledge of the past.  # ``present in cigarettes`` - better ``in cigarette smoke`` or better still - ``in tobacco smoke`` # ``lung cancer`` - ``lung neoplasm`` - ``lung tumour``  these can not always be used interchangably and can be misleading sometimes # ``cells lining the bronchi`` - bronchial mucous membrane (consider changing in some places ``cells`` into ``tissue``) # ``patient here would start to cough up blood-stained material`` -it is unclear because of cancer or abscess # histology of lung neoplasms  asbestos is carcinogenic in case of mesothelioma mainly AFAIR # treatment section needs more material # all in all this article needs some rewrite and probably should fork into several other articles about specific histological types of neoplasms - they are diferrent in many respects. A good job but let's combine our efforts to make it even better. Kpjas `