Meg Sears is an environmental health scientist in Ottawa and chair of a national cancer prevention group called Prevent Cancer Now.

Given that we know that these chemicals are quite carcinogenic and there are lags between when you're exposed to chemicals and when you develop cancers, people can smoke for years and then finally they get a horrible lung cancer.

So with the usual caveats that you never know 100% for sure that there was a single cause of cancer, there's probably more than one contributor, being exposed to these chemicals and you know you were exposed certainly increases substantially the probability of getting cancer.

I remember him saying how

She says new tests would be challenging to do so many years later, but she believes it's still worth trying.

I would expect that it would still be possible to find traces of these chemicals.

It would not be as obvious as it was before.

But if the sampling was done rigorously and properly, then... probably we could still find traces.

Meg Sears is an environmental health scientist in Ottawa and chair of a national cancer prevention group called Prevent Cancer Now.

Given that we know that these chemicals are quite carcinogenic and there are lags between when you're exposed to chemicals and when you develop cancers, people can smoke for years and then finally they get a horrible lung cancer.

So with the usual caveats that you never know 100% for sure that there was a single cause of cancer, there's probably more than one contributor, being exposed to these chemicals and you know you were exposed certainly increases substantially the probability of getting cancer.

I remember him saying

She says new tests would be challenging to do so many years later, but she believes it's still worth trying.

I would expect that it would still be possible to find traces of these chemicals.

It would not be as obvious as it was before.

But if the sampling was done rigorously and properly, then probably we could still find traces.