Lung Cancer Diagnoses On the Rise Among Never-Smokers Worldwide (theguardian.com) 27
The proportion of people being diagnosed with lung cancer who have never smoked is increasing, with air pollution an "important factor," the World Health Organization's cancer agency has said. From a report: Lung cancer in people who have never smoked cigarettes or tobacco is now estimated to be the fifth highest cause of cancer deaths worldwide, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Lung cancer in never-smokers is also occurring almost exclusively as adenocarcinoma, which has become the most dominant of the four main subtypes of the disease in both men and women globally, the IARC said.
About 200,000 cases of adenocarcinoma were associated with exposure to air pollution in 2022, according to the IARC study published in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine journal. The largest burden of adenocarcinoma attributable to air pollution was found in east Asia, particularly China, the study found.
About 200,000 cases of adenocarcinoma were associated with exposure to air pollution in 2022, according to the IARC study published in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine journal. The largest burden of adenocarcinoma attributable to air pollution was found in east Asia, particularly China, the study found.
Well Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
"The largest burden of adenocarcinoma attributable to air pollution was found in east Asia, particularly China, the study found."
Remember in the years before covid they were all wearing cloth masks because of the pollution...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Well Duh (Score:2)
Except no....
Southern California has the highest average lifespan in the country.
Re: (Score:1)
Well what do you know its the midwest and southern states with the highest lung cancer rates. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volum... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
But is it high among non-smokers?
I can see those states still having a high proportion of smokers given demographics, culture war stuff, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Wildfires aren't as hazardous to your health as oil refineries and manufacturing. Companies try to locate those things away from major cities with lawyers and stuff like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wildfire smoke only lasts for 6-36 hours every 2-5 years and is largely negated by staying inside. I'm not sure historic drought conditions and a handful of recent wildfires is going to have much impact on lung cancer rates in the short or medium term
Not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the global news stories about the air pollution in China, and the persistent smog(s) associated with that, is anyone really surprised?
pollution (Score:1)
Air pollution causes cancer -- WHO.
CO_2 is air pollution -- EPA
Therefore CO_2 causes cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all air pollution = CO2?
Brilliant.
Re: (Score:2)
Off on a slight tangent here, but a lot of countries focused very heavily specifically on reducing CO2 emissions.
CO2 was the target they were measured against, so you had vehicle manufacturers design vehicles to emit less CO2, but this often resulted in greater emissions of other things instead.
A lot of regulation ends up this way, focus too much on a specific thing and it ends up being replaced with something worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure that CO2 is a good thing for regular old passenger vehicles. Incomplete combustion is the biggest source of the hazards of car exhaust. The only useful way to lower CO2 on vehicles is better fuel efficiency. I would be interested in seeing citations on the specific vehicle emissions standards that focus on CO2 that you're referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 was the target they were measured against, so you had vehicle manufacturers design vehicles to emit less CO2, but this often resulted in greater emissions of other things instead.
I very much doubt that.
These are separate problems. Increasing fuel efficiency does not lead to an increase in other emissions. LEVs and ULEVs (stringent NOx and NMOG emissions permile limits) also universally have excellent mileage (low CO2 emissions per mile)
I think you're full of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
And witches are made of wood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some air pollution causes cancer
Some CO2 is air pollution
CO2...may have nothing to do with cancer. There is zero data available.
Not sure if your first grade understanding of pollution is intentional or fake, but PM2.5 particulates are the most likely worst culprit.
Huh (Score:1)
Doctors (well, not M.D.s, you can't see a full M.D. these days) thought it was aging, depression, bronchial infection, low T, because all those things were happening too. Blood tests did not reveal anything. Not until one of my lymph
(Almost) Everything causes cancer (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing found so far that doesn't cause cancer ... https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]
So, yoga pants have other benefits.
This is *NOT* saying air pollution is worse (Score:4, Interesting)
The proportion of the population that has never smoked is going up. If how much lung cancer is caused by smoking does not change, and all other cancer is spread evenly among the population, then the proportion of people with lung cancer who never smoked is going to increase. It does not matter if there is more or less or the same amount of cancer caused by air pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
So is the total number of people getting cancer going up? Maybe there's another cause, microplastics, or some o
\o/ (Score:1)
Let's see this data alongside:
* prevalence of smoking in movies (as a factor: scenes with one or more smokers divided by total scenes) against time
* Sales of cigarettes against time
Cough cough (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if microplastics were part of this cancer rise, too. Pick your poison...
Might as well (Score:3)
Fentanyl ... (Score:2)
Just don't try to light up a cigarette within 25 feet of a bus stop.