>"If nuclear tests are the main reason for lung cancer, then why did lung cancer incidence start rising before nuclear weapons were invented?" It became easier

>"If nuclear tests are the main reason for lung cancer, then why did lung cancer incidence start rising before nuclear weapons were invented?" It became easier to diagnose, or perhaps more trendy? It is actually really hard to distinguish between lung cancer and tuberculosis.[1] At ref 2 you can see tuberculosis rates dropping from 200/100k in 1900 to near 0 in 1980. In the meantime lung cancer rose from near 0 to ~100/100k deaths.[3] Also, as I mentioned, there was a fad to expose yourself to radioactive stuff starting about 1900 that only died out in the 1960s.[4] So, could be lots of things in combination. >"If nuclear tests are the main reason for lung cancer, and their effect is due to background radiation, why weren't all cancers increasing steadily rather than simply lung cancer?" My understanding is they were.[5] The lungs may especially vulnerable to radioactive dust though, if they had already "accounted for", as the lung cancers due to smoking, then this could have been missed. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876596/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876596/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tuberculosis#/media/File:Tuberculosis_in_the_USA_1861-2014.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tuberculosis#/media... [3] https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/cancer_types.jpg https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/cancer_types.jpg [4] https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-08/healthy-glow-drink-radiation https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-08/healthy-glow-... [5] https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/Fallout-PDF https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r...