4 ms·

My uncle died of lung cancer in Korea; neither him nor anyone in his family smoked. If culprits were to blame, it's probably his coworkers - Korean men are noto

My uncle died of lung cancer in Korea; neither him nor anyone in his family smoked. If culprits were to blame, it's probably his coworkers - Korean men are notorious smokers even today and it was worse when he was of prime working age. (quick Google stats indicate 40% of men smoking vs. 16% in the US as of 2016, and it's obvious many, many men smoke if you just live their and peoplewatch.) His death is one reason I really hate smoking. In Manhattan it's especially annoying when you have to go past an honor guard of smokers wreathed in a carcinogenic miasma cloud of smoke when you enter or leave office buildings, or if you're walking in a tightly packed crowd and someone ahead of you decides to light one up and cropdust everyone behind with a blessing of cancerous smoke.

collyw 5y ago
You don't think that diesel fumes are a more likely culprit? I saw this study mentioned which showed negligible risk for passive smoking unless you are actually living with a smoker. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/?sh=282b7f8f65d4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-f...
- decafninja 5y ago
  Korean corporate culture is extremely workaholic - even today but especially during his working years (1970s to early 2000s) - he probably spent more time with his coworkers than his family. Also people likely smoked indoors in the office when he was working. Indoor no smoking bans didn't come until later in his career, and even today I think enforcement is much more lax compared to the US.
  - ornornor 5y ago
    > he probably spent more time with his coworkers than his family. This is so sad. Unless he didn’t like his family.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    From the article he linked. The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as "borderline statistical significance." Over at the Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog, however, journalist Christopher Snowden notes "there's no such thing as borderline statistical significance. It's either significant or it's not," and the reported hazard ratio was not.

collyw 5y ago

You don't think that diesel fumes are a more likely culprit? I saw this study mentioned which showed negligible risk for passive smoking unless you are actually living with a smoker. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/?sh=282b7f8f65d4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-f...

decafninja 5y ago
Korean corporate culture is extremely workaholic - even today but especially during his working years (1970s to early 2000s) - he probably spent more time with his coworkers than his family. Also people likely smoked indoors in the office when he was working. Indoor no smoking bans didn't come until later in his career, and even today I think enforcement is much more lax compared to the US.
- ornornor 5y ago
  > he probably spent more time with his coworkers than his family. This is so sad. Unless he didn’t like his family.
- Clubber 5y ago
  From the article he linked. The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as "borderline statistical significance." Over at the Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog, however, journalist Christopher Snowden notes "there's no such thing as borderline statistical significance. It's either significant or it's not," and the reported hazard ratio was not.