3 ms·
Can you explain why so many people get lung cancer when they're non-smokers? We've even massively reduced the risk of radon exposure to these people. They don't
by keep_reading 3y ago
Can you explain why so many people get lung cancer when they're non-smokers? We've even massively reduced the risk of radon exposure to these people. They don't inhale asbestos. What is causing it?
> In the United States, about 10% to 20% of lung cancers, or 20,000 to 40,000 lung cancers each year, happen in people who never smoked or smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime
Straight from the CDC.
- TaupeRanger 3y agoThere is a huge and very strong correlation between less smoking and lower lung cancer rates. You claimed otherwise, that's what I was referring to. Of course some people still get it without smoking.
- keep_reading 3y agoHere's the point I'm trying to articulate: we used to blame nearly all the non-smoker lung cancer incidents on 2nd hand smoke. Smoking was everywhere. It was terrible. I hated it so much. Now smoking has dropped significantly and smoking indoors and in many public spaces is banned. But the non-smoker lung cancer rates don't appear to be dropping accordingly. Did we replace the 2nd hand smoke with some other cancer causing particulates? Or were we wrong about 2nd hand smoke and there was something else in our environment the whole time?
- phatskat 3y agoI think we just don’t know, really. It could be replacement of some sort - car usage has gone up continuously, and we inhale a lot of exhaust in cities. Maybe it was exhaust the whole time? I’d also be interested to see the data you’re referencing on lung cancer rates in non-smokers.