6 ms·

12% of Asian American men smoke compared with 2.6% of women. So non smoking Asian women are more likely to live with a smoking man. Could second hand smoking

12% of Asian American men smoke compared with 2.6% of women. So non smoking Asian women are more likely to live with a smoking man. Could second hand smoking exposure be a factor in this? https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-tobacco-use/tobacco-use-racial-and-ethnic https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/impact-of-to...

j-cheong 3y ago
If you live with a smoking man, then they shouldn't be counted in the nonsmoker category?
max_ 3y ago
There are Many things that cause lung cancer other than smoking. Infact majority of people that smoke don't get Cancer (only about 30% in a group of smokers get lung cancer) Edit: I don't mean it's comforting I prefer to have it at 0/10 I am just trying to say that things that cause cancer are not as deterministic as we think.
- rafram 3y ago
  "If you smoke, your chances of getting cancer are only 3 in 10!" is not actually very comforting.
  - max_ 3y ago
    I don't mean it's comforting I prefer to have it at 0/10. I am just trying to say that things that cause cancer are not as deterministic as we think.
    - panabee 3y ago
      this is correct. it's clear that smoking elevates cancer risk, but why doesn't it cause cancer in all smokers? to develop a cure, we must better understand the causal mechanisms. this starts with acknowledging what we know and don't know about a devilishly complex disease that is arguably better conceptualized as a broad category rather than one monolith -- similar to how the flu, cold, and covid could be grouped under one mega classification, but are better identified as distinct conditions.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think we understand the causal mechanism pretty well. it is just laypeople struggle with binary thinking vs probability. The reason why only 20% of smokers get cancer is similar to why a person doesn't get cancer after 1 cigarette. This is only counterintuitive if your default thinking is that smoking=cancer. In reality, there are a lot of variable chemical and biological processes involved, but ultimately it ultimately boils down to a cumulative risk, not guarantee.
        pokerface_86 3y ago
        [dead]
  - jejeyyy77 3y ago
    20% of lung cancer cases in the US are people who have never smoked.
    - hackeraccount 3y ago
      Poor Stephen Jay Gould. :-(
  - d1sxeyes 3y ago
    Also worth remembering that cancer isn’t the only bad thing smoking does to you. 7/10 smokers (2/3) die of a smoking related illness.
    - jjgreen 3y ago
      Any idea of what percentage of non-smokers die of a smoking related illness?
      - d1sxeyes 3y ago
        Short answer: no. Longer answer: Logically, the answer should be zero, but it's actually not that simple to categorise either 'non-smokers' or 'a smoking-related illness'. Taking lung cancer as an example, approximately 10-20% of lung cancers occur in folks who are non-smokers (defined as 'never' or 'fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime'). Researchers estimate that of these, around 20% are caused by second hand smoking, meaning that around 8-16% of lung cancers are non 'smoking related' in non-smokers. Not all lung cancers result in death. So if we take the same approach, and consider the 80% of lung cancers which occur in smokers, presumably similarly 10-20% of those would have developed lung cancer regardless of whether they smoked or not, so potentially we would need to say that less than 65% of lung cancers are caused by smoking. Is it then fair to call lung cancer a 'smoking-related illness', if more than a third of people who develop lung cancer did not do so because they themselves smoked[0] (the number changes to 70% if we consder the folks who hypothetically develop lung cancer due to second-hand smoking as 'smoking-related'). There are also a lot a problems with the methodology here. How do we know whether someone really smoked 100 cigarettes or fewer? Is there any statistically significant difference between people who smoked 100 and 1 000? 100 000? Does it matter if someone smoked all of those 10 000 in the last year (almost 30 a day) or whether they smoked those 10 000 over the past 50 years (less than a pack a month)? All of these things seem to my mind to be problematic and make it impossible to answer your question. I suppose that means that I was overconfident in my assertion in the parent comment that '7/10 smokers die of smoking-related illnesses'. It was not unresearched (although uncited) and I got this number from this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/26/the-terrifying-rate-at-which-smokers-die-from-smoking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/26/the-t..., which in turn reported on this study: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0281-z https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291.... However, perhaps I wasn't critical enough in my reading, and instead simply parroted the stat. [0]: big caveat here is that my ramblings don't consider the possibility that a 50 year-old who would otherwise have developed lung cancer at 80 develops lung cancer as a result of smoking, and lung cancers caused by smoking stop lung cancers developing from other causes.
- nneonneo 3y ago
  I mean, it’s not going to be 0/10 because smoking causes cancer. Cancer itself isn’t deterministic. This isn’t news. There is virtually nothing that is 100% guaranteed to produce cancer, but there are things that massively increase risk. Tobacco is one of them. An estimated 72% of lung cancers in Canada are caused by tobacco (https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-concerns/tobacco/legislation/tobacco-product-labelling/smoking-lung-cancer.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-conce...) Smokers are 25x more likely to die of lung cancer as nonsmokers. The US CDC estimates that smoking is linked to 80-90% of lung cancer deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm). Saying “tobacco causes lung cancer” isn’t guaranteeing that smoking leads to lung cancer, but it sure as hell is the leading cause.
  - max_ 3y ago
    It is true that Tobacco increases cancer risk. But what about stuff like the use of Teflon and other "forever" chemicals? These things may also be making a contribution. It could also be a genetic defect. A liver cell growing in the lung. Or maybe a staple food familiar to Asian women that is being contaminated with carcinogens.
- da_chicken 3y ago
  Yes, but as far as risk factors for lung cancer, second-hand smoking is one of the better known. I don't immediately see Asian American women being exposed to additional regional air pollution, asbestos, coal soot, or radon more than others. There could be a race-linked genetic factor, but I'm not aware of Asian women that are non-American having a higher rate. So I don't see why it would be something like... aspirated cooking oils fumes or natural gas fumes while cooking. Do Asian American households have a significantly higher likelihood of natural gas stoves? Do they have cultural histories of certain kinds of make-up or body treatments like talc?
  - samatman 3y ago
    > as far as risk factors for lung cancer, second-hand smoking is one of the better known. The risk is real and measurable, but to put that in perspective: the CDC summary says it increases risk by 20-30%, so 130% over baseline to take the higher number https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html For smokers, the risk is 15-30 times baseline, so 3000% over baseline for the high end https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm The article indicates a 260% increased all-factor risk for never-smoking Asian women, compared to White women. There has to be more going on than just second-hand smoke exposure.
- DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
  IIRC the lifetime risk of lung cancer for smokers is more like 20%. For reference, among non-smokers the risk of lung cancer[0] is about 1%. So smoking is represents a 20x increase in risk. Around 80% of lung cancers are found in smokers and another 10% with heavy exposure to second-hand smoke. Smoking is the single largest risk factor for lung cancer. [0] All numbers are based on general population of US, so heavily white-skewed, I dunno about asian americans specifically.
- Zancarius 3y ago
  I suspect part of this is because smokers, generally, don't always live long enough to actually get cancer, and statistically their year-over-year cancer risk drops to the same as the general population when they do quit. However, COPD, once established, is irreversible. My dad was a long time smoker and it was COPD that eventually got him. He battled it for years after he quit.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > There are Many things that cause lung cancer other than smoking. Radon is the #2 cause of lung cancer in the US. There are high levels of radon in about 1/15 US homes. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
eBombzor 3y ago
Anecdotal but can confirm that my Asian dad smokes a pack a day, with the window open, and it pretty much permeates the apartment, and we've all had issues with lung health. There's no doubt in my mind this is a huge factor. Sidenote but I haven't missed my father since I left home. Traditional old Asian men are possibly the worst humans ever.
- brcmthrowaway 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Pepe1vo 3y ago
  > Traditional old Asian men are possibly the worst humans ever. That's, uh, quite a strong statement. What makes them worse than all the other humans?
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    I'm assuming they are referring to "traditional old Asian culture" aka the combination of old patriarchal/sexist beliefs, a toxic workplace/exploitation culture, society-over-individual attitudes, and that topped up with a healthy dose of racism to xenophobia (depending on the country). I mean, some of this is rich to talk about given I'm European and most Western countries share a lot of these traits, but from what I hear(d) from friends from Asia, it's the "the needs of the society/family are more important than those of the individual" that they find the worst compared to the very individualist attitudes of Western countries.
    - arrowsmith 3y ago
      Are "society-over-individual values" really such an obviously bad thing?
      - telchior 3y ago
        "Society" in this context can also mean "a tiny number of primarily self-interested individuals". That tends to be evident when the most powerful or influential people also happen to be strict authoritarians.
somethoughts 3y ago
Not sure about the validity of the source but it does suggest that second hand smoke could be related. "What’s behind this rise in lung cancer in women who have never smoked compared with men, and particularly in Asian American women? One possibility: While Chinese American women may never smoke themselves, they frequently live with partners or family members who do. (About 28% of Chinese American men smoke heavily, Dr. Li said.) “We think secondhand smoke might be one of the key risk factors, because they’re living with people who smoke,” Dr. Li said." [1] [1] https://www.chestnet.org/newsroom/blog/2024/03/secondhand-smoke-may-be-fueling-an-increase-in-lung-cancer-diagnoses-in-chinese-american-women https://www.chestnet.org/newsroom/blog/2024/03/secondhand-sm... I could see a possible scenario where a first generation (i.e. immigrant, English as a second language) Asian father/husband smoking at home in the 1990-2010 timeframe and not getting the second hand smoking messages/ads (that were primarily in English as quickly) as the rest of Americans and it's is just now that the statistics are showing up.
woodruffw 3y ago
This is what I first thought of as well, but other sources indicate that Asian Americans are actually the demographic with the least overall cigarette use[1]. Given that White and Black Americans use cigarettes at almost twice the rate Asian Americans do, we'd expect strong second-hand correlations for those groups as well. (This source doesn't quantify "use," so there are confounding factors: prevalence of smoking at home, chain smoking vs. social smoking, etc.) [1]: https://smokingcessationleadership.ucsf.edu/racialethnic-minorities https://smokingcessationleadership.ucsf.edu/racialethnic-min...
jbverschoor 3y ago
The number of people I met who say they don't smoke, but actually do...
yieldcrv 3y ago
Yeah but this should be the same increase in diagnosis amongst other non-smokers, or closer My hypothesis would be environmental plus genetic, given that our east Asian phenotype population is small and consolidated to small areas of the country. NYC, Socal Maybe we should look at increase in lung cancers in those areas specifically

j-cheong 3y ago

If you live with a smoking man, then they shouldn't be counted in the nonsmoker category?

max_ 3y ago

There are Many things that cause lung cancer other than smoking. Infact majority of people that smoke don't get Cancer (only about 30% in a group of smokers get lung cancer) Edit: I don't mean it's comforting I prefer to have it at 0/10 I am just trying to say that things that cause cancer are not as deterministic as we think.

rafram 3y ago
"If you smoke, your chances of getting cancer are only 3 in 10!" is not actually very comforting.
- max_ 3y ago
  I don't mean it's comforting I prefer to have it at 0/10. I am just trying to say that things that cause cancer are not as deterministic as we think.
  - panabee 3y ago
    this is correct. it's clear that smoking elevates cancer risk, but why doesn't it cause cancer in all smokers? to develop a cure, we must better understand the causal mechanisms. this starts with acknowledging what we know and don't know about a devilishly complex disease that is arguably better conceptualized as a broad category rather than one monolith -- similar to how the flu, cold, and covid could be grouped under one mega classification, but are better identified as distinct conditions.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I think we understand the causal mechanism pretty well. it is just laypeople struggle with binary thinking vs probability. The reason why only 20% of smokers get cancer is similar to why a person doesn't get cancer after 1 cigarette. This is only counterintuitive if your default thinking is that smoking=cancer. In reality, there are a lot of variable chemical and biological processes involved, but ultimately it ultimately boils down to a cumulative risk, not guarantee.
      - pokerface_86 3y ago
        [dead]
- jejeyyy77 3y ago
  20% of lung cancer cases in the US are people who have never smoked.
  - hackeraccount 3y ago
    Poor Stephen Jay Gould. :-(
- d1sxeyes 3y ago
  Also worth remembering that cancer isn’t the only bad thing smoking does to you. 7/10 smokers (2/3) die of a smoking related illness.
  - jjgreen 3y ago
    Any idea of what percentage of non-smokers die of a smoking related illness?
    - d1sxeyes 3y ago
      Short answer: no. Longer answer: Logically, the answer should be zero, but it's actually not that simple to categorise either 'non-smokers' or 'a smoking-related illness'. Taking lung cancer as an example, approximately 10-20% of lung cancers occur in folks who are non-smokers (defined as 'never' or 'fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime'). Researchers estimate that of these, around 20% are caused by second hand smoking, meaning that around 8-16% of lung cancers are non 'smoking related' in non-smokers. Not all lung cancers result in death. So if we take the same approach, and consider the 80% of lung cancers which occur in smokers, presumably similarly 10-20% of those would have developed lung cancer regardless of whether they smoked or not, so potentially we would need to say that less than 65% of lung cancers are caused by smoking. Is it then fair to call lung cancer a 'smoking-related illness', if more than a third of people who develop lung cancer did not do so because they themselves smoked[0] (the number changes to 70% if we consder the folks who hypothetically develop lung cancer due to second-hand smoking as 'smoking-related'). There are also a lot a problems with the methodology here. How do we know whether someone really smoked 100 cigarettes or fewer? Is there any statistically significant difference between people who smoked 100 and 1 000? 100 000? Does it matter if someone smoked all of those 10 000 in the last year (almost 30 a day) or whether they smoked those 10 000 over the past 50 years (less than a pack a month)? All of these things seem to my mind to be problematic and make it impossible to answer your question. I suppose that means that I was overconfident in my assertion in the parent comment that '7/10 smokers die of smoking-related illnesses'. It was not unresearched (although uncited) and I got this number from this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/26/the-terrifying-rate-at-which-smokers-die-from-smoking/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/26/the-t..., which in turn reported on this study: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-015-0281-z https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291.... However, perhaps I wasn't critical enough in my reading, and instead simply parroted the stat. [0]: big caveat here is that my ramblings don't consider the possibility that a 50 year-old who would otherwise have developed lung cancer at 80 develops lung cancer as a result of smoking, and lung cancers caused by smoking stop lung cancers developing from other causes.
nneonneo 3y ago
I mean, it’s not going to be 0/10 because smoking causes cancer. Cancer itself isn’t deterministic. This isn’t news. There is virtually nothing that is 100% guaranteed to produce cancer, but there are things that massively increase risk. Tobacco is one of them. An estimated 72% of lung cancers in Canada are caused by tobacco (https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-concerns/tobacco/legislation/tobacco-product-labelling/smoking-lung-cancer.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-conce...) Smokers are 25x more likely to die of lung cancer as nonsmokers. The US CDC estimates that smoking is linked to 80-90% of lung cancer deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm). Saying “tobacco causes lung cancer” isn’t guaranteeing that smoking leads to lung cancer, but it sure as hell is the leading cause.
- max_ 3y ago
  It is true that Tobacco increases cancer risk. But what about stuff like the use of Teflon and other "forever" chemicals? These things may also be making a contribution. It could also be a genetic defect. A liver cell growing in the lung. Or maybe a staple food familiar to Asian women that is being contaminated with carcinogens.
da_chicken 3y ago
Yes, but as far as risk factors for lung cancer, second-hand smoking is one of the better known. I don't immediately see Asian American women being exposed to additional regional air pollution, asbestos, coal soot, or radon more than others. There could be a race-linked genetic factor, but I'm not aware of Asian women that are non-American having a higher rate. So I don't see why it would be something like... aspirated cooking oils fumes or natural gas fumes while cooking. Do Asian American households have a significantly higher likelihood of natural gas stoves? Do they have cultural histories of certain kinds of make-up or body treatments like talc?
- samatman 3y ago
  > as far as risk factors for lung cancer, second-hand smoking is one of the better known. The risk is real and measurable, but to put that in perspective: the CDC summary says it increases risk by 20-30%, so 130% over baseline to take the higher number https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/health.html For smokers, the risk is 15-30 times baseline, so 3000% over baseline for the high end https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm The article indicates a 260% increased all-factor risk for never-smoking Asian women, compared to White women. There has to be more going on than just second-hand smoke exposure.
DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
IIRC the lifetime risk of lung cancer for smokers is more like 20%. For reference, among non-smokers the risk of lung cancer[0] is about 1%. So smoking is represents a 20x increase in risk. Around 80% of lung cancers are found in smokers and another 10% with heavy exposure to second-hand smoke. Smoking is the single largest risk factor for lung cancer. [0] All numbers are based on general population of US, so heavily white-skewed, I dunno about asian americans specifically.
Zancarius 3y ago
I suspect part of this is because smokers, generally, don't always live long enough to actually get cancer, and statistically their year-over-year cancer risk drops to the same as the general population when they do quit. However, COPD, once established, is irreversible. My dad was a long time smoker and it was COPD that eventually got him. He battled it for years after he quit.
drewcoo 3y ago
> There are Many things that cause lung cancer other than smoking. Radon is the #2 cause of lung cancer in the US. There are high levels of radon in about 1/15 US homes. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm

eBombzor 3y ago

Anecdotal but can confirm that my Asian dad smokes a pack a day, with the window open, and it pretty much permeates the apartment, and we've all had issues with lung health. There's no doubt in my mind this is a huge factor. Sidenote but I haven't missed my father since I left home. Traditional old Asian men are possibly the worst humans ever.

brcmthrowaway 3y ago
[flagged]
Pepe1vo 3y ago
> Traditional old Asian men are possibly the worst humans ever. That's, uh, quite a strong statement. What makes them worse than all the other humans?
- mschuster91 3y ago
  I'm assuming they are referring to "traditional old Asian culture" aka the combination of old patriarchal/sexist beliefs, a toxic workplace/exploitation culture, society-over-individual attitudes, and that topped up with a healthy dose of racism to xenophobia (depending on the country). I mean, some of this is rich to talk about given I'm European and most Western countries share a lot of these traits, but from what I hear(d) from friends from Asia, it's the "the needs of the society/family are more important than those of the individual" that they find the worst compared to the very individualist attitudes of Western countries.
  - arrowsmith 3y ago
    Are "society-over-individual values" really such an obviously bad thing?
    - telchior 3y ago
      "Society" in this context can also mean "a tiny number of primarily self-interested individuals". That tends to be evident when the most powerful or influential people also happen to be strict authoritarians.

somethoughts 3y ago

Not sure about the validity of the source but it does suggest that second hand smoke could be related. "What’s behind this rise in lung cancer in women who have never smoked compared with men, and particularly in Asian American women? One possibility: While Chinese American women may never smoke themselves, they frequently live with partners or family members who do. (About 28% of Chinese American men smoke heavily, Dr. Li said.) “We think secondhand smoke might be one of the key risk factors, because they’re living with people who smoke,” Dr. Li said." [1] [1] https://www.chestnet.org/newsroom/blog/2024/03/secondhand-smoke-may-be-fueling-an-increase-in-lung-cancer-diagnoses-in-chinese-american-women https://www.chestnet.org/newsroom/blog/2024/03/secondhand-sm... I could see a possible scenario where a first generation (i.e. immigrant, English as a second language) Asian father/husband smoking at home in the 1990-2010 timeframe and not getting the second hand smoking messages/ads (that were primarily in English as quickly) as the rest of Americans and it's is just now that the statistics are showing up.

woodruffw 3y ago

This is what I first thought of as well, but other sources indicate that Asian Americans are actually the demographic with the least overall cigarette use[1]. Given that White and Black Americans use cigarettes at almost twice the rate Asian Americans do, we'd expect strong second-hand correlations for those groups as well. (This source doesn't quantify "use," so there are confounding factors: prevalence of smoking at home, chain smoking vs. social smoking, etc.) [1]: https://smokingcessationleadership.ucsf.edu/racialethnic-minorities https://smokingcessationleadership.ucsf.edu/racialethnic-min...

jbverschoor 3y ago

The number of people I met who say they don't smoke, but actually do...

yieldcrv 3y ago

Yeah but this should be the same increase in diagnosis amongst other non-smokers, or closer My hypothesis would be environmental plus genetic, given that our east Asian phenotype population is small and consolidated to small areas of the country. NYC, Socal Maybe we should look at increase in lung cancers in those areas specifically