Health & Wellness

Air pollution causes lung cancer in non-smokers (erm, can't it cause it in smokers too then?)

Kerry Grens
Reuters
Fri, 28 Oct 2011 17:21 UTC

Air pollution, not smoking, causes lung cancer.

People who have never smoked, but who live in areas with higher air pollution levels, are roughly 20 percent more likely to die from lung cancer than people who live with cleaner air, researchers conclude in a new study.

"It's another argument for why the regulatory levels (for air pollutants) be as low as possible," said Francine Laden, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, who was not involved in the research.

Though smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer, about one in 10 people who develop lung cancer have never smoked.

"Lung cancer in 'never smokers' is an important cancer. It's the sixth leading cause of cancer in United States," said Michelle Turner, the lead author of the study and a graduate student at the University of Ottawa.

Previous estimates of how many non-smokers get lung cancer range from 14 to 21 out of every 100,000 women and five to 14 out of every 100,000 men.

The fine particles in air pollution, which can irritate the lungs and cause inflammation, are thought to be a risk factor for lung cancer, but researchers had not clearly teased apart their impact from that of smoking.

In this study, Turner and her colleagues followed more than 180,000 non-smokers for 26 years. Throughout the study period, 1,100 people died from lung cancer.

The participants lived in all 50 states and in Puerto Rico, and based on their zip codes, the researchers estimated how much air pollution they were exposed to -- measured in units of micrograms of particles per cubic meter of air.

Pollution levels in different locations ranged from a low of about six units to a high of 38. The levels dropped over time, however, from an average of 21 units in 1979 - 1983, to 14 units in 1999 - 2000, producing an overall average pollution level of 17 units across the study period.

After the team took into account other cancer risk factors, such as second-hand smoke and radon exposure, they found that for every 10 extra units of air pollution exposure, a person's risk of lung cancer rose by 15 to 27 percent.

The increased risk for lung cancer associated with pollution is small in comparison to the 20-fold increased risk from smoking.

And the study team didn't prove that the pollution caused the cancer cases, but "there's lots of evidence that exposure to fine particles increases cardiopulmonary mortality," Turner told Reuters Health.

Fine particles in air pollution can injure the lungs through inflammation and damage to DNA, Turner's team writes in its report, published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Previous research has suggested similar conclusions. A study of people in China, for example, found an increased risk of lung cancer attributed to indoor air pollution from burning coal and wood to heat homes. And several European studies have linked levels of soot and vehicle exhaust to lung cancer in non-smokers.

Laden noted that the pollution levels associated with the increased risk of cancer in the current study are not uncommon in the U.S.

"These levels are within the (regulatory) standards," Laden told Reuters Health. "We're not talking about people who live in a really polluted place with no pollution control."

Source: bit.ly/rMyNsA American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, online October 6, 2011.

Comment: The study's authors and Reuters, for obvious reasons, won't just come out and say it. But reading between the lines, the take-home learning outcome is:

Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer: air pollution does.

Reader Comments

EmergentMind · 2011-11-05T01:09:12Z

That's not how I read it

I see the take-home message as, "The increased risk for lung cancer associated with pollution is small in comparison to the 20-fold increased risk from smoking." I don't see anything "between the lines" except white space. Smoking is air pollution. You are burning organic materials and inhaling the particles. The pro-smoking agenda here is a bit ridiculous at times.

SeekinTruth · 2011-11-05T02:03:16Z

[Link][Link][Link]

Foxx · 2011-11-05T13:42:59Z

"You are burning organic materials and inhaling the particles."

The argument 'anything you smoke causes lung cancer' has to be one of the most inept and a-historical arguments ever created about anything.

I guess all those billions of ancestors before us who, until just this last century, lived by a fire nearly 24x7, must have all had lung cancer from all the smoke they inhaled. Indeed, this argument can only hold weight for someone who has never made a campfire and camped next to it or used a wood burning stove, yet somehow they innately know the truth that all inhaled smoke causes cancer.

The profound ignorance comes from not knowing a very painfully obvious history, the profound stupidity comes from assuming one's obviously foolish assumptions are true and also apply to tobacco, a substance whose functioning said person clearly does not understand.

EmergentMind has a lot of emergence left to do before resulting in what I would classify as mind.

EmergentMind · 2011-11-06T01:09:25Z

Wow Foxxy, I guess you're also an expert at "reading between the lines". You sure attribute a lot of things to me that I never said. And the insults added to the straw-man arguments were a nice touch too. If only I were as good at hyperbole, I might jump into politics or something.

I said smoking is air pollution, and if I cared enough I'd find the studies that clearly show cigarette smoke is carcinogenic. Your dear SOTT editor stated "air pollution causes lung cancer", so if cigarette smoke is also air pollution, we might wonder how he concludes that "smoking doesn't cause lung cancer", but air pollution does.

Nowhere did I state that "anything one smokes causes cancer." You made that up and attributed to me, before you went on a petulant little tirade against me. I'm sure that many things one smokes can be correlated with increase in cancer, but I'd have to take it on a case by case basis. I'm fairly sure that smoking water vapor doesn't increase ones chances. Anyhow, what you did was make a straw-man, and proceed to bash me over something I didn't say, nor do I believe. Nice job genius.

EmergentMind · 2011-11-05T12:43:22Z

Faulty Logic

Just because something else increases ones chances of getting cancer, be it pollution, radiation, or anything else, does not diminish the correlation between smoking and cancer. Smoking doesn't "cause" cancer in the strictest sense, but it is a factor that increases ones chances, and it the more one smokes, the greater their chances of developing cancer becomes. This is not just lung cancer either. Throat, mouth, stomach, bladder and many other cancers have been shown to increase with smoking.

It's just irresponsible to say "Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer: air pollution does." Air pollution doesn't "cause" cancer any more than smoking does. They are factors that can contribute to increasing ones chances. At the end of the day, you add these factors together, to get one's risk. You have to consider genetics, environment, exercise, and many other factors. Just because there are other harmful factors besides smoking does not mean that smoking is all of a sudden blameless. For SOTT to consistently promote that smoking is not harmful is beyond ignorance. I say that it is unethical. It encourages people to do something that could very well be harmful to them. Sure, some people will smoke heavily and not die from cancer. But many others will. I'm just sick of this pseudoscience passing as some kind of enlightenment.

Niall · 2011-11-05T18:53:38Z

"Just because something else increases ones chances of getting cancer, be it pollution, radiation, or anything else, does not diminish the correlation between smoking and cancer."

Exactly, the CORRELATION between smoking and cancer. Smokers die from pollution and toxic foodstuffs too.

EmergentMind · 2011-11-06T01:23:49Z

So, what exactly is your point Niall? Yes, we can die from anything. That is obvious, but it is not a very good argument. Smoking still increases your chances of dying earlier than if you didn't smoke. It's not just lung cancer either. It also increases ones chances of developing cancers of the cervix, kidney, pancreas, bladder, esophagus, larynx, mouth, throat and stomach; as well as increasing chances of abdominal aortic aneurysm, cataracts, periodontitis and pneumonia, atherosclerosis, emphysema, and acute myeloid leukemia.

So, what is your point? On average smokers die some 13-14 years earlier. Is it worth taking this chance? Are you the one with super genes that will somehow magically have an extended life because of smoking? I've had 2 family members die from lung disease, and both were heavy smokers until they died. No one else that I know of in my family has died from lung disease.

I used to smoke, and still do on rare occasion. I feel like utter crap when I smoke more than 2 or 3 per day. My whole body just feels awful, and it takes a couple of days until I start feeling normal again. I know that it is harmful to me, no amount of pseudoscience will ever convince me otherwise.

For a group of supposedly open minded people, the SOTT community sure is defensive and closed minded about smoking! Agree with us, or we will insult you and make nonsense arguments!

Foxx · 2011-11-05T13:53:03Z

keep trying

Maybe you'll get it right eventually. Praytell, since you state that smoking doesn't cause cancer (sounds like back peddling to me), but contributes to it and that air pollution (completely different substances, mind you) also doesn't cause cancer--what causes it precisely, in your opinion?

Air pollution causes cancer by introducing a toxic load on the body and increasing heavy metal load, leading to physical degeneration and susceptibility to pathogens. Smoking tobacco stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system via the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors...which causes cancer? Or I guess leads to cancer, in your opinion.

Suggest more research for you to determine exactly via what mechanism and functioning tobacco consumption causes cancer--post it here, for that matter! If tobacco really causes cancer, you'll understand how and have research to back it up--the rest of the research collected here indicates otherwise and you supply none of your own that counters the large volume that has been conducted by members of this site.

You are, of course, always free to leave as well if this site doesn't back up your opinions.

EmergentMind · 2011-11-06T01:51:06Z

Foxxy, you say that I am profoundly ignorant as well as a bunch of other uncalled for insults, but apparently it is you who fail to understand. I will not return the insults, but may I suggest that is a poor way to communicate with somebody you disagree with?

Correlation is not necessarily imply causation. In general, it is very difficult to prove causation, not just in smoking, but in any statistical study. I take the very moderate position in not saying that smoking causes cancer, but there are many far more educated than I who would make that claim. I simply state that smoking is at least correlated with an increased chance of developing cancer.

What we do know is that tobacco smoke is carcinogenic. It includes at least 20 known carcinogens [Link]that cause lung tumors. These carcinogens interact with the DNA in the lungs, causing genetic mutations, as well as causing mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. The most worrisome carcinogens are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone.

I'm not going to explain further how carcinogens cause cancer. You can go look that up yourself. But that is the mechanism that tobacco smoking is linked to cancer.

Again, you assumed things that I did not say. What you suggested in the second paragraph is not my opinion. Another straw-man.

And why should I leave this site if it doesn't "back up my opinions"? Am I only allowed now to read things with which I agree? Are you suggesting that people who disagree with this site should leave? Just who do you think you are anyways? I'll read what I like, and judge for myself, thank you very much mother.

SeekinTruth · 2011-11-06T20:17:10Z

To "Emergent Mind"

Did you read the 3 links I posted in reply to your first comment including all links within those articles? Or do you only read what confirms your beliefs? Mainstream "science" couldn't be corrupt, could it? NNNAAAHHHH....

EmergentMind · 2011-11-06T21:29:03Z

Yes I did read those articles. I don't have time to comment on them in detail. I probably also read them when they came out, but wasn't commenting back then. I will reply briefly my conclusions for you.

"Smoking helps protect against lung cancer" Bad science and faulty conclusions. Correlation does not imply causation. The first nuclear test was in 1945, but lung cancer rates started rising in the 30's, 15 years before. The lung cancer rates went up in parallel with a huge increase in smoking, some 20 years earlier. This chart shows the correlation [Link]"No-one has been able to increase cancer in animals from smoking". Well, rats don't live 80 years like humans, their typical lifespan is 2-3 years. Lung cancer takes longer than 2-3 years to develop. The early animal studies were flawed in many other ways, and there is plenty of literature detailing exactly how. Epidemiological studies are quite clear in associating cancer in humans with smoking and are far more relevant than the historical flawed animal studies. The conclusion that lung mucous acts as a barrier to radioactive particles is ludicrous. You think a little bit of lung snot stops radiation? Maybe if it's made out of lead! Radioactive molecules eject particles that go through most elements less dense than lead! Ridiculous hypothesis, and nothing except the writer's hunch to back it up. One of the most horrible conclusions to the pro-smoking propaganda I've seen! This article is pure pseudoscience.

"Smoking does NOT cause lung cancer, in fact it just might protect you from nuclear fallout" Argues on historical flawed animal studies. Some rat species have been shown to to be more susceptible to lung cancer than others, but human epidemiological studies are why most scientists today argue that smoking causes cancer. Here's an article that goes into greater depth, and I quote a paragraph [Link] "The problems of producing cancer in the research laboratory are extremely complex and far from understood as yet. What will cause cancer in one species will not necessarily cause it in another. What will cause cancer in one tissue of an animal will not necessarily cause it in another tissue of the same animal. Thus it is conceivable that if tobacco smoke does contain an agent which causes cancer in the lungs of human beings, it may not do so in the lungs or any other organs of a mouse or a guinea pig or a dog. Here it is appropriate to point out that no one has ever succeeded in producing cancer in an experimental animal with chromium or any chromium-containing compound, yet the statistical evidence that chromates can cause cancer of the lung is generally accepted."

"Lies, Damned Lies & 400,000 Smoking-related Deaths: Cooking the Data in the Fascists' Anti-Smoking Crusade". Sorry, I don't have time to really respond to this article. I agree with some of what they say, some of it I do not. I think that it's important to point out that the article does conclude with this line, "Evidence does suggest that cigarettes substantially increase the risk of lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema." I'm guessing that you also agree with this assessment, since you had me read it.

EmergentMind · 2011-11-06T21:32:34Z

Wikipedia correlation graph [Link]did not copy correctly, here is the right link

EmergentMind · 2011-11-06T21:34:32Z

Wikipedia link won't copy right. change File:Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_f_rom_NIH.svg to File:Cancer_smoking_lung_cancer_correlation_from_NIH.svg

EmergentMind · 2011-11-06T21:36:07Z

Ok, there's a bug here. Every time I try to copy that link, it messes it up from how I enter it. _from_ should not have a space or underline in it.

SeekinTruth · 2011-11-06T22:39:07Z

Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. Wikipedia is OK as a source for general, non-controversial, non-political information. But anything else, you've got to be kidding me....

Sacred Cows are what separate one from reality....

EmergentMind · 2011-11-06T23:58:29Z

Ok, whatever seekin truth. I've given a LOT of time giving intelligent well thought out responses here. What have you offered?

"Link Link Link", "Did you read my links?", "Sacred cows!"

Is that all you can offer? If you want any further reply from me, you'll have to offer something more substantial and well thought out. You'll have to catch me on the next smoking propaganda piece, I'm done on this one. But next time, bring something original please.

SeekinTruth · 2011-11-07T00:25:55Z

Well, you also gave a link, except that the source of the link takes their "information" on controversial issues from the same corrupt sources as mainstream media, government agencies, etc. Talk about propaganda. Would you take wikipedia as a good source of information on, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

So this time OR next time, why don't you offer something original and not from dubious propaganda sources? : )

EmergentMind · 2011-11-07T01:12:42Z

So, you have me read an article from the CATO Institute that concludes, "Evidence does suggest that cigarettes substantially increase the risk of lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema." This is the point I've been making. Then, you disagree with me... Why? What is your point exactly?

You see, the only people who are confused here are Big Tobacco spokesmen, questionable scientists, and people who claim to channel voices in their head from across the galaxy. On the one hand, SOTT is saying that smoking is good for you, and prevents cancer. On the other hand, the CATO Institute is admitting that smoking is not good for you, and substantially increases the risk of cancer. Somebody is clearly wrong here. I'm sorry to tell you that SOTT is a "dubious propaganda source" in some areas.

"Propaganda": 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

SOTT says smoking is good for you, and this can harm a person. Thus it is propaganda. I disagree with their claims, and the more I look into it, the more disenchanted I become. For all the good SOTT has done, their bit on smoking really discredits them. The only good argument for smoking that I've heard SOTT give over the years is that it repels vampires. Well, I'm keeping that tucked away for when I run into a vampire, but maybe I'll change my mind and decide to let them turn me instead.

SeekinTruth · 2011-11-07T01:50:44Z

I gave you 3 links that also have sources to verify within them. I could have given closer to 30 sources, but what's the point when your "mind" is made up, and you don't want to be confused by the facts.

The rest of your insinuations speak more about you than SOTT, and they speak for themselves. More signs of a closed mind. Too bad smoking will increase YOUR chances of lung cancer (because you believe the fascist propaganda hook, line, and sinker) because it has tremendous effects for memory, learning, and cognitive functions in general, besides stress reduction, etc. You and many others sure could use it.

EmergentMind · 2011-11-07T02:23:22Z

Wow, instead of giving me an argument, all the pro-smokers here resort to insulting and speaking down to me. That's what you do when reason and coherence is not on your side. This is great, I should write a book. "How to appear to be right when you are wrong". Step one, ignore your opponent's argument and insult him. Step two, talk to your opponent like a child, as if he were inferior to you. It is important to never engage the topic at hand, only talk about the speaker and his character. Step three, repeat steps one and two until your opponent gives up.

Ok, I give up for real this time. I can't take it anymore. You are right. Smoking is good for you. I'm going to go buy 20 cartons now, and start chain smoking until I sprout wings and can shoot laser beams out of my eyes. Then I can kill all the eeevil anti-smoking fascists who are trying to take over the world. I'll call myself the Smokin Crusader, and start channeling aliens from across the universe to tell me where the despicable Archons are, so that I might cut them to pieces with my laser eyes. I am compelled by the power of your links, and the persuasion of your insults and vagaries! Thank you for bringing me to my senses Seeking Truth!

SeekinTruth · 2011-11-07T02:35:21Z

Nah, I'm afraid I don't have anywhere near what it would take to bring you to your senses....

Funny, all the insinuations and "cult" like allegations and defamation flies every time certain types are challenged with repeating especially certain mainstream propaganda memes. And many say in a huff, that they will leave or not comment anymore, but just keep coming back with the same blah, blah, blah. If you've seen one, you've seen 'em all, it seems.

Divide By Zero · 2011-11-08T19:39:18Z

from: [Link]
They couldn't get dogs to get lung cancer by smoking ridiculous amounts... so they went on to rats:

"Before getting too excited about these experiments, however, we need to consider this: the largest known rats weigh no more than an average of one pound. Forcing a one pound rat to smoke 8 cigarettes per day is the equivalent of forcing a 160 pound human to smoke 1280 cigarettes per day (64 packs). Such experiments are not realistic and in no way replicate exposure to ordinary tobacco smoke. Given the enormous concentrations of smoke used by the experimenters, it is wonder that any of the animals even survived the ordeal; yet, they did, and only a small percentage developed tumors."

It's not about pushing smoking, but fighting against our rights being slowly eroded based on "science". So, like the global warming "science" being manipulated, how can anyone take popular science seriously anymore?