[HN Gopher] Asian American women are getting lung cancer despite...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Asian American women are getting lung cancer despite never smoking
        
       Author : panabee
       Score  : 118 points
       Date   : 2024-04-25 19:16 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.nbcnews.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.nbcnews.com)
        
       | helsinkiandrew wrote:
       | 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-to...
        
         | max_ wrote:
         | 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 wrote:
           | "If you smoke, your chances of getting cancer are _only_ 3 in
           | 10! " is not actually very comforting.
        
             | max_ wrote:
             | 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 wrote:
               | 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 wrote:
               | 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.
        
             | jejeyyy77 wrote:
             | 20% of lung cancer cases in the US are people who have
             | never smoked.
        
               | hackeraccount wrote:
               | Poor Stephen Jay Gould. :-(
        
             | d1sxeyes wrote:
             | 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 wrote:
               | Any idea of what percentage of non-smokers die of a
               | smoking related illness?
        
           | nneonneo wrote:
           | 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-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).
           | 
           | Saying "tobacco causes lung cancer" isn't guaranteeing that
           | smoking leads to lung cancer, but it sure as hell is the
           | leading cause.
        
             | max_ wrote:
             | 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 wrote:
           | 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 wrote:
             | > _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
             | 
             | 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
             | 
             | 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 wrote:
           | 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 wrote:
           | 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.
        
         | j-cheong wrote:
         | If you live with a smoking man, then they shouldn't be counted
         | in the nonsmoker category?
        
         | eBombzor wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | Pepe1vo wrote:
           | > 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 wrote:
             | 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 wrote:
               | Are "society-over-individual values" really such an
               | obviously bad thing?
        
               | telchior wrote:
               | "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.
        
               | jhoechtl wrote:
               | Already had that copied to quote it now to see you
               | already did that.
               | 
               | I think this item stands out in the enumeration and I
               | honestly question if social behaviour over individualism
               | is a bad thing.
        
               | onlytime wrote:
               | East Asian wars tend to be drastically more deadly than
               | the wars of any other group. The Three Kingdoms War wiped
               | China's population to 30% of what it once was, and had
               | half the deaths of WWII in a world with two hundred
               | million people instead of billions.
        
               | mschuster91 wrote:
               | Oh, absolutely, and it can be seen for example in suicide
               | rates [1], or the weird state of Japanese criminal
               | justice where prosecutors will only go for nailed-shut
               | cases so that they don't "lose face" (while society as a
               | whole suffers) [2], not to mention the entire issue
               | surrounding "forced confessions".
               | 
               | [1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Asia-Insight/Youth-
               | suicide...
               | 
               | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system
               | _of_Jap...
        
               | bllguo wrote:
               | yes of course, the enlightened Americans are so much
               | better at handling crime. pointing at western justice
               | systems to say that western values are superior - this
               | must be satire?
        
               | UweSchmidt wrote:
               | By definition, negative side effects that can be cherry-
               | picked are more numerous and pronunced in an
               | Individualist society, as the very point of Collectivism
               | is to steer the crowds away from trouble, while
               | Individualism tolerates a wider range of individual
               | tragedies for the potential upside.
               | 
               | Your examples were not well chosen anyway, as their
               | relation to collectivism seems dubious, and US
               | prosecutors also have high conviction rates without trial
               | through threat of big punishment.
        
               | ta_1138 wrote:
               | Individualism in western countries varies quite a bit. In
               | cross-country scores, Spain has numbers far closer to the
               | middle east than to the US, and then Peru is closer to
               | China than to Spain!
               | 
               | So your invdidualism argument is only strong if by
               | western, you mean the anglosphere, the Netherlands and
               | Belgium.
        
               | papertokyo wrote:
               | This is indeed surprising. What's the source?
        
               | UweSchmidt wrote:
               | A shallow and superficial comment in a subthread that
               | took the wrong turn. Casually applying nasty labels in an
               | act of self-loathing from a fellow German. Oh no, our
               | toxic workplaces, truly funny. Our beloved individualism
               | that has little regard for society as a whole left,
               | consequences of that showing up more and more, how dare
               | the old asian guy hold on to the old ways. "Xenophobia"
               | in the face of mass immigration that is handled terribly
               | etc.
               | 
               | Actually take your criteria and apply them fairly to some
               | of the other cultures around the world. And let the old
               | guy smoke (outside). He is not the worst human ever,
               | that's for sure.
        
           | hackeraccount wrote:
           | I remember when I was a kid one of my friends telling me he
           | hated his parents. How old are you in the 8th grade? 13, 14?
           | That's how old we were. I'm sure I didn't say anything - what
           | could I say? - but it seemed totally incomprehensible to me.
           | It would be as if he had said he hated himself. How could
           | you?
           | 
           | My parents aren't saints. They're no less human then I am.
           | Like my wife and my kid they're people that are so easy to
           | forgive. It's so easy to rationalize away anything they do.
           | It's just tiny bit easier to forgive myself then them and I
           | don't see how it could be otherwise.
        
         | somethoughts wrote:
         | 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-
         | 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 wrote:
         | 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-
         | min...
        
         | jbverschoor wrote:
         | The number of people I met who say they don't smoke, but
         | actually do...
        
         | yieldcrv wrote:
         | 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
        
       | lambdaba wrote:
       | Wasn't there something about some seed oil fumes being toxic?
       | Maybe it's related to some cooking practices. Highly speculative
       | but the cooking oil toxicity is well-known.
       | 
       | [edit] found this with a quick search, seems relevant: Exposure
       | to Cooking Oil Fumes and Oxidative Damages: A Longitudinal Study
       | in Chinese Military Cooks
       | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4029104/
       | 
       | [edit 2] and indeed the article mentions it, although just in
       | passing, still my hunch would go towards this as it seems a more
       | specific factor than the others that are mentioned
        
         | peteradio wrote:
         | Gas ranges aren't the only range that needs to be vented, all
         | need it.
        
           | WirelessGigabit wrote:
           | I was surprised about this when I moved to the USA. We cooked
           | on electricity in Belgium, and there was a range hood.
           | 
           | Then you come here and you start to look at apartments and
           | there is no hood at all. Weird.
           | 
           | Or you see a microwave with a vent that vents inside.
           | 
           | Makes you wonder whether a mandatory range hood that vents
           | outside is better than a gas range ban...
        
             | taeric wrote:
             | Absolutely! Having only gotten into a house with a well
             | done vent going outside recently, it is alarming how much
             | cleaner everything in the kitchen is. Heck, I'm pretty sure
             | the entire house shows signs that we don't have as much oil
             | residue as we had in our previous houses.
             | 
             | Now... there is also the eye opener that is cleaning the
             | range hood for the first time. Holy crap.
        
             | peteradio wrote:
             | Yes, and having installed one myself, its no picnic so I
             | can understand why there would be a pushback against that
             | and instead scapegoating the gas range. But really its
             | insane how much crap gets into the air when you cook
             | anything indoors on any type of range.
        
         | enhancer wrote:
         | What type of cooking oil does that?
        
           | lambdaba wrote:
           | Seed oils mainly, a factor of the lower smoke point. The only
           | suitable plant oils in this regard are olive and coconut oil
           | - which are fruit oils.
           | 
           | [edit] seed oils r bad skeptics can just double check - the
           | top 3 highest smoke point oils are all fruit oils, with seed
           | oils at a distance - with the exception of peanut oil, which
           | is closer.
           | 
           | The smoke point is also not the only relevant factor, the
           | fatty acid makeup is also important, high omega-6 oils are
           | more likely to oxidize, coconut oil for instance is high in
           | saturated fat, olive oil is mainly monounsaturated.
        
             | darth_avocado wrote:
             | Most seed oils have a higher smoking point, as compared to
             | olive oil.
        
               | probably_jesus wrote:
               | Yeah but it's about what the chemicals turn into when
               | they reach a certain temperature, seed oils probably have
               | something in them that is chemically different
        
               | Iulioh wrote:
               | Depends on how refined
        
             | enhancer wrote:
             | Damn so sesame oil or soybean oil? Those are essential is
             | asian cuisine
        
               | gavindean90 wrote:
               | Use them as dressings but don't cook with it.
        
               | darth_avocado wrote:
               | Soybean oil is very common in most American deep fried
               | food.
        
               | lambdaba wrote:
               | I know it's not very HN of me but I want to point out
               | your username is highly relevant to the discussion.
        
               | darth_avocado wrote:
               | I must admit, I cook all my food with Avocado oil. Unless
               | EVOO can be used.
        
               | lambdaba wrote:
               | Understandable, it's delicious. It's great for salad
               | seasonings too, but you're surely aware of that :P.
        
               | thrill wrote:
               | Give Zero Acre fermented ("cultured") oil a try.
        
               | lambdaba wrote:
               | Soybean oil is mentioned in the study. A lot of people
               | get very angry when seed oil dangers are mentioned, it's
               | hilariously politicized, the fact is these are not lindy
               | at all, there is no tradition that would validate their
               | safety, these are 20th century inventions.
        
               | gruez wrote:
               | >when seed oil dangers are mentioned, it's hilariously
               | politicized
               | 
               | ???
               | 
               | Where are you seeing this? It's definitely controversial,
               | but calling it "politicized" seems like a stretch.
        
               | lambdaba wrote:
               | Seed oil avoidance is right-wing coded, it's undeniable.
               | 
               | To be clear, a segment of the online right-wing, I'm not
               | saying literally half the population.
        
               | wk_end wrote:
               | Can you elaborate further? I think of myself as pretty
               | online (sadly) and I haven't heard anyone, right or left,
               | talk about the politics of seed oils.
               | 
               | EDIT: should've searched first. Sigh.
               | 
               | https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/is-
               | see...
        
               | gruez wrote:
               | > Seed oil avoidance is right-wing coded, it's
               | undeniable.
               | 
               | Even taking that claim at face value, "right-wing coded"
               | is hardly the same as "hilariously politicized". Living
               | in rural areas is right-wing coded as well[1], but nobody
               | would seriously call it "hilariously politicized",
               | especially when you consider the broader context of the
               | phrase:
               | 
               | >A lot of people get very angry when seed oil dangers are
               | mentioned, it's hilariously politicized
               | 
               | [1] https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-
               | polls/national-result...
        
               | idiotsecant wrote:
               | I am equally confused. I think there is a dumb but
               | somewhat worrying trend of people's political identity
               | becoming so pervasive that it absorbs secondary and
               | tertiary opinions about completely unrelated things.
        
               | lambdaba wrote:
               | Yes, a large segment of conservatives have taken the
               | place that previously left-wing hippies occupied wrt
               | skepticism of mainstream health advice, and seed oils is
               | a major subject, I would say even iconic, with places
               | like Reddit vehemently disagreeing and calling it anti-
               | science or whatever. I agree that it's unfortunate, but
               | currently this previously left-wing impulse to favor
               | "natural", "unprocessed" products is predominantly found
               | in right-wing circles.
        
               | plufz wrote:
               | Yeah this is a really weird shift that has happened in a
               | relatively short time. In Sweden we have strange groups
               | of nazis and hippies that you wouldn't have thought would
               | happen in a million years when I was a kid in the
               | 80s/90s.
        
             | Earw0rm wrote:
             | Sunflower and groundnut oil is higher smoke point than
             | olive.
        
               | lambdaba wrote:
               | See edit, it's indeed a factor of both fatty acid makeup
               | and smoke point. Seed oils tend to have more PUFAs which
               | oxidize easily. Olive oil, on the contrary, is not only
               | mostly monounsaturated but also contains anti oxidant
               | compounds that are protective (I think oleic acid, and
               | others)
        
             | Earw0rm wrote:
             | enhancer - sesame oil is more used as a dressing/seasoning
             | AIUI rather than a frying oil.
        
             | mrob wrote:
             | Smoke point is a measure of when obvious quantities of
             | particles are emitted, not their chemical composition.
             | Extra virgin olive oil has lower smoke point than refined
             | olive oil, but it's more chemically stable under frying
             | conditions:
             | 
             | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20678538/
             | 
             | However, you're correct that seed oils are generally less
             | stable under frying conditions than other oils.
        
             | pertymcpert wrote:
             | I don't think that's the cause, it's more likely second
             | hand smoke from Asian men who are atrocious smokers.
        
         | foobarian wrote:
         | Ugh, have to say goodbye to breath of the wok? Or make an
         | outdoor kitchen I suppose.
        
         | camillomiller wrote:
         | Very empirical, but earlier this year I was talking to a Thai
         | street food cook who mentioned he was scared of getting cancer
         | from the cooking fumes, because he knew many people who were
         | also cooks and got ill.
        
           | mensetmanusman wrote:
           | N95s will definitely help in this situation.
        
           | kazinator wrote:
           | s/empirical/anecdotal/
        
         | alephnerd wrote:
         | Most likely this.
         | 
         | Mustard Oil is critical for South Asian cooking and is labeled
         | as "not for consumption" in the US.
         | 
         | I also wonder how much is because of immigration and the
         | pollution in the old country (even countries like South Korea
         | and SG have horrid AQIs)
        
           | snickerbockers wrote:
           | that wouldn't be related to mustard gas, would it?
        
             | adolph wrote:
             | Full roundabout:
             | 
             |  _In the 1940s, sulfur mustard, commonly called mustard
             | gas, and nitrogen mustard, a derivative of mustard gas,
             | became a new form of cancer treatment._
             | 
             | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325736/
        
             | ianburrell wrote:
             | Mustard oil and mustard gas are only related by color.
             | Mustard oil is made from mustard seed. Mustard gas contains
             | sulfur and nitrogen mustards which are yellow.
        
           | Ductapemaster wrote:
           | _Mustard oil is rich in unsaturated fatty acids, but it also
           | contains a special type of fatty acid called erucic acid,
           | which lies at the center of the controversy surrounding the
           | oil. Seeds from the brassica family of plants, which includes
           | rapeseed and mustard, in addition to cabbage and kale, all
           | contain varying amounts of erucic acid. Early experimental
           | studies on animals in the 1950s suggested that erucic acid
           | possibly had a role in the development of heart disease._
           | 
           | From: https://www.seriouseats.com/mustard-oil-guide (there's
           | a lot more and it's worth a read)
        
           | jejeyyy77 wrote:
           | east asians don't use mustard oil
        
             | alephnerd wrote:
             | Notice how I said SOUTH, and how the article notes the same
             | issue in Indian Americans
        
               | mastazi wrote:
               | but the article explains that the issue affects women
               | from several different Asian American backgrounds, not
               | just Indian Americans
               | 
               | Edit - however sibling comment seems to indicate that
               | East Asians use Rapeseed Oil which presents similar
               | issues, so you might be onto something
        
             | QuercusMax wrote:
             | They use caiziyou, AKA roasted rapeseed oil, which has a
             | high level of erucic acid, similar to mustard oil.
             | (Rapeseed is a member of the mustard family. Canola is low-
             | erucic acid rapeseed oil.)
        
               | titanomachy wrote:
               | Canola: CANadian Oil Low Acid
        
               | RockCoach wrote:
               | Rapeseed oil for cooking is a staple in Germany. If
               | erucic acid or its thermal products are the cause, there
               | would also be many cases of lung cancer in Germany.
        
               | andyferris wrote:
               | I think this is a naming thing, canola is an English word
               | for a variety of rapeseed, and IIUC Germany uses the same
               | food-safe version.
        
         | bsza wrote:
         | It probably also doesn't help that some cooking techniques,
         | like wok hei, involve heating the oil past its burning point.
        
           | kevinmchugh wrote:
           | Wok hei isn't a home cook technique
        
             | astrange wrote:
             | It can be, but you have to mod your stove, and you're
             | supposed to move it outside first.
        
           | archagon wrote:
           | Many stir fry recipes involve heating oil until smoking.
        
         | why_at wrote:
         | While this is definitely a possible explanation, I would
         | hesitate to jump to any particular conclusions until further
         | research is done on specific risk factors. The article also
         | mentions air pollution as a possible cause:
         | 
         | >For example, a 2019 study found that Asian Americans breathe
         | in 73% more tiny pollution particles than white Americans, most
         | likely because of greater exposure to construction, industry
         | and vehicle emissions where they live.
         | 
         | As you mention, there is some preliminary research which
         | suggests cooking oil smoke could be related, but this is far
         | from enough to definitively point towards it as the root cause,
         | or even enough to justify your hunch I would argue. Also keep
         | in mind there could be multiple causes of which cooking oil is
         | just one part.
        
         | UncleOxidant wrote:
         | Except that it doesn't seem like Asian cooking practices have
         | changed significantly in recent years.
        
       | ahepp wrote:
       | A graph in the article is captioned:
       | 
       | > A study of nearly 4,000 non-smoking women found that the share
       | of Asian American women who developed lung cancer was more than
       | twice that of white women.
       | 
       | And then proceeds to list "53.4%" for Asian.
       | 
       | Are we to believe that in a sample of "nearly 4,000 non-smoking
       | women", over half of the Asian American women developed lung
       | cancer?
       | 
       | Elsewhere in the article it is said that
       | 
       | > Among Asian American women who have lung cancer, more than 50%
       | have never smoked"
       | 
       | Those seem like completely different things to me...
        
         | x0x0 wrote:
         | I think what it means, and the graph is unclear, is that of the
         | A-A women who developed lung cancer, 53% don't smoke.
         | 
         | It's P(non-smoking | lung cancer, ethnicity)
        
           | ahepp wrote:
           | I think your interpretation is correct, but I'm not convinced
           | it's just a matter of ambiguity. It looks to me like the
           | caption on the graph is stating something that simply isn't
           | true.
        
             | alphairys wrote:
             | You're right on the graph. The graph in the article is very
             | misleading, especially the N=4000 non-smokers.
             | 
             | If you look the table in the source paper, 53.4% of 296
             | Asian American Female (Single Group) lung-cancer patients
             | are non-smokers.
             | 
             | Also, share of lung-cancer patients being non-smoker vs.
             | smoker being higher in Asian american females, does not
             | necessarily mean they're more likely to get lung-cancer.
             | This assumes the non-smoking vs. smoking population is the
             | same in teh general population, which it isn't.
        
           | erehweb wrote:
           | Correct, looking at the original document
           | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8530225/ -
           | search for 53.4 in that
        
         | jncfhnb wrote:
         | It is saying that 53.4% of the non smoking women that developed
         | cancer in the study were Asian.
         | 
         | It is a dumb stat to chart without contextualizing that Asians
         | were 15.92% of the entire study population.
         | 
         | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8530225/table/T...
        
           | ahepp wrote:
           | My interpretation of the underlying study is that 53.4% of
           | the asian women who developed cancer in the study were
           | nonsmokers, which I believe is subtly different from what you
           | said.
           | 
           | But I think what NBC wrote on the graph is pretty
           | unambiguous, that 53.4% of nonsmoking asian women in the
           | study developed cancer. They titled the graph "Lung cancer
           | among nonsmokers, by race" when it should really be
           | "Nonsmoking among Lung Cancers, by race".
           | 
           | Or do you think between the title, caption, and data, their
           | chart is presented in a way that can be argued is correct? It
           | doesn't seem like it to me.
        
             | lupire wrote:
             | It's a lost cause. No one labels charts correctly when
             | presenting complex conditionals breakdowns. It's impossible
             | to cram the proper grammar into the brief titles.
        
             | jncfhnb wrote:
             | Well your interpretation is not correct as you can validate
             | because I posted the source table for you.
             | 
             | 53.4% is the share of non smoking women who got lung cancer
             | in the study that were Asian.
        
       | darth_avocado wrote:
       | I am sure this inevitably is going to blame Asian cooking, but
       | one important factor here is that the women surveyed were 40-70
       | year old. It is important, because a huge portion of these women
       | would be first generation immigrants. That is important to know
       | because first generation immigrants from decades ago are more
       | likely to have a lower socioeconomic living conditions. Life in
       | Asia with higher pollution and lower safety standards, life in
       | America in poor neighborhoods with exposure to pollution,
       | asbestos, and other carcinogens are all likely contributing
       | factors.
        
         | huytersd wrote:
         | It's still strange. It's not like Asian women in America are
         | cooking on wood fire stoves.
        
           | theossuary wrote:
           | Cooking on a gas stove without proper ventilation is terrible
           | for you. My stove didn't have a hood when I moved in,
           | inspection didn't even call it out to fix. But I started
           | getting dizzy and feeling sick in my house; and had to
           | install air sensors before I realized it was cooking that was
           | absolutely destroying my air quality. Like from 2ppm to
           | 1000ppm down the hall in the office.
           | 
           | The whole "they're coming to steal your stoves" thing started
           | for a reason, without proper ventilation to the outside
           | (which just isn't that common in the US), cooking can destroy
           | your lungs, even today.
        
       | ryukafalz wrote:
       | The first thing that popped into my mind is that in the city
       | nearest me, Chinatown was bisected by a freeway back in the 80s
       | (opening in 1991). That'll be a bunch of new carcinogens in the
       | air concentrated around that specific neighborhood.
        
       | engineer_22 wrote:
       | Spending too much time in the LA metro area
        
       | kingspact wrote:
       | No, they're smoking behind their parents backs when they're
       | young, and they're not telling their doctors, because Asian
       | Americans, like many minorities, tend to patronize doctors of
       | their own ethnicity and those doctors know their parents.
       | 
       | Start doing autopsies on them - oh wait that's forbidden in their
       | culture.
        
       | stevev wrote:
       | Hairspray that are toxic and poison.
        
       | d_burfoot wrote:
       | It's worth noting in this context that Asian-American women are
       | by far the longest-lived demographic group overall. Asians have a
       | combined life expectancy of 86 years in the US, and women
       | generally have a 4-5 year advantage relative to men.
       | 
       | [0]
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health_in_the_United_...
        
       | attentive wrote:
       | Nobody mentioned it, but some Asians are heavy incense burners.
       | It can't be too good for their health.
        
       | keepamovin wrote:
       | I have a bizarre theory that 1 - 1.5 packs of cigarettes per
       | _year_ is actually beneficial for health. This theory has two
       | parts:
       | 
       | - small amounts of nicotine occsaionnaly are excellent for the
       | brain
       | 
       | - the innoculatory effects of small occasional acute exposure to
       | toxins and carcinogens preemptively activates and trains your
       | body and its immune system to respond to the types of things that
       | cause damage. Basically by activating the damage repair systems
       | occasionally under a mild stressor you keep yourself inoculated
       | against seemingly damage-associated conditions.
       | 
       | I'll let y'all know how it's going in 200 years or so :)
        
         | hackeraccount wrote:
         | I have a similar theory about car accidents. I get in one every
         | couple of years because I think that I'll be able react more
         | quickly to them if I'd never experienced it at all. :-).
         | 
         | Slightly more seriously, I hope your cigarette plan works out
         | for you.
        
           | rufus_foreman wrote:
           | Exactly, or like allowing your kid occasional exposure to
           | allergens hoping it will help them avoid allergies and asthma
           | later on.
           | 
           | In reality of course, no amount of cleanliness could possibly
           | be too clean.
        
       | DoreenMichele wrote:
       | Very glad to see some people trying to do some research on this
       | population cohort of Asian American women who never smoked.
       | 
       | It would help if we had a clearer idea of what cancer is. Some
       | cancers are known to be caused by viruses. Maybe someday they
       | will have clearer distinctions between viral cancers and other
       | cancers and that will help solve mysteries like this one.
       | 
       | I'm frankly surprised by this. The only thing I had ever heard of
       | was the _Japanese smoking paradox_ where Japanese people smoke at
       | higher rates and have lower rates of lung cancer. How or if that
       | relates to this, I don 't know.
        
       | baduongnham wrote:
       | I see a lot of comments being made on here that are highly
       | speculative of actual Asian American culture coming from users
       | who - from their post histories - are not Asian. It's a lot of
       | hearsay, and none of it is lived experience. The views that we
       | "smoke behind our parents backs", or "burn a lot of incense", or
       | "cook with a wok" are dated and archaic takes on what our lives
       | are like. To the users making these comments - have you ever been
       | in an Asian household?
        
       | andy99 wrote:
       | Nail salons?
        
       | mastazi wrote:
       | My wife is Thai, we now live in Australia.
       | 
       | Back in Thailand she and her mother often used coal for cooking
       | (which is listed in the article as a possible cause) but after
       | moving to Australia, she no longer used it because it is
       | impractical (the coal is hard to find, the type of stove used for
       | cooking with coal is not readily available, neighbours would
       | complain about the smoke, etc etc).
       | 
       | I imagine that most other Asian women who migrated to Western
       | countries face a similar situation and no longer use coal on a
       | daily basis.
       | 
       | Also, I am sceptical that cooking oils could be a factor, it
       | seems to me that, at least in the parts of Asia where I have
       | lived, the types of cooking oils used are similar to the ones
       | used in the West. I have seen the comments about mustard oil but
       | its usage seems to be limited to certain countries or regions and
       | not widespread everywhere in Asia, whereas according to the
       | article, the issue affects women from various countries from
       | India to China.
       | 
       | EDIT - however some of the comments indicate that other oils, not
       | just mustard oil, also present similar health challenges and they
       | are widely used in several Asian cooking traditions.
        
       | syngrog66 wrote:
       | should not be on Hacker News
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-04-25 23:01 UTC)