[HN Gopher] Air pollution may contribute to development of lung ...
___________________________________________________________________
Air pollution may contribute to development of lung cancer in
never-smokers
Author : gmays
Score : 109 points
Date : 2025-07-04 18:33 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (today.ucsd.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (today.ucsd.edu)
| pfdietz wrote:
| Also exposure to aristolochic acid, a group of chemicals found in
| certain Chinese herbal medicines.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristolochic_acid
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Why was this downvoted? It summarizes the part of the article
| that wasn't already summarized in the headline.
| bell-cot wrote:
| How is this even news? I'd think that century-old health data
| would make it bleedin' obvious that heavy air pollution increases
| the incidence of lung cancer.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Century old? Did they have enough data on non smokers at that
| time to draw any hard conclusions?
| bell-cot wrote:
| Evidently "yes":
|
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Cancer_s.
| ..
|
| (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco )
| streptomycin wrote:
| A century ago, the idea that smoking causes cancer was quite
| new and was decades away from being conclusively proven.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Also many people heated their homes with coal or wood and the
| air quality in houses and cities was pretty bad even if you
| weren't a smoker. Asbestos was everywhere too.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > Asbestos was everywhere too.
|
| if you have data supporting that, please share it; it would
| be interesting (morbidly).
|
| i think that's inaccurate because, while Romans knew of it
| (Pliny wrote of slaves getting breathing disease who worked
| with it), mining of it, largely for military uses didn't go
| crazy until the world wars, and surpluses from mining post
| wars was insidiously repurposed into the commercial sector
| particularly in california and in random other regions.
| ars wrote:
| > that smoking causes cancer was quite new
|
| Hardly new, In Sketches, Old and New by Mark Twain in 1893,
| he treats the concept of: smoking being dangerous, as
| obviously known but annoying and he doesn't want to hear
| about it.
|
| https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3189
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| We are still desperately trying to convince 30% of voting
| adults in the US that pollution is bad
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Some of them literally think destroying the planet is a good
| thing because it'll prompt the rapture.
| monster_truck wrote:
| In the article, which I read, it says that they can now
| definitively prove that the way it causes cancer is different
| from the way smoking causes cancer
| pfdietz wrote:
| Which could be a problem. Smoking tends to cause "hot"
| cancers, with many mutations, and these cancers respond well
| to the checkpoint inhibitors that enable the immune system to
| more effectively attack the mutant proteins.
| bobmcnamara wrote:
| Gene: Ooh! I forgot about casino smell!
|
| Bob: old cigarette smoke? Kids, this is how everything used to
| smell.
| bhaney wrote:
| May?
| fracus wrote:
| Do ya think so?
| ethan_smith wrote:
| The key finding here is that air pollution specifically triggers
| EGFR mutations in never-smokers, which is mechanistically
| different from how smoking causes lung cancer.
| hulitu wrote:
| > Air Pollution May Contribute to Development of Lung Cancer in
| Never-Smokers
|
| No. This can't be true. Everybody knows that _only smoking_
| causes lung cancer. /s
|
| I heard that pollution has no influence on one's health.
| Especially when the pollution is created by a big corporation
| (see DuPont).
| nonelog wrote:
| LOL at "may" - we are not really at this stage anymore for quite
| some time now.
| mattigames wrote:
| And the bill that passed just yesterday will help exacerbate this
| problem, the bill includes provisions that reduce royalties on
| oil and gas extraction from federal lands, extend tax breaks for
| fossil fuel production, and weaken regulations on drilling and
| mining.
| bboygravity wrote:
| Because people will start driving around more for no reason
| just because gas is cheaper?
|
| Or what's your reasoning for the correlation to higher future
| air pollution?
| VMG wrote:
| They will be driving around more for marginal reasons, and
| they will be more likely driving a car with an internal
| combustion engine
| 123yawaworht456 wrote:
| I love these little mask slips.
| bloudermilk wrote:
| Not for no reason. For the reason that gas is cheaper and
| thus less prohibitive.
| crims0n wrote:
| I don't think the cost of fuel is the primary factor in
| travel decisions... it is almost always the cheapest option
| regardless. People are more interested in time and
| convenience, both of which become drastically less
| favorable the longer you have to drive.
| mattigames wrote:
| If you search "survey would you travel more if gas was
| cheaper?" in google you get an AI summary saying "Yes,
| lower gas prices would likely lead to increased travel
| for many people. Surveys consistently show that the cost
| of gasoline is a significant factor in travel decisions,
| with many indicating they would travel more if gas were
| cheaper. "
| mattigames wrote:
| That gas is cheaper is "no reason" to use your car more time?
| People are likely to think more reasons to travel if is
| easier to travel, the barrier to entry is always an important
| deciding factor, e,g. if I visit my romantic partner once a
| week I may start visiting them a bit more if it gas prices
| don't raise much but my income does, also when looking for a
| new car more likely to buy a gas vehicle than an electric
| one, and companies may end up reaching similar conclusions,
| e.g. a a potential client that is too far away so gas prices
| are a significant factor can offer a better rate if gas
| prices drop or at least increase slower than their profits.
| lawlessone wrote:
| Thankfully Donald will tariff evil european and japanese cars
| with their good mileage
| Pooge wrote:
| If I live in a polluted city, is there any facial mask that is
| proven to filter some--most?--of the pollution?
|
| Let's say that moving out is not an option :)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| A well fitted N95, and good air filters at home.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| The best thing you can do is to get a good quality indoor air
| filter for your home, office and if you have one, personal
| vehicle. And change the filters as appropriate.
| homebrewer wrote:
| You need FFP3/N99 respirators for best protection (unless
| you're willing to don on a full gas mask, which is doubtful).
| I've been using 3M respirators for years, and although they're
| sold as disposable, they usually last for at least a week.
|
| E.g. https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/p/dc/v000265948
|
| It's snow white out of the box, and after using it for a few
| hours outside even in relatively clean air, it turns gray (and
| then dark gray if rubber straps hold for long enough).
|
| The thing with these respirators (and also HEPA filters) is
| that they become _better_ at filtering out particulates as they
| get dirtier, not worse; but their resistance to air also grows,
| so it gets more difficult to breathe over time. The rubber
| straps usually break before the respirator is very dirty
| anyway.
|
| Note that these won't do anything against other pollutants
| (like nitrogen oxides), you need proper gas masks with special
| filters against those, they cost a lot and only last for a few
| hours.
| clumsysmurf wrote:
| The thing with 3M masks is that PFAS is used in certain
| models / batches, and in worst case scenarios (prolonged
| usage, sweating) you can get exposed to it.
|
| I only use them when the air is really bad.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I use this [0] GVR mask when working around concrete dust, and
| I've found it to be very comfortable and effective.
|
| That doesn't directly answer your question about urban
| particulates and PM 2.5, but if you read its specs and it
| sounds appropriate, I can recommend the product.
|
| [0] https://www.amazon.com/Respirator-replaceable-reusable-
| filte...
| thund wrote:
| fake news, thank you for your attention to this matter! /s
| jamesblonde wrote:
| There are 10k+ air sensors that publish their pm2.5 measurements
| every 10 mins to https://aqicn.org/
|
| In my forthcoming O'Reilly book, the first project is to build a
| ML model to predict air quality at the location of one of those
| sensors:
|
| Book:
|
| https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/building-machine-l...
|
| Code:
|
| https://github.com/featurestorebook/mlfs-book/
| notphilipmoran wrote:
| Asia does need to do something about this, so many beautiful
| countries there. I greatly enjoyed my time there but I did notice
| the air quality difference. It affects all differently but to see
| what is occurring on a more material level in the human body is
| startling.
| careful_ai wrote:
| This hits hard. We've long underestimated the silent damage of
| polluted air, especially in urban centers. What stood out most is
| how cancer is no longer just a product of lifestyle--but of
| environmental default. Studies like this should shift the
| conversation from awareness to accountability--especially for
| policymakers dragging their feet.
| shaneofalltrad wrote:
| There was a study 5-10 years ago on Cannabis use and lung cancer,
| showing #1 cigarette smokers, #2 non-smokers and #3 cannabis
| smokers. Seems to be a ratio of healing properties combined with
| carcinogens that determine some of this? Then of course genetics,
| that seems broad as well.
| nickff wrote:
| There are many alternative explanations (aside from 'healing
| powers'), including that people with pre-existing lung issues
| which correlate with lung cancer (such as emphysema) are less
| likely to smoke marijuana.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-04 23:00 UTC)