[HN Gopher] Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
___________________________________________________________________
Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers
Author : alexcos
Score : 62 points
Date : 2025-07-22 15:18 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| alexcos wrote:
| Non-paywall: https://archive.ph/nsMoH
| jmclnx wrote:
| Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil
| fuel emissions, mainly from autos.
|
| When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would
| say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in
| the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least
| 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work.
|
| _But_ , I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in
| cancers for people under 50.
| 0points wrote:
| Modern cars should be equipped with a catalysator, making the
| majority of pollution to be Co2, worsening the global warming.
|
| To some extent heavy metals are being distributed in the air by
| the wheels in heavily populated areas.
|
| This can be greatly improved by limiting traffic in heavily
| populated areas. Trump removed such a rule from New York City
| recently for reasons I can not comprehend.
|
| Many european cities have improved air quality successfully and
| hence increased life expectancy by limiting car traffic.
|
| The majority of air pollution of particles however, is caused
| by the industry (the companies making those cars, among
| others).
|
| In fact, you are a worse polluter of the earth today if you buy
| a new Tesla than if you kept driving your 1980s gasoline car
| due to the amount of pollution created by producing a single
| vehicle.
| danielbln wrote:
| Particulate matter is still a huge problem, mainly produced
| by tires and break pads, but also road abrasion. In terms of
| pure engine exhaust, catalysts don't do much here, you'd need
| a particulate filter, which not all cars have. So, cars still
| a problem wrt cancer, as particulate matter is carcinogenic.
| codyb wrote:
| I know no one's ever going to change their ways cause of the
| increasingly evident ravages of climate change but I swear I
| feel like throwing rocks at the big SUVs rolling by with
| exactly one person in them during the heat domes here in NYC.
|
| Just, so, gross.
|
| And it truly is the _vast majority_ of cars going by with
| exactly one person in them. So wasteful, so much pollution, so
| hot... frustrating.
| RajT88 wrote:
| I get it. My wife drives a big SUV. She is a small lady, and
| says the car let's her see the road better and overall feel
| more safe.
|
| Back when SUV's started to get popular, this was a trend they
| noticed as well. Back then, it was met with a lot of guffaws
| about yuppie housewives and all that. (This was before the
| term Karen had been coined)
| QuercusMax wrote:
| But she's making everyone else _less_ safe by driving in
| her tank-mobile. Those are much more deadly to pedestrians,
| cyclists, and those in smaller vehicles.
| kccqzy wrote:
| Some people are selfish. It's not illegal to be selfish.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| And for every comment screeching about pedestrians and
| rollover safety there's another one screeching about
| occupant safety. You can't really fault people for
| picking the one that benefits them when confronted with
| roughly equal screeching in both directions.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Exactly what I was getting at.
|
| There are several ways to view the story.
|
| Another commenter mentioned failing to design cars for
| women (totally fair! Volvo famously had a botched attempt
| at this)
|
| What I have come to appreciate is how vulnerable women
| feel in the world. It is hard to appreciate how that
| plays into car choice if you are a man. Most men will
| never be able to understand, imo.
| asdff wrote:
| Only 20 years ago used to be the "hairdresser car" meant
| a tiny little sporty coupe or convertible like a miata. I
| guess the marketing changed and cultivated a new
| generation with a new mindset.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| You absolutely can fault people for taking the choice
| that makes them safer at the expense of others' safety. I
| don't know how it became such a popular idea that a moral
| imperative is only valid if it carries no personal cost.
|
| It may be small in the grand scheme of things but it is
| _wrong_ to do this, in exactly the same way, but a much
| smaller degree, it is wrong to shove a child out of your
| way to escape a burning building.
| autoexec wrote:
| It's also an arms race where everyone buys bigger cars to
| see over all the other giant cars on the road. SUVs have
| been shown many times to be less safe, even for their
| drivers, but they give a _feeling_ of safety which
| matters more than actual safety to buyers.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > She is a small lady
|
| So, yet another case of cars not being designed for women
| (for those that don't get what I'm going on about - crash
| test dummies are modeled after men, leading to
| significantly worse crash outcomes for women [1])... it's
| infuriating.
|
| Even a "small" BMW i3, a car one might think to be suitable
| for people of lower height - my wife tried out one at
| carsharing, and even despite the seat being all up front,
| she was barely able to drive the thing. The Mercedes
| Sprinter we rented for our last moves? Once she understood
| how the dimensions of that thing worked, absolutely easy
| going.
|
| [1] https://apnews.com/article/nhtsa-female-crash-dummies-
| vehicl...
| doubled112 wrote:
| We really like our station wagon. Well, in principle at
| least. We won't get into the details of keeping a 12 year old
| German car going.
|
| It's fuel efficient. It's not big. It's a decent people
| mover. It has more cargo space than many SUVs that are
| larger. Is low enough the roof racks are easily accessible.
| Added a hitch, mostly for more cargo space.
|
| I'm starting to wonder if I've done more "truck things" than
| many of the people with trucks in the neighbourhood at this
| point. If I ever need to haul more, I'll just rent a
| truck/van for that moment in time. I'm not going to buy one
| to drive to the office.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| When I had a Honda Fit I hauled a TON of cargo in it. A
| friend borrowed it to pick up a full-sized pinball machine
| from the next state over. I moved half of a 5-bedroom house
| (except for big furniture) across town in my Fit.
|
| You don't need a gigantic beast. A kei truck is more than
| adequate for the vast majority of what people use pickup
| trucks for.
| asdff wrote:
| Even my old Integra had a ton of trunk space when you
| fold down the seats. It was almost like a small pickup
| truck. I think a lot of people would get by with a sedan
| but it seems like the seats no longer fold down on a lot
| of smaller cars like that.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| > _big SUVs rolling by with exactly one person in them_
|
| My mini-suv seems to be getting about double the gas milage
| my old normal car did.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Now imagine the massive global polluting supply chain to put
| that SUV together for a single person.
| bamboozled wrote:
| But they are so tough though...
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Ohh it's definitely cars.
|
| In more ways than one. A lot of "poor" countries have life
| expectancies comparable to the US. The big difference is they
| don't have a culture of every single person needing to own a
| car that spray carcinogens all over the place.
|
| Obesity, which is its own massive wrecking ball, is also
| significantly lower in these "poor" countries.
|
| The arrogance of laughing at poor people riding bikes to work
| when that would create a drastically healthier society.
|
| Imagine if you had a 4km x 4km city with no consumer vehicles (
| emergency and delivery exempt). Just walking paths and bike
| lanes. The people living there would be drastically healthier.
|
| Or hell, it might just be luck. A lot of smokers live until
| there 80s enjoying a fat cigar once a day
| mrob wrote:
| I think people underestimate the impact of air pollution
| because it's so easy to get desensitized to it. Try wearing a
| respirator with good seal and filter in an urban area for 10
| minutes or so. When you take it off you'll probably smell
| vehicle exhaust you didn't notice before. Human sense of smell
| tends to tune out constant low level background odors, but they
| can still be a sign of something harmful.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| For sure. I live in an area with superb air quality and going
| down to LA and trying to take a run feels like smoking a
| couple of cigarettes.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| I think you grossly underestimate the degree to which cars (and
| industry that we had yet to kick out to China) were dirtier
| decades ago than they are today.
|
| We're talking like literal orders, plural, of magnitude when
| comparing between the generally no cats automotive fleet of the
| 70s with anything since the advent of both cats and
| computerized fuel injection. Any old timer can tell you of the
| smog that used to be frequent in urban areas. These days it's
| mostly gone, at least when California or Canada (depending on
| where you live) isn't on fire.
|
| (INB4 people who are a net negative to public discourse
| construe this comment as some sort of endorsement for everyone
| driving everywhere all the time)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Cars were dirtier but I think there were fewer.
| asdff wrote:
| Just look at old photos of city smog in the 1960s. It is
| night and day different compared to air today even with
| larger populations in these same metros in some cases.
| asdff wrote:
| Pollution was way worse in the past. Old pictures of american
| cities from 50 years ago look like Beijing. We hadn't yet
| offshored heavy industry by that point and like you said, a
| larger percent of the metro was living closer to it. And
| whatever you saw outside was actually better than your air
| quality inside where these pollutants would accumulate and mix
| with Dad's cigarette smoke.
|
| This was the air you were breathing back then (1, 2, 3).
|
| 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
| apps/imrs.php?src=https://...
|
| 2.
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/SKYSCRAP...
|
| 3. https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-
| content/uploads/satev...
| pfortuny wrote:
| > The thinking used to be that smoking was "almost the only cause
| of lung cancer," said Dr. Maria Teresa Landi, a senior
| investigator at the National Cancer Institute, which is part of
| the National Institutes of Health.
|
| Well, that tells a lot: overfocusing on a single cause because it
| is obvious and major. Well, let us hope the medical science
| learns this lesson.
|
| ETA: not that I blame them, it is a reasonable attitude but not
| so good in science.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Not jumping the paywall but I'd guess that because relatively
| nobody smokes cigarettes anymore, cases of lung cancer with other
| causes are now more of what doctors are seeing.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Did jump the paywall -- and FTA, regardless, the question
| remains what causes these non-smoker lung cancers. Issues of
| environment and heredity are discussed.
| mgh2 wrote:
| Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44466838
| bell-cot wrote:
| > Leah Phillips, of Pewee Valley, Ky. Doctors first mistakenly
| diagnosed her with asthma and then anxiety. Later, they said she
| had pneumonia. When an oncologist finally told her in 2019 that
| she had metastatic lung cancer, he gave her six to 12 months to
| live. "Go home and get your affairs in order," Ms. Phillips
| remembered him saying. She was 43, and her children were 9, 13
| and 14.
|
| (One of many cases mentioned in the article.)
|
| Before you head for the lab, to start researching "why" - maybe
| you should tighten up the standards for diagnosis and testing?
| That could enormously improve the qualities & quantities of life
| for a huge number of patients.
| Apreche wrote:
| It happens more in women, especially in countries with
| traditional gender roles. They are doing more cooking in the
| kitchen where there is fire.
| drdrey wrote:
| not in the US: https://www.cdc.gov/united-states-cancer-
| statistics/publicat...
| cogman10 wrote:
| The US fairly typically has electric stoves. Natural gas
| stoves are going to be the second most common form of
| cooking.
|
| In the countries the OP is talking about, people cook over
| literal fires and fire pits (sometimes enclosed). Even when
| that happens in the US, unless you are talking about camping,
| you are likely talking about something like a well vented
| wood stove or wood stove oven like my grandma had.
|
| An example of what I'm talking about:
| https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-
| change/financ...
|
| And here's what wood fired stoves look like in the US even
| 100 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XcuznPQjLs
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Its pollution, I door and outdoor, chemical and combustion.
| nancyminusone wrote:
| Every time you look up something related to Radon, it's always
| cited as "the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking"
|
| I wonder if that's really true.
|
| Radon is a big deal where I live. Most homes have a radon
| mitigation system which is a 20-watt fan that goes over your sump
| pump hole, and runs continuously to a vent on the roof.
| abakker wrote:
| I bought an Airthings radon monitor because of that stat, and
| one thing that I have learned is that those mitigation systems
| do not necessarily work. I have a system that works, but
| initially, even though my house had a system, it did not
| reliably keep the radon levels below the federal action level.
|
| Barometric pressure, temperature, and HVAC all seem to have
| some bearing - tightening the house for air leaks actually did
| a lot of good in keeping levels low. Also, sump pump failures
| or ground water levels can "push" radon into the house. I dug a
| deeper sump pit and also put a secondary radon fan to pull air
| out of my sub-foundation drain pipes to ensure the air below
| the house is cycled.
|
| Still, in Boulder County, my house will fail its radon test
| after a 2 hour power outage.
|
| I am an evangelist for continuous radon monitoring, alerts and
| tests.
| nancyminusone wrote:
| I bought one of those because I have a couple radium clocks
| and a nice sample of uraninite, which is a tiny collection
| compared to the real enthusiasts but probably more
| radioactive stuff than the average person has. Radon is in
| the decay chain.
|
| I've never seen above 0.7pC/L which is pretty good, although
| I don't know what proportion of the activity that is there is
| natural, or how much more it would be without the fan. I'm
| not sure what the natural radon levels even are in my area, I
| think the radon fan is just part of code here.
| colordrops wrote:
| My house is a raised foundation and they covered all the
| ground underneath with plastic and put perforated pipes
| underneath that pull the air out. Radon went down 10x. The
| company has a 5 year guarantee.
| simonsarris wrote:
| > tightening the house for air leaks actually did a lot of
| good in keeping levels low
|
| Wait, really? Intuitively I would expect the opposite, that a
| draftier house is better for radon levels indoors
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| There's probably a tipping point between the stack effect
| (hot air rising and pulling on the radon) and drafts
| bringing in fresh air diluting the radon.
| colordrops wrote:
| I bought a house in the hills of Los Angeles and we tested for
| radon. Turned out it was very high, and LA is one of the few
| places in California that has high radon. We got it mitigated,
| and it wasn't that expensive. I talked to neighbors and real
| estate agents, and no one wanted to know anything about it. I
| was shocked. Everyone is pulling the wool over their own eyes
| here.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's knowledge that can only hurt you if you're selling
| houses. Just like lead paint - it's smart to be dumb.
| thfuran wrote:
| If ignorance gives you cancer while you live there,
| maintaining it in the hopes of avoiding disclose
| requirements in the future is both dumb and evil.
| severino wrote:
| > We got it mitigated, and it wasn't that expensive
|
| What's the process, usually, adding some special ventilation
| system to the house?
| Marsymars wrote:
| I'm actually scheduled for an install next Monday. Mine has
| two components:
|
| 1. The ventilation isn't really "in the house" - the fan
| pulls from below the slab (and exhausts outside) to prevent
| radon seeping through. 2. Based on the best guess about my
| home age/area and radon patterns in my house, the slab was
| probably poured around the furnace, so the mitigation will
| include disassembling/reassembling my furnace to seal
| underneath.
| irrational wrote:
| Drill a 6" hole through the concrete foundation and dig out
| about 15-20 gallons worth of material. Install a 3-4" PVC
| pipe into the hole (the end of the pipe should be a few
| inches below the bottom of the foundation) and seal the
| hole up with hydraulic cement. Continue the PVC pipe up out
| out of the house. There are lots of rules around distance
| of the outlet from windows and doors and how high above
| roof line. Inline install a radon fan. How big a fan you
| need depends on many factors like soil type, home
| dimensions, etc. The fan runs 24/7 creating a vacuum under
| the house.
| asdff wrote:
| Do you have a source for the high radon in LA? According to
| this county source it is pretty low in LA county but much
| more pronounced in Ventura county (1% homes with high levels
| vs 14%). I imagine there is some potential for accumulation
| effects but this is probably much worse in markets where the
| homes actually have basements.
|
| http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/safety/radon.htm
| phkahler wrote:
| Are lung cancer rates up? Obviously eliminating or reducing the
| primary cause will lead to larger percentages of the other causes
| among cases.
| dlachausse wrote:
| On the surface, the data from the American Lung Association
| appears to support that hypothesis...
|
| https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/lung-ca...
| bamboozled wrote:
| The graph seems to shoe me it's peaked and is back on the way
| down ?
| dinfinity wrote:
| Yes, also, the base rate of smoking in different groups is
| important to take into consideration to prevent the base rate
| fallacy.
|
| Very few Chinese American women smoke (~2%), so if smokers and
| non-smokers have the same chance of getting lung cancer _not
| caused by smoking_ , then the number of non-smokers with lung
| cancer will be a larger proportion.
|
| If 100% of some group would be non-smokers, then obviously 100%
| of lung cancer cases in that group will be in non-smokers.
|
| It's similar to misinterpreting the fact that most people that
| were hospitalized from Covid-19 were vaccinated.
| cbsmith wrote:
| Yeah, this title for the article is really terrible. The "why"
| that scientists are investigating is not why many lung cancers
| aren't in nonsmokers. The "why" they are investigating is "why
| are these non smokers getting cancer?". Once smoking stops
| being such a dominant cause, you put more energy into the other
| cases.
| irrational wrote:
| It would be radon, wouldn't it?
| calf wrote:
| Except reducing the first cause does nothing about whether air
| pollution is a nontrivial factor. And nonsmoker cancers are a
| nontrivial proportion since they account for 10-25 percent of
| lung cancer worldwide, please just read the article.
|
| Besides the base rate fallacy there is the fallacy of assuming
| only the biggest factor is what matters, when other factors are
| nontrivial weights already. Another fallacy is the fallacy of
| relativizing a problem framing by insisting on comparison with
| an obsolete problem --campaigns against smoking have done a
| lot, so why are we still comparing today's problems against the
| problems of the 20th century. It smacks of "well, things were
| even worse back then", which surely the base rate fallacy is
| not trying to suggest.
| hansonkd wrote:
| I used to live by a busy street in a semi-dense part of town.
| Cars would be going around 45mph.
|
| When I moved from that apartment after 4 years. I was shocked by
| the amount of black dust covering everything. from the walls to
| the shelves and floors. I think it was all tire pollution so
| switching to 100% electric won't mitigate.
|
| It was pretty shocking and I wondered how much i increased my
| risk for lung cancer or other cancers.
| tmountain wrote:
| I was just talking to my wife about playgrounds using shredded
| tires as the "mulch". I don't know where the rubber comes from,
| if and how it is cleaned, or what particulate material it
| carries, but it seems dubious at best.
| nartho wrote:
| Those are known to be particularly awful and dangerous,
| particularly on hot days, and have been banned in a lot of
| places.
| nancyminusone wrote:
| My (wealthy) high school had a "turf" field which uses little
| rubber pellets as the "dirt". Those were probably shredded
| tires too. During football season you would see them tracked
| around the school, and if you were a football player or in
| the band they would show up at your house.
|
| also, they would periodocially dump "more dirt" onto the
| field, once every year or so. Not sure if they vacuumed the
| old stuff up or just dumped more on top, but sometimes you
| would go out there and there would be a huge pile of rubber
| in the middle, which I guess got spread out later
| awakeasleep wrote:
| 6PPD (N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N'-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine)
| *Purpose: Antioxidant to prevent rubber cracking. *Danger:
| When it reacts with ozone and air, it forms 6PPD-quinone, a
| toxic compound shown to kill salmon and other aquatic life at
| trace levels. *Status: Under increasing regulatory scrutiny
| (e.g., Washington State has started restricting it).
|
| [?]
|
| 2. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) *Purpose:
| Byproducts from extender oils and carbon black. *Danger:
| Known carcinogens, mutagens, and endocrine disruptors.
| Persist in the environment and can leach from tire wear
| particles. *Status: Regulated in the EU; linked to air and
| soil contamination.
|
| [?]
|
| 3. Benzothiazoles (e.g., 2-mercaptobenzothiazole) *Purpose:
| Vulcanization accelerators. *Danger: Toxic to aquatic
| organisms, possibly carcinogenic, and bioaccumulative.
| *Status: Found in tire leachate and considered a contaminant
| of emerging concern.
|
| [?]
|
| Nothing definitive about harm to human welfare yet, as far as
| I know.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| They contain heavy metals like lead and PFAs. They also
| break down over time and leach microplastic into the wider
| environment.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| It's banned for new installs in Europe and existing
| installations have to be replaced by 2031 [1] - although
| primarily to get rid of a microplastics emission source.
| Additionally, shredded tire rubber as infill is investigated
| for being contaminated with PAH (polycyclic aromatic
| hydrocarbons) [2].
|
| [1] https://www.hna.de/lokales/kreis-kassel/kreis-kassel-eu-
| verb...
|
| [2] https://playground-
| landscape.com/de/article/2033-gesundheits...
| autoexec wrote:
| > primarily to get rid of a microplastics emission source
|
| I wouldn't be surprised to learn that inhaled microplastics
| were causing an increase in lung cancers. We know they end
| up deep in the lungs.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Personally, I more suspect vehicles. We got a grip on
| particulate emissions from diesel engines, but brakes and
| tires still emit fine dust particles. The average one way
| commute is 30 minutes in the US, so you're breathing in
| pretty filthy air for an hour a day...
| autoexec wrote:
| Hopefully not. I keep the windows up and recycle the air
| (which should be filtered on its way in anyway). I live a
| bit closer to road than I'd like considering the traffic
| levels though so even keeping windows open in the house
| could be an issue.
| apt-apt-apt-apt wrote:
| Man, similar story. Spent a few months next to a mall parking
| lot with rough asphalt. Apparently the neighborhood had a car
| drifting crowd, and they'd regularly do so, which made me
| irrationally angry.
|
| I only realized later that all the black dust everywhere must
| have been tire particles, when I realized other places DON'T
| have the black dust. Given the toxicity of tire pollution, it
| doesn't seem like my reaction was irrational after all. Sucks
| for all the people that still live there, who may not even
| realize what's going on.
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| This might actually be brake dust. In that case, the situation
| most likely will be improved by electric cars because they use
| their brakes far less often, decelerating with their motors.
| dv_dt wrote:
| And it could be both tire dust and or brake dust are
| indicators of proximity to combustion engine exhaust. Any
| individual or combination of those could be an increased
| cancer risk. But only the dust is immediately visible and
| leaves behind a tangible trace
| voxic11 wrote:
| Breaks are only part of the problem unfortunately.
|
| > Resuspension of dust already on the road's surface is the
| most significant contributor to non-exhaust PM by far,
| however these particles are difficult to characterize and
| manage because they could come from anywhere before landing
| on the road. Brakes are the next most significant source, and
| may also be particularly hazardous because of their small
| size and high metal content. Tires contribute the least, but
| they release large amounts of particles which act as
| microplastics in ecosystems.
|
| https://www.nrdc.org/bio/john-bailey/beyond-tailpipe
| arevno wrote:
| The lungs are exposed to air, but they're also exposed to a lot
| of bloodborne compounds, since a full vascular cycle goes
| through the pulmonary arteries.
|
| The null hypothesis is "it's something in the air", but with
| the increase in non-lung cancers in young people[1] noted over
| the past decade, it's entirely possible it's something else,
| and lung tissue is one of the susceptible ones to whatever it
| is.
|
| [1] https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-
| blog/2025...
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related from last year, similar asian women angle for whatever
| reason:
|
| _Asian American women are getting lung cancer despite never
| smoking_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40161811
| John23832 wrote:
| Wok cooking is done at really high temp, which releases gases
| that are not present in moderate/low temp cooking. Woks trends
| asian, cooking trends towards women.
| blindriver wrote:
| I don't think you know young Asian American women if you
| think they are cooking with woks or even cooking in general.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| I don't think most people are actually doing really high temp
| wok cooking at home regardless of ethnic background. My
| impression is that, while woks are more common for home
| cooking in china (not chinese americans, mind you), even
| there home cooking is usually not done at the high
| temperatures that restaurants use.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| It's easy, incredibly easy, to overheat cookingware
| unintentionally. Add oil to a pan/wok that's overheated and
| it decomposes. Additionally, if the cookingware is coated
| with Teflon, above 300 degC this degrades into toxic
| compounds and can lead to "teflon flu" [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever
| jerlam wrote:
| Asian-Americans specifically have higher levels of PTFE
| in their blood too:
|
| https://pfasproject.com/2023/08/25/asian-americans-have-
| much...
| hulitu wrote:
| > Many Lung Cancers Are Now in Nonsmokers. Scientists Want to
| Know Why
|
| Because hypocrisy does not live long. They blamed cigarettes for
| lung cancer, ignoring all other causes. "Oh, you have cancer but
| didn't smoke ? You surely were inhaling cigarettes smoke from
| somebody else.". We can polute further with no repercursions.
| polotics wrote:
| smokers thirds FYI: - one third dies a direct smoking related
| death - one third suffers from smoking related diseases then
| dies - one third dies of something else, younger than the other
| two
| m2f2 wrote:
| Non-paywall: https://archive.ph/nsMoH
|
| Site is flagged as it hosts pedop. material.
| irrational wrote:
| The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon. My high
| schooler came home and said her science teacher said everyone
| should do a radon test. I scoffed, but humored her by getting a
| kit from Home Depot and sending it away to a lab. The results
| came back very high. So I purchased an electronic radon monitor
| and it showed almost the exact same results. Well, crap. I
| installed a radon mitigation system and now the numbers are
| almost nil.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-22 23:00 UTC)