Cancer News Network

Cancer Awareness , Developments in Cancer Research and News on Cancer

Friday, November 17, 2006

Why do non-smokers develop lung cancer?

San Francisco Chronicle – Every year roughly 20,000 people who have never touched a cigarette are diagnosed with lung cancer -- and women are particularly at risk, for reasons no one understands.

Recent research has suggested that women who don't smoke are two to three times more likely than nonsmoking men to develop lung cancer.

"People talk about secondhand smoke, but there are other environmental pollutants," said Dr. Heather Wakelee, an assistant professor at Stanford University School of Medicine. "We just don't understand it."
Research also suggests that women may be more vulnerable than men to the carcinogenic effects of smoking -- in some studies, women who smoked have been shown to be roughly twice as likely to develop lung cancer as men who smoked.

Wakelee, who is set to publish a new study on nonsmoking women and lung cancer in the next few months, said the research is too new to come up with a reason for why nonsmokers get cancer, and why women are especially at risk. Almost all studies have looked at patient records -- not actual patients -- which don't include all of the environmental factors, such as exposure to airborne pollutants, that could lead to lung cancer.

Read more…

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Yaa101 said...

come on... everybody knows that traffic and industry is main cause of pollution and lung cancer, stop saying maybe will actually help you solve these problems... Oh yes you are of course afraid of getting sued when you say things without an escape mechanism for the corporate landscape. Sad country you live in.

9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I recently found a very interesting website:
There you can purchase ad space for your Blog etc.

12:30 PM  
Anonymous Jim Davis said...

I have to agree with Yaa101, its hardly a mystery, unless pollution is not carcinogenic anymore?

8:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm stunned that yaa101 knows so very much more than mere physicians and PhDs. Must be a dhimmicrat. Probably wrote all those computer models on "global warming" also. Pshaw. Having lost a wife to cancer, I'm sort of sensitive to these things. Please, leave the science to those who study this stuff. Social science majors don't cut it.

8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Please, leave the science to those who study this stuff. Social science majors don't cut it."

Those who study the stuff, also are limited human beings. Credentialism and going through some academic obstacle course to get some letters beside your name and some useful skills does not make one the ultimate arbiter of truth (tm).

It's most likely that people simply get OLD and their cells break down, with or without pollutants. Human beings have been dying for millions of years, and cancer has been around just as long. We've only recently had the scientific and tecnological tools to measure and diagnose cancer.

The truth is umpteen million things can cause cancer.

Cancer is not a simple "disease" it has to do with cellular systems breaking down like a machine breaks down.

All human beings are advanced nano-machines, and yes virginia you break down with time.

You shed your own body weight in cells every year, that means practically every cell in your body has been replaced every year.

9:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One word: radon.

9:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's quite true. Some cancers are triggered by something such as a virus. But the same exact form of cancer can occur in the absence of said virus. Everybody has the potential for cancer. Our bodies get old or weak and can't fight the potential anymore. Thus... cancer. Of course, it's far more complicated than that, but it's like singling out McDonalds as the sole cause of obesity in this nation. Stop pointing fingers and give support to those who are fighting for their lives. You'll feel better. And they might, too.

9:32 PM  
Blogger gildedlink said...

"One word: radon."

That is one of the most profoundly obvious, yet ingenius and likely explanations I can think of.

But I'm a conspiracy theorist, so I'll blame chemtrails =P

9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A recent study has shown that women get cancer from Acroleïn, a substance emitted by cooking oil. It seems to be 10.000 times more cancerigenous than anything found in cigarette smoke...

5:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do a Google on this:
lung cancer cooking oil

Who does the most cooking?


6:25 AM  
Blogger Ilena Rose said...

There is a disproportionate number of women who get lung cancer after breast implants ... even when they don't smoke.

8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if its pollution why do women get cancer first when guys work outside most of the time? oh and if its cells then do women age before men because then that means women get older mentally too...i do think that anyone can get cancer tho and the source of it isnt a mystery its people ignorance

7:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More than 1/2 of nonsmoker cancer is caused by mutations in the EGFR receptor. The drugs iressa and tarceva block the effect of these mutations. We don't have a cure for these people because these drugs don't get into the brain well (so brain spread) and a secondary mutation can cause resistance to the drugs. A cure is so close!!!!

12:50 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home