Times Of India: 20% Of Delhi Lung Cancer Patients Are Non-Smokers

[hatrack]

In what could be an alarming fallout of air pollution, top cancer doctors say they have noted a significant rise in lung cancer among non-smokers in recent years. Roughly one in every five persons diagnosed with the disease does not smoke, they said.

"Till about a decade ago, less than 10% of all lung cancer patients were non-smokers. This percentage has now gone up to around 20%, which is significantly high. Rising pollution levels may be playing a role," said Dr P K Julka, professor of oncology at AIIMS, on the eve of World Cancer Day.

Dr Vinod Raina, director of medical oncology at Fortis Memorial, affirmed the trend. "The link between lung cancer and air pollution is a conjecture but it is being seen in studies conducted worldwide. Further research is needed to prove the cause and effect relation between the two," he said.

Dr Randeep Guleria, professor and head of pulmonology division at AIIMS, recounted a case to underline the trend. "A few years ago, I diagnosed a young woman in her late 30s with lung cancer. She was a non-smoker. Throughout her treatment, she kept saying, 'Why me?' Such cases are becoming more common now," he said.

EDIT

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/20-of-Delhis-lung-cancer-patients-non-smokers-Doctors/articleshow/50842801.cms

[hollysmom]

1. IO have seen that cloud over parts of India for months

but then it moves over to Chne may actually have it worse - so funny about people not remembering history are condemned to repeat it. I vaguely (was a mere child) remember the deaths in England in the 50's that made the country to move quickly to get rid of coal stoves in London and other cities. So many people died one year.

[Nihil]

2. The point about the London smog wasn't cancer, it was suffocation.

The old, the young, the vulnerable all suffered immediately from the toxic
smog (the "pea-soupers" named after the colour & impenetrable thickness).

The cancer deaths came many years later and were effectively lost in the
mixture of bronchial deaths: remember that there was little recognition
of the link from smoking never mind any analysis of which particular poison
was to blame for the problem (and, as today, industries who should have
been paying compensation for their crimes were being absolved by the
very doctors who should have been driving the progress towards clean air).

[hollysmom]

3. I guess my point was that we never learn and repeat history over and over

I was talking to my 30 year old niece and she had never heard of an air quality problem like in London, so did not realize that countries should consider pollution problems, but then again, no country ever moved as fast as they did in England and who knows if they would have addressed it as fast today. Money influence is higher now than it was then. Would the coal influence fight to keep he death rate high?
And if there is a trade bill like so many countries sign now, could the coal industry calin they need compensation from the country for actively moving from coal because it hurt their business interest?

[Nihil]

4. I definitely agree with that. (n/t)

[kristopher]

5. Until very recently the World Bank development model made this inevitable.

If a country wanted to modernize, the energy money was meant for coal plants and little else (possibly hydro).

They've since changed their emphasis (2013?) from centralized thermal to one focused distributed renewables and microgrids.

[progressoid]

6. Makes sense. Smoking rates are down in India,

so one would expect the incidence of lung cancer related to smoking to also drop.