Lung cancer, a humorous story.

This began as an investigation into passive smoking but morphed into something else.

Using data from the World Health Organisation, WHO, I plotted lung cancer incidence vs tobacco smoking. Each point is one country. Figure 1.

Fig 1.

The evidence is unequivocal, almost all lung cancer is caused by tobacco smoking.

There’s still a fair bit of scatter in Fig 1. Some countries have a moderate incidence of lung cancer but a high incidence of tobacco use. Other countries have as high incidence of lung cancer but a moderate incidence of tobacco use. Countries with the same incidence of tobacco use can have a lung cancer rate differing by a factor more than twenty. This is not too surprising because different countries have different climatic, social and economic conditions.

Can I reduce the scatter? One way would be to compare tobacco and lung cancer rates between men and women in the same country to reduce the dependence on climatic, social and economic conditions. The difference in lung cancer rate vs the difference in tobacco usage rate between men and women in each country is plotted in Figure 2.

Fig 2.

What the heck. The relationship between lung cancer and tobacco smoking has almost vanished.

To further clarify what is happening, I plotted life expectancy against tobacco usage. Figure 3.

Fig. 3.

There you go. Life expectancy actually increases with increased tobacco usage. This one is more understandable. Lung cancer from tobacco smoking, specifically squamous cell carcinoma, tends to kick in at ages above 50, more at ages above 60. So in countries with a low lifespan, the influence of lung cancer from tobacco becomes less significant. That doesn’t explain all that can be seen in the chart in Figure 3, but some of it.

I noticed when drawing these that countries with low tobacco incidence rates tend to be the poorer countries. Perhaps because tobacco is expensive or transport of goods is difficult, perhaps not. So I plotted lung cancer incidence vs personal income from WHO data. The result is in Figure 4.

Fig 4.

There is a strong correlation between income per capita and lung cancer incidence. As strong a correlation as in Fig. 1 with lung cancer incidence vs tobacco smoking. The evidence is unequivocal, almost all lung cancer is caused by high personal income.

pmsl

Hypotheses anyone?

I have a few wild speculative hypotheses.

• Perhaps only people in rich countries can afford to chain smoke.
• Perhaps the poorer countries never took up tobacco smoking so never got hooked, a historical thing.
• Rich countries spend more time indoors, and wildlife shuns being indoors, so perhaps there’s something deadly in our houses.
• Rich countries spend more time driving, so perhaps there’s something deadly in our cars.
• Rich people shower more so perhaps there’s something about inhaling gases in the shower.
• Hungary is one of the top two countries for both Covid and lung cancer but not tobacco usage, so perhaps the common cold is more prevalent in rich countries and post-viral effects contribute to lung cancer.

mollwollfumble said:

Lung cancer, a humorous story.

This began as an investigation into passive smoking but morphed into something else.

Using data from the World Health Organisation, WHO, I plotted lung cancer incidence vs tobacco smoking. Each point is one country. Figure 1.

Fig 1.

The evidence is unequivocal, almost all lung cancer is caused by tobacco smoking.

There’s still a fair bit of scatter in Fig 1. Some countries have a moderate incidence of lung cancer but a high incidence of tobacco use. Other countries have as high incidence of lung cancer but a moderate incidence of tobacco use. Countries with the same incidence of tobacco use can have a lung cancer rate differing by a factor more than twenty. This is not too surprising because different countries have different climatic, social and economic conditions.

Can I reduce the scatter? One way would be to compare tobacco and lung cancer rates between men and women in the same country to reduce the dependence on climatic, social and economic conditions. The difference in lung cancer rate vs the difference in tobacco usage rate between men and women in each country is plotted in Figure 2.

Fig 2.

What the heck. The relationship between lung cancer and tobacco smoking has almost vanished.

To further clarify what is happening, I plotted life expectancy against tobacco usage. Figure 3.

Fig. 3.

There you go. Life expectancy actually increases with increased tobacco usage. This one is more understandable. Lung cancer from tobacco smoking, specifically squamous cell carcinoma, tends to kick in at ages above 50, more at ages above 60. So in countries with a low lifespan, the influence of lung cancer from tobacco becomes less significant. That doesn’t explain all that can be seen in the chart in Figure 3, but some of it.

I noticed when drawing these that countries with low tobacco incidence rates tend to be the poorer countries. Perhaps because tobacco is expensive or transport of goods is difficult, perhaps not. So I plotted lung cancer incidence vs personal income from WHO data. The result is in Figure 4.

Fig 4.

There is a strong correlation between income per capita and lung cancer incidence. As strong a correlation as in Fig. 1 with lung cancer incidence vs tobacco smoking. The evidence is unequivocal, almost all lung cancer is caused by high personal income.

pmsl

Hypotheses anyone?

I have a few wild speculative hypotheses.

• Perhaps only people in rich countries can afford to chain smoke.
• Perhaps the poorer countries never took up tobacco smoking so never got hooked, a historical thing.
• Rich countries spend more time indoors, and wildlife shuns being indoors, so perhaps there’s something deadly in our houses.
• Rich countries spend more time driving, so perhaps there’s something deadly in our cars.
• Rich people shower more so perhaps there’s something about inhaling gases in the shower.
• Hungary is one of the top two countries for both Covid and lung cancer but not tobacco usage, so perhaps the common cold is more prevalent in rich countries and post-viral effects contribute to lung cancer.
  

radon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon
“……Results from epidemiological studies indicate that the risk of lung cancer increases with exposure to residential radon. A well known example of source of error is smoking, the main risk factor for lung cancer. In the US, cigarette smoking is estimated to cause 80% to 90% of all lung cancers.

According to the EPA, the risk of lung cancer for smokers is significant due to synergistic effects of radon and smoking. For this population about 62 people in a total of 1,000 will die of lung cancer compared to 7 people in a total of 1,000 for people who have never smoked. It cannot be excluded that the risk of non-smokers should be primarily explained by an effect of radon.

Radon, like other known or suspected external risk factors for lung cancer, is a threat for smokers and former smokers. This was demonstrated by the European pooling study. A commentary to the pooling study stated: “it is not appropriate to talk simply of a risk from radon in homes. The risk is from smoking, compounded by a synergistic effect of radon for smokers. Without smoking, the effect seems to be so small as to be insignificant.”

According to the European pooling study, there is a difference in risk for the histological subtypes of lung cancer and radon exposure. Small-cell lung carcinoma, which has a high correlation with smoking, have a higher risk after radon exposure. For other histological subtypes such as adenocarcinoma, the type that primarily affects non-smokers, the risk from radon appears to be lower.

A study of radiation from post-mastectomy radiotherapy shows that the simple models previously used to assess the combined and separate risks from radiation and smoking need to be developed. This is also supported by new discussion about the calculation method, the linear no-threshold model, which routinely has been used.

A study from 2001, which included 436 non-smokers and a control group of 1649 non-smokers, showed that exposure to radon increased the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers. The group that had been exposed to tobacco smoke in the home appeared to have a much higher risk, while those who were not exposed to passive smoking did not show any increased risk with increasing radon exposure….”

They cut out tongues and parts of jaws because of smoking, the guys that concentrate on that part of the body ( surgeons) make their money from dealing with cancer patients ( smokers). Oral facial something or the other surgeons.

How can they be certain that the cancers in the industrialized countries
aren’t due to exposure to various chemicals in the environment?

Ogmog said:

How can they be certain that the cancers in the industrialized countries
aren’t due to exposure to various chemicals in the environment?

We do know that smoking tobacco is worse than visiting Chernobyl.

roughbarked said:

Ogmog said:

How can they be certain that the cancers in the industrialized countries
aren’t due to exposure to various chemicals in the environment?

We do know that smoking tobacco is worse than visiting Chernobyl.

…and at least twice as addictive…

Ogmog said:

How can they be certain that the cancers in the industrialized countries
aren’t due to exposure to various chemicals in the environment?

Have you ever tried smoking?

You suck down scalding hot gas full of toxins – I’m fairly sure this isn’t good for your lungs.