One of the recent paradoxes is the sharp increase in lung cancer cases among non-smoking women under the age of 50, which has raised concerns among specialists. While some scientists attribute this trend to random genetic mutations, often referred to as the "bad luck" theory, our preliminary investigations emphasize the role of environmental factors—particularly the greater amount of time women spend indoors and, consequently, their increased exposure to radioactive radon gas.
Could it be that "bad luck" simply refers to factors we have yet to fully understand?
There is nothing real about calling it "bad luck". All this is due to exposure to indoor pollutants, especially Radon.
Define surge and source of data that quantifies the surge. You have no basis for a discussion without quantitative data.
Quantifying the surge does not allow discussing an agent of cause without a quantified agent of cause. Speculation on a causal agent requires an ability to quantify the cause and ability to assign dose.
Sources:
1. American Cancer Society
More U.S. Young Women Diagnosed With Lung Cancer at a Higher Rate Than Young Men, New Report Shows; Increase Extends to Older Women
Oct 12, 2023
https://pressroom.cancer.org/releases?item=1262
2. Rising lung cancer cases in nonsmoking women under 50: Experts urge awareness, An unexpected surge in lung cancer cases among nonsmoking women under 50 is raising alarms among oncologists, emphasizing the need for heightened awareness.
Updated 3:13 PM Nov 22, 2024
https://www.wral.com/lifestyle/health/alarming-increase-lung-cancer-nonsmokers-november-2024/
[In the video, a Duke scientist discusses the "bad luck" hypothesis to address the problem.]
3. Johns Hopkins Medicine
Why Are More Nonsmoking Women Getting Lung Cancer?
At upcoming annual symposium, a Johns Hopkins oncologist will describe her quest for answers.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2018/09/why-are-more-nonsmoking-women-getting-lung-cancer
The sources listed are not original sources. No data were provided that allowed quantification. A search found several originals. The most hyperbolic report claims increased incidence in women based on differences in incidental decrease between men and women. Men decreased over 40% while women about 20%. Both decreased to the same rate. The data were indicated as significant, but the difference was not sufficient to be quantifiable.
It is known that the use of cooking materials is one of the causes of cancer in women. As for radon, this hypothesis is quite simple - measuring radon radiation if women live on the ground floors.
An estimated 13% of all diagnosed cancers and an estimated 25.5% of cancer deaths were due to lung cancer, making lung cancer the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death, which is similar to rates in North America and Europe. Radon is an established carcinogen based on clear evidence of excess lung cancer rates in miners and experimental animals exposed to radon. Among smokers, the risk of lung cancer is increased, due to the synergistic effects of radon and smoking. After smoking, radon is the second most common cause of lung cancer among smokers, and the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, with an estimated 3–20% of all lung cancer deaths caused by indoor radon exposure worldwide. As smoking prevalence has declined, some reports indicate that the proportion of lung cancers occurring in individuals who have never smoked (LCINS) has increased, particularly among women and in younger age groups. In 2024, >20,000 lung cancer-related deaths in the USA were projected to occur in people who have never smoked, making LCINS the eighth leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the USA; data suggest that LCINS is currently the fifth most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.
No study has demonstrated that radon is a causal agent for lung cancer in humans. The miner studies were observational with woefully inadequate and inaccurate dosimetry. Association was achieved through creative significance testing. The same is true of all human studies. Significance is not sufficient for claiming causation.
Dear Joseph ,
I find a little difficult to decide for this matter considering your short reply in front of following facts :
Miner Studies
- BEIR VI Report (1999)Published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), this report analyzed data on radon exposure among miners and its association with increased lung cancer risk. Link: BEIR VI Report
2. Residential Radon Studies
- Darby, S. et al. (2005) "Residential Radon and Lung Cancer – A Combined Analysis of Individual Data from 13 European Case-Control Studies", BMJ.This meta-analysis combined data from 13 European studies and confirmed the increased risk of lung cancer from residential radon exposure, even at lower levels. Link: BMJ 2005 Article
- Krewski, D. et al. (2005) "Residential Radon and Risk of Lung Cancer: A Combined Analysis of 7 North American Case-Control Studies", Epidemiology.Focused on North America, this study showed similar results regarding residential radon and lung cancer risk. Link: PubMed Summary
3. Major International Organizations
- IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer)Radon has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen (carcinogenic to humans) by IARC since 1988, based on strong evidence from human and animal studies. Link: IARC Monographs on Radon
- EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)The EPA has published extensive reports on the association between radon and lung cancer and recommends testing and mitigation in homes with radon levels above 4 pCi/L. Link: EPA Radon Resources
4. Additional Scientific Reports
- World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook on Indoor Radon (2009)WHO summarizes scientific evidence showing radon as a major risk factor for lung cancer. It recommends a reference level of 100 Bq/m³ for indoor radon. Link: WHO Indoor Radon Handbook
Key Findings
- Radon is responsible for approximately 3-14% of all lung cancer cases worldwide, depending on average indoor radon levels by region.
- It is the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking.
- According to the pathophysiological mechanism radon is released as a gas and during decomposition it releases alpha particles, which are very harmful to cells. These particles can damage the DNA of cells in the lungs, causing mutations that can lead to cancer
I hope that my reply would change your opinion .
The BEIR reports did not analyze the data. The report accepted the results of the miner data. It did not question the data. Anyone who bothers to consult the original data will see the conclusions of the study are not supported by the data. There are problems with data quality. One very large group of miners had only one measurement over the assigned time period. Other air concentrations varied so widely, the the averaged assigned dose cannot be believed.
No other study listed can claim an association beyond statistical significance, consequently, cannot demonstrate causation.
Charles Sidney Burwell: “Half of what we are going to teach you is wrong, and half of it is right. Our problem is that we don't know which half is which.”
Lets be patients and see!
We’ve come across a fascinating observation regarding radon exposure in humans. In Ramsar, a region known for its naturally high levels of radon, there hasn’t been a corresponding increase in lung cancer rates. Surprisingly, some areas with elevated radon levels even show lower overall cancer rates. This raises the possibility that the human body might adapt to certain environmental stresses—much like how people in sunnier regions develop darker skin to protect against UV exposure.
Building on this idea, we conducted an experiment with lab mice exposed to high background radiation for a short period. Interestingly, they didn’t exhibit any noticeable adaptive responses. This outcome is quite different from what we see in Ramsar residents, who’ve lived in such environments for generations and may have developed unique adaptations over time.
Adding to this, a 2010 study titled "Short-term radon inhalation induces significant survival adaptive response in BALB/C mice" published in the International Journal of Low Radiation found that short-term exposure to elevated radon levels could trigger an adaptive response. In the study, male Balb/c mice exposed to varying radon concentrations showed significantly improved survival rates after gamma irradiation compared to mice that weren’t exposed to radon.
That said, these adaptive responses only occur within specific windows of exposure—defined by dose, dose rate, radon concentration, and inhalation time. It’s important to emphasize that this doesn’t mean radon is safe at any concentration. High levels of radon exposure still pose serious health risks, and these risks should never be underestimated.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0531513104018461
http://ijrr.com/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1-439&slc_lang=en&sid=1
Article Short-term radon inhalation induces significant survival ada...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOhhhLSqtcQ
"In conclusion, our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant association of residential radon exposure with lung cancer as observed in never-smokers and ever-smokers with aERRs of 0.15 and 0.09 per 100 Bq·m−3 respectively, and there was evidence to support a synergistic effect of radon exposure with tobacco smoking." Article Systematic review and meta-analysis of residential radon and...
"Conclusions: This meta- analysis provides new evidence supporting the conclusion that residential exposure to radon can significantly increase the risk of lung cancer in a dose-response manner." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22938404/
Very interesting study . You write :…male Balb/c mice exposed to varying radon concentrations showed significantly improved survival rates after gamma irradiation compared to mice that weren’t exposed to radon.
meanwhile as I know the predominantly radiation mass of radon is alpha radiation. Charles Darvwin taught us : survive not who is cleverer but who adapts…
Perlat Kapisyzi You're absolutely correct! Adaptability to environmental factors, while crucial for survival, is a complex interplay between short-term physiological adjustments and long-term evolutionary changes. Short-term adaptations, such as tanning in response to UV exposure or physiological acclimatization to high altitudes, can provide some immediate benefits. However, these adjustments are limited by the genetic and biological frameworks we inherit. For example, a person with naturally light skin might develop a tan after exposure to sunlight, but this short-term increase in melanin production cannot offer the same level of UV protection as someone whose skin has evolved to produce higher levels of melanin over generations in sunny regions. Needless to say, even individuals with naturally darker skin can experience UV damage, albeit at a reduced rate.
Radon exposure presents a similar dilemma. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas, and prolonged exposure can increase the risk of lung cancer. While human bodies may develop some cellular mechanisms to repair DNA damage caused by low levels of radiation, these are not foolproof and are not equivalent to adaptations seen over evolutionary timescales. It’s worth mentioning that these mechanisms have limits and can be overwhelmed by prolonged or high-dose exposures, leading to increased cancer risk. Populations historically exposed to higher natural background radiation may have slightly different genetic traits influencing susceptibility to radiation-related damage, but no individual can fully "adapt" to high radon levels within their lifetime.
In both cases, recognizing the limits of short-term adaptation underscores the importance of proactive measures—like protective clothing, sunscreen for UV exposure, or proper ventilation and mitigation in radon-prone areas, as evolutionary adaptation takes millennia.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication