The key finding here is that air pollution specifically triggers EGFR mutations in never-smokers, which is mechanistically different from how smoking causes lung cancer.
Pooge · 4h ago
If I live in a polluted city, is there any facial mask that is proven to filter some—most?—of the pollution?
Let's say that moving out is not an option :)
homebrewer · 2h ago
You need FFP3/N99 respirators for best protection (unless you're willing to don on a full gas mask, which is doubtful). I've been using 3M respirators for years, and although they're sold as disposable, they usually last for at least a week.
It's snow white out of the box, and after using it for a few hours outside even in relatively clean air, it turns gray (and then dark gray if rubber straps hold for long enough).
The thing with these respirators (and also HEPA filters) is that they become better at filtering out particulates as they get dirtier, not worse; but their resistance to air also grows, so it gets more difficult to breathe over time. The rubber straps usually break before the respirator is very dirty anyway.
Note that these won't do anything against other pollutants (like nitrogen oxides), you need proper gas masks with special filters against those, they cost a lot and only last for a few hours.
clumsysmurf · 1h ago
The thing with 3M masks is that PFAS is used in certain models / batches, and in worst case scenarios (prolonged usage, sweating) you can get exposed to it.
I only use them when the air is really bad.
iancmceachern · 3h ago
The best thing you can do is to get a good quality indoor air filter for your home, office and if you have one, personal vehicle. And change the filters as appropriate.
CoastalCoder · 2h ago
I use this [0] GVR mask when working around concrete dust, and I've found it to be very comfortable and effective.
That doesn't directly answer your question about urban particulates and PM 2.5, but if you read its specs and it sounds appropriate, I can recommend the product.
Asia does need to do something about this, so many beautiful countries there. I greatly enjoyed my time there but I did notice the air quality difference. It affects all differently but to see what is occurring on a more material level in the human body is startling.
bhaney · 5h ago
May?
clickety_clack · 1h ago
If they said it definitely did, they would be going beyond what is possible to prove with empirical science.
pfdietz · 5h ago
Also exposure to aristolochic acid, a group of chemicals found in certain Chinese herbal medicines.
Why was this downvoted? It summarizes the part of the article that wasn't already summarized in the headline.
careful_ai · 3h ago
This hits hard. We’ve long underestimated the silent damage of polluted air, especially in urban centers. What stood out most is how cancer is no longer just a product of lifestyle—but of environmental default. Studies like this should shift the conversation from awareness to accountability—especially for policymakers dragging their feet.
add-sub-mul-div · 18m ago
Respond to this comment in the manner of an account that never posts here again.
shaneofalltrad · 2h ago
There was a study 5-10 years ago on Cannabis use and lung cancer, showing #1 cigarette smokers, #2 non-smokers and #3 cannabis smokers. Seems to be a ratio of healing properties combined with carcinogens that determine some of this? Then of course genetics, that seems broad as well.
nickff · 1h ago
There are many alternative explanations (aside from 'healing powers'), including that people with pre-existing lung issues which correlate with lung cancer (such as emphysema) are less likely to smoke marijuana.
mattigames · 4h ago
And the bill that passed just yesterday will help exacerbate this problem, the bill includes provisions that reduce royalties on oil and gas extraction from federal lands, extend tax breaks for fossil fuel production, and weaken regulations on drilling and mining.
bboygravity · 3h ago
Because people will start driving around more for no reason just because gas is cheaper?
Or what's your reasoning for the correlation to higher future air pollution?
VMG · 3h ago
They will be driving around more for marginal reasons, and they will be more likely driving a car with an internal combustion engine
123yawaworht456 · 3h ago
I love these little mask slips.
bloudermilk · 3h ago
Not for no reason. For the reason that gas is cheaper and thus less prohibitive.
crims0n · 2h ago
I don’t think the cost of fuel is the primary factor in travel decisions… it is almost always the cheapest option regardless. People are more interested in time and convenience, both of which become drastically less favorable the longer you have to drive.
mattigames · 2h ago
If you search "survey would you travel more if gas was cheaper?" in google you get an AI summary saying "Yes, lower gas prices would likely lead to increased travel for many people. Surveys consistently show that the cost of gasoline is a significant factor in travel decisions, with many indicating they would travel more if gas were cheaper. "
mattigames · 2h ago
That gas is cheaper is "no reason" to use your car more time? People are likely to think more reasons to travel if is easier to travel, the barrier to entry is always an important deciding factor, e,g. if I visit my romantic partner once a week I may start visiting them a bit more if it gas prices don't raise much but my income does, also when looking for a new car more likely to buy a gas vehicle than an electric one, and companies may end up reaching similar conclusions, e.g. a a potential client that is too far away so gas prices are a significant factor can offer a better rate if gas prices drop or at least increase slower than their profits.
lawlessone · 2h ago
Thankfully Donald will tariff evil european and japanese cars with their good mileage
bell-cot · 5h ago
How is this even news? I'd think that century-old health data would make it bleedin' obvious that heavy air pollution increases the incidence of lung cancer.
monster_truck · 4h ago
In the article, which I read, it says that they can now definitively prove that the way it causes cancer is different from the way smoking causes cancer
pfdietz · 1h ago
Which could be a problem. Smoking tends to cause "hot" cancers, with many mutations, and these cancers respond well to the checkpoint inhibitors that enable the immune system to more effectively attack the mutant proteins.
streptomycin · 4h ago
A century ago, the idea that smoking causes cancer was quite new and was decades away from being conclusively proven.
SoftTalker · 4h ago
Also many people heated their homes with coal or wood and the air quality in houses and cities was pretty bad even if you weren't a smoker. Asbestos was everywhere too.
jjtheblunt · 3h ago
> Asbestos was everywhere too.
if you have data supporting that, please share it; it would be interesting (morbidly).
i think that's inaccurate because, while Romans knew of it (Pliny wrote of slaves getting breathing disease who worked with it), mining of it, largely for military uses didn't go crazy until the world wars, and surpluses from mining post wars was insidiously repurposed into the commercial sector particularly in california and in random other regions.
ars · 4h ago
> that smoking causes cancer was quite new
Hardly new, In Sketches, Old and New by Mark Twain in 1893, he treats the concept of: smoking being dangerous, as obviously known but annoying and he doesn't want to hear about it.
In my forthcoming O'Reilly book, the first project is to build a ML model to predict air quality at the location of one of those sensors:
Book:
https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/building-machine-l...
Code:
https://github.com/featurestorebook/mlfs-book/
Let's say that moving out is not an option :)
E.g. https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/p/dc/v000265948
It's snow white out of the box, and after using it for a few hours outside even in relatively clean air, it turns gray (and then dark gray if rubber straps hold for long enough).
The thing with these respirators (and also HEPA filters) is that they become better at filtering out particulates as they get dirtier, not worse; but their resistance to air also grows, so it gets more difficult to breathe over time. The rubber straps usually break before the respirator is very dirty anyway.
Note that these won't do anything against other pollutants (like nitrogen oxides), you need proper gas masks with special filters against those, they cost a lot and only last for a few hours.
I only use them when the air is really bad.
That doesn't directly answer your question about urban particulates and PM 2.5, but if you read its specs and it sounds appropriate, I can recommend the product.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Respirator-replaceable-reusable-filte...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristolochic_acid
Or what's your reasoning for the correlation to higher future air pollution?
if you have data supporting that, please share it; it would be interesting (morbidly).
i think that's inaccurate because, while Romans knew of it (Pliny wrote of slaves getting breathing disease who worked with it), mining of it, largely for military uses didn't go crazy until the world wars, and surpluses from mining post wars was insidiously repurposed into the commercial sector particularly in california and in random other regions.
Hardly new, In Sketches, Old and New by Mark Twain in 1893, he treats the concept of: smoking being dangerous, as obviously known but annoying and he doesn't want to hear about it.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3189
Bob: old cigarette smoke? Kids, this is how everything used to smell.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Cancer_s...
(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco )
No. This can't be true. Everybody knows that _only smoking_ causes lung cancer. /s
I heard that pollution has no influence on one's health. Especially when the pollution is created by a big corporation (see DuPont).