Experts discover alarming culprit behind mystery lung cancer surge in never-smokers... all Britons could be at risk
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has long demanded countries take tougher action to combat the scourge of pollution, which is thought to kill 7million people every year globally.
Now, in a fresh study tracking almost 1,000 never-smoker patients across four continents, US researchers found people living in more polluted areas had significantly more cancer-driving mutations in their lung tumours.
Particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5)—considered the most dangerous air pollutant—were linked to mutations in the TP33 gene, which accounts for the majority of lung cancer cases.
These particles are too tiny to be filtered out by our nose and lungs, which can deal with larger particles such as pollen.
Researchers also found people exposed to greater air pollution had shorter protective stands of DNA, linked to ageing more quickly.
Experts today, who labelled the findings 'problematic', said it showed air pollution was an 'urgent and growing global problem'.
Professor Ludmil Alexandrov, an expert in cellular and molecular medicine at the University of California in San Diego and study co-author, said: 'We're seeing this problematic trend that never-smokers are increasingly getting lung cancer, but we haven't understood why.
'Our research shows that air pollution is strongly associated with the same types of DNA mutations we typically associate with smoking.'
Dr Maria Teresa Landi, a cancer epidemiologist at the US National Institute of Health in Maryland, added: 'This is an urgent and growing global problem that we are working to understand regarding never-smokers.
'Most previous lung cancer studies have not separated data of smokers from non-smokers, which has limited insights into potential causes in those patients.
'We have designed a study to collect data from never-smokers around the world and use genomics to trace back what exposures might be causing these cancers.'
Although smoking remains the biggest risk factor for lung cancer, it's estimated that nearly 6,000 people who have never smoked die of the disease each year.
While smoking rates are decreasing, some studies show that cases in non-smokers are increasing at an alarming rate, doubling between 2008 and 2014 alone.
In the fresh study, scientists analysed the entire genetic code of lung tumours removed from 871 never-smokers in Europe, North America, Africa and Asia.
They found that the higher the levels of air pollution in a region, the more cancer-driving and cancer-promoting mutations were present in residents' tumours.
PM2.5 was particularly linked to mutations in genes including the TP53 gene which has previously been associated with tobacco smoking, even after accounting for factors that could skew the results such as gender and age.
Studies have long suggested that PM2.5 particulates can enter the bloodstream, where they cause other serious illnesses such as heart disease.
People exposed to greater air pollution also had shorter telomeres, the researchers said.
These are protective strands of DNA found at the ends of chromosomes.
Telomeres tend to shorten with age, so premature telomere shortening is interpreted as a sign of rapid ageing.
Writing in the journal Nature, the researchers said increasing levels of PM2.5 'could result from extra DNA damage in people living in more polluted areas'.
Lung cells may also 'undergo more cell divisions in polluted environments', they added.
The research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting PM2.5 is a significant risk factor for lung cancer.
One recent meta-analysis involving 17 separate studies, found an increase in exposure to PM2.5 raised the risk of lung cancer by eight per cent and dying from the disease by 11 per cent.
Lung cancer strikes around 50,000 people in the UK and 230,000 in the US every year.
It is the world's biggest cancer killer. It is notoriously difficult to diagnose and often appears later when it's harder to treat.
Figures show it kills four out of five patients within five years. Fewer than 10 per cent of people survive their disease for a decade or more.
Despite the progress, a disparity among sexes is emerging, with women between the ages of 35 and 54 being diagnosed with lung cancer at higher rates than men in that same age group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Doctors warn of dangerous trend that is putting millions of Americans at risk of aggressive cancer
A fringe theory is catching fire online, and health experts are sounding the alarm. Influencers and wellness gurus are promoting the debunked claim that exposure to the sun's powerful ultraviolet rays isn't only safe, it's beneficial. Your browser does not support iframes.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Can you see circles or rectangles? And does the answer depend on where you grew up?
Do people from different cultures and environments see the world differently? Two recent studies have different takes on this decades-long controversy. The answer might be more complicated, and more interesting, than either study suggests. One study, led by Ivan Kroupin at the London School of Economics, asked how people from different cultures perceived a visual illusion known as the Coffer illusion. They discovered that people in the UK and US saw it mainly in one way, as comprising rectangles – while people from rural communities in Namibia typically saw it another way: as containing circles. To explain these differences, Kroupin and colleagues appeal to a hypothesis raised more than 60 years ago and argued about ever since. The idea is that people in western industrialised countries (these days known by the acronym 'weird' – for western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic – a summary that is increasingly questionable) see things in a specific way because they are generally exposed to highly 'carpentered' environments, with lots of straight lines, right angles – visual features common in western architecture. By contrast, people from non-'weird' societies – like those in rural Namibia – inhabit environments with fewer sharp lines and angular geometric forms, so their visual abilities will be tuned differently. The study argues that the tendency of rural Namibians to see circles rather than rectangles in the Coffer illusion is due to their environments being dominated by structures such as round huts instead of angular environments. They back up this conclusion with similar results from several other visual illusions, all supposedly tapping into basic brain mechanisms involved in visual perception. So far, so good for the cross-cultural perceptual psychologists, and for the 'carpentered world' hypothesis. The second study, by Dorsa Amir and Chaz Firestone, takes a sledgehammer to this hypothesis, but for the much better-known illusion: the Müller-Lyer illusion. Two lines of equal length seem to be different lengths because of the context provided by inward-pointing, compared with outward-pointing, arrowheads. It's a very powerful illusion. I've seen it on thousands of occasions and it works every time for me. There are many explanations for why the Müller-Lyer illusion is so effective. One of the more popular is that the arrowheads are interpreted by the brain as cues about three-dimensional depth, so our brains implicitly interpret the illusion as representing an object of some kind, with right angles and straight lines. This explanation fits neatly with the 'carpentered world' hypothesis – and indeed a lot of early support for this hypothesis relied on apparent cultural variability in how the Müller-Lyer illusion is perceived. In their study, Amir and Firestone carefully and convincingly dismantle this explanation. They point out that non-human animals experience the illusion, as shown in a range of studies in which animals (including guppies, pigeons and bearded dragons) are trained to prefer the longer of two lines, and then presented with the Müller-Lyer image. They show that it works without straight lines, and for touch as well as vision. They note that it even works for people who until recently have been blind, referencing an astonishing experiment in which nine children, blind from birth because of dense cataracts, were shown the illusion immediately after the cataracts were surgically removed. Not only had these children not seen highly carpentered environments – they hadn't seen anything at all. After you absorb their analysis, it's pretty clear that the Müller-Lyer illusion is not due to culturally specific exposure to carpentry. Why the discrepancy? There are several possibilities. Perhaps there are reasons why cross-cultural variability should be expected for the Coffer but not the Müller-Lyer illusion (one possibility here is that the Coffer illusion is based on how people pay attention to things, rather than on some more basic aspect of perception). It could also be that there are systematic differences in perception between cultures, but that the 'carpentered world' hypothesis is not the correct explanation. It's also worth noting that the Kroupin study has some potential weaknesses. For example, the UK/US and Namibian participants were exposed to the illusions using very different methods. All in all, the jury remains out and – favourite scientist punt coming up – 'more research is needed'. The notion that people from different cultures vary in how they experience things is certainly plausible. There's a wealth of evidence that as we grow up our brains are shaped, at least to some extent, by features of our environments. And just as we all differ in our externally visible characteristics – height, body shape and so on – we will all differ on the inside too. As the author Anaïs Nin put it in quoting the Talmud: 'We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.' For me, an important implication of this line of thought is that there are likely to be substantial differences in perception within 'groups' as well as between them. This will probably hold however these 'groups' are defined, whether as different cultures or as a contrast between 'neurotypical' and 'neurodivergent' people. I believe that paying more attention to within-group perceptual diversity will help us to better interpret the differences we do find between groups, and equip us with the tools needed to resist relying on simple cultural stereotypes as explanations. More research is needed here too. But it's on the way. In the Perception Census, a project led by my research group at the University of Sussex together with professor Fiona Macpherson at the University of Glasgow, we are studying how perception differs in a large sample of about 40,000 people from more than 100 countries. Our experiment includes not just one or two visual illusions but more than 50 different experiments probing many different aspects of perception. When we're done analysing the data, we hope to deliver a uniquely detailed picture of how people experience their world, both within and between cultures. We'll also make the data openly available for other researchers to explore new ideas in this important area. One critical insight lies behind all these questions. How things seem is not how they are. For each of us, it might seem as though we see the world exactly as it is; as if our senses are transparent windows through with the world pours itself directly into our mind. But how things are is very different. The objective world no doubt exists, but the world we experience is always an active construction, a kind of 'controlled hallucination' in which the brain uses sensory signals to update and calibrate its best interpretation of what's going on. What we experience is this interpretation, not a 'readout' of the sensory information. For me, this is the key insight that underlies any claim about perceptual diversity. When we take it fully on board, it encourages a much-needed humility about our own ways of seeing. We live in perceptual echo chambers, just as we do in those of social media, and the first step to escaping any echo chamber is to realise that you're in one. Anil Seth is a professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex, and author of the Sunday Times bestseller Being You: A New Science of Consciousness
The Sun
6 hours ago
- The Sun
Mum issues warning for parents to check ‘every fold on your kids' – as she's urged to take her tot to the doctors
A MOTHER has issued a stark warning for parents to check ''every fold and crack'' on kids after discovering a nasty surprise in her tot's ear. Mum Des Riggs took to TikTok to warn fellow parents after making a shocking discovery in her daughter's ear. The mother, from the US, explained that her little one had been acting weird for the last few days, so she decided to check her body. After taking a thorough look, horrified Des realised the reason the girl had been '' fussy '' was a tick that had managed to hide in the top part of her ear. Despite their teeny size - which makes them difficult to spot - ticks can cause serious harm and their bite could even prove to be fatal. A bite from a tick can cause Lyme disease, which is an infection caused by a spiral-shaped bacteria transmitted to humans from ticks infected with it. Ticks are present in both rural and urban areas and are active from spring to autumn. The tiny spider-like creatures feed on the blood of humans, animals and birds, and are more numerous and more active in the summer months. Ticks will bite adults most commonly on the legs and arms but they can bite on any part of the body, especially warm and sweaty parts not covered by clothing. The insects are most likely to bite children around the head and neck. As families are enjoying the summer season outdoors, parents are urged to cover up and protect their child's head and neck and check the areas following time spent outdoors. Regular checks are encouraged throughout the day for both adults and children. The HSE Health Protection Surveillance Centre (HPSC) is advising people to cover up with clothing where possible and use insect repellent against ticks. Tick bites can be prevented by wearing long trousers, long sleeved shirt and shoes, a hat or tuck in hair. Using an insect repellent preferably containing the active ingredient DEET can deter ticks. People are urged to check skin, hair and warm skin folds - especially the neck and scalp of children - for ticks, after a day out. Checking for ticks and removing any from your pets, clothing or outdoor gear is essential. Most cases of Lyme disease are very mild and many infected people may not have symptoms. Warning fellow parents to keep themselves and their kids safe this summer, Des said in the now-viral video: ''Just your friendly mum reminder to check every fold and crack on your babies - because mt daughter has been fussy all week and I just found this inside her ear.'' In the clip, which has since racked up an astronomical 6million views, the horrified mum also showed the creepy crawly that was hiding. Justin Bieber: 'I had a rough couple of years' IN January 2020, Justin Bieber publicly revealed he'd been diagnosed with Lyme disease and that it had been a "rough couple of years" leading up to his diagnosis. He wrote on Instagram at the time people had suggested he looked like he was "on meth", but "they failed to realise I've been recently diagnosed with Lyme disease, not only that but had a serious case of chronic mono which affected my skin, brain function, energy and overall health". The singer's experience with the disease was detailed in his documentary series Seasons on YouTube. The series includes footage of him using a hyperbaric oxygen chamber and receiving IV infusions at a doctor's office, as well as interviews with his psychiatrist and the doctor who diagnosed and treated him for Lyme disease. Bieber recently indicated he's "back and better than ever". 'This is serious' The warning, posted just one day ago under the username @ desriggs, has already taken the internet by storm, amassing over 206k likes, with close to 600 people flooding to comments. One concerned viewer urged: '' Take her to the doc. She can do a round of antibiotics to help prevent tick-related diseases before it's too late.'' A second agreed, writing: ''I have Lyme disease from a tick I didn't know was there. ''This is kind of serious if she's been fussy all week she's probably sick too.'' ''You need to get her tested asap to make sure she didn't contract a tick borne disease!'' someone else chimed in. REMOVING TICKS 4 4 If a tick is removed within the first number of hours, the risk of infection is very low. The entire tick should be removed with a tweezers by gripping it close to the skin. Slowly pull upwards, taking care not to squeeze or crush the tick and then dispose of it. Be sure to check for any mouthparts which may break off. The skin where the tick was found should then be washed with soap and water and the area checked over the next few weeks for swelling or redness. Dr Paul McKeown previously told The Sun: 'People are more likely to spend time outdoors in the spring and summer months. "Anyone who spends time outdoors should protect themselves against tick bites. This includes ramblers, campers, mountain bikers, people who work or walk in woodland, parkland and heathland, especially in grassy areas. "Preventing tick bites prevents Lyme disease.'
