Air pollution causes cancer, WHO

The World Health Organization's (WHO) says air pollution can cause cancer like asbestos and cigarette smoke.

In 2010, lung cancer resulting from air pollution took the lives of 223,000 people worldwide

"The predominant sources of outdoor air pollution are transportation, stationary power generation, industrial and agricultural emissions, and residential heating and cooking,"

With the witch hunt against cigarette smokers still in full swing, will we also start banning automobiles? Maybe every car sold should have graphic images of lung disease and fatal car accidents plastered on them before you buy it.

And the backyard barbecue has to stop too.

Charcoal Grilling May Pose Cancer Risks

It's funny that people think banning cigarette smoking will somehow stop lung cancer, when in reality we are dumping tons of junk into the air every day from other sources.

www.cnn.com...

reply to post by ionwind


Well that is certainly an interesting study from the WHO. I've been saying it from when I started smoking, everything will give you cancer anyway! Now I have some proof to back that up to a certain extent. Good to know!

Do you think this is even somewhat new information? Seriously?

We've known for decades that industry kills hundreds of thousands, if not millions each year from air pollution.

Then you're mixing it in with cigarettes, and somehow drawing a conclusion that cigarettes are not as harmful as industry?

I don't get it. At all.

What gives us cancer is carcinogens, and they're found all over the place, true, but many more fold since the industrial revolution, & age of petrochemicals.

It would be wise for people to limit their exposure beyond certain thresholds for various pollutants, as not to overwhelm the bodies restorative capacities.

If someone chooses to smoke, on them, but don't try and fool me into believing that there's any indication that industry makes the harmful effects of cigarette smoking a non-issue.

I'd rather everyone switch to vapes, and at least attempt to clean up the environment with better management of resources and the development of newer, cleaner energy sources.

This is probably true, but it only addresses how many lives it took, not the number of people who were treated for cancer. Nitrosamines need molybdenum supplies in the body to help to detoxify them. It has to be in the right form and bioavailable to work to create the enzymes to fix the problem. Most of us do not have to worry about the nitrosamines unless we do not get enough molybdenum. It is found in wheat germ but is bound unless it is properly prepared. It is also found in cereals but the amount of sulfites created by the drying of the cereal makes the molybdenum needed for the enzymes to detox the sulfites. Many foods when dried form sulfites.

I can't give the answer to which is the best way to consume the molybdenum to steer it to detox nitrosamines because I have not found any testing that has been done yet to address this issue. Supplementing with molybdenum is an option but overly consuming it can cause some deficiencies of metals in the body. It is good for detoxing certain things though, especially acetelaldehyde. Moderation should be observed. I wish the medical industry would study this more. When I started studying this, very little was known about it but a lot of testing is now been done...except as related to a deterrent of cancer forming in the first place.

webedoomed

Do you think this is even somewhat new information? Seriously?

I believe this is the first time the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified air pollution as Group 1 human carcinogens.

That ranks them alongside more than 100 other known cancer-causing substances in IARC’s Group 1, including asbestos, plutonium, silica dust, ultraviolet radiation and tobacco smoke.

Link

This is not a justification for smokers. Smoking kills whether you like it or not. Yes there are other factors. But this does not mean walking around exhailing several toxic poisions from your mouth is harmless.

Jefferton
This is not a justification for smokers. Smoking kills whether you like it or not. Yes there are other factors. But this does not mean walking around exhailing several toxic poisions from your mouth is harmless.

I never read any one saying this is a justification for smoking tobacco, but one pollutant is a choice the other isn't

ionwind
The World Health Organization's (WHO) says air pollution can cause cancer like asbestos and cigarette smoke.

Well that sucks!!

reply to post by ScottProphhit


Really? Not one?

"Well that is certainly an interesting study from the WHO. I've been saying it from when I started smoking, everything will give you cancer anyway! Now I have some proof to back that up to a certain extent. Good to know!"


Hmmmmmmm.

ScottProphhit

Jefferton
This is not a justification for smokers. Smoking kills whether you like it or not. Yes there are other factors. But this does not mean walking around exhailing several toxic poisions from your mouth is harmless.

I never read any one saying this is a justification for smoking tobacco, but one pollutant is a choice the other isn't

Using cars instead of mass transit is a choice isn't it? How about developing cleaner electric car technology (including their production)?

ionwind

ScottProphhit

Jefferton
This is not a justification for smokers. Smoking kills whether you like it or not. Yes there are other factors. But this does not mean walking around exhailing several toxic poisions from your mouth is harmless.

I never read any one saying this is a justification for smoking tobacco, but one pollutant is a choice the other isn't

Using cars instead of mass transit is a choice isn't it? How about developing cleaner electric car technology (including their production)?

Do I have a choice in what capitalism promotes? Don't try to make it seem like the destruction of our environment is in my hands, or any regular citizen forced to commute in petrol cars(or eat the unhealthy food, as last I checked it was hard enough supplying a family with cheap crap on minimum wage nevermind healthy food)

This is a #en real issue and smoking shouldnt even be part of the discussion, I smoke and will never ever give you cancer. How many deaths are at the hand of any deepfried food company? Of any oil/gas company?

Its social imbalance, our health is constantly at a risk just so a very small minority of the population can prosper. Why aren't you prepared to kill for your own life? Are you any better than smokers willingly harming themselves? Isn't every single one of us harmed by oppression every single day?

My two 'cents'

reply to post by ionwind


More from your source...

In 2010, lung cancer resulting from air pollution took the lives of 223,000 people worldwide. As pollution levels climb, so will the rate of cancer, the WHO said.

And there is only one way to stop it: Clean up the air.

"We can't treat ourselves out of this cancer problem," said Chris Wild, who heads the WHO's cancer research wing, the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Cleaner air would also have other health benefits. Air pollution increases the risk of bladder cancer, the IARC said. It has been known for a while that it contributes to heart disease and respiratory ailments.

Here's an interesting map showing air pollution related deaths by country:



How are we going to convince rapidly industrializing countries like China and India to cut back on pollution?

Link

It's funny that people think banning cigarette smoking will somehow stop lung cancer, when in reality we are dumping tons of junk into the air every day from other sources.

Even with the pollution in the air you are far more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke than if you dont. Its a simple fact.

PhoenixOD

It's funny that people think banning cigarette smoking will somehow stop lung cancer, when in reality we are dumping tons of junk into the air every day from other sources.

Even with the pollution in the air you are far more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke than if you dont. Its a simple fact.

I'm not saying smoking is healthy. There is about a 25% chance of getting lung cancer if you're a heavy smoker.

lungcancer.about.com...

What bothers me is that automobiles get a free ride (pun intended). If you live in a city, mass transit is easily available. What about car pools if you're in the suburbs? Almost every huge SUV I see has one occupant in it.

Depending on the level of exposure in different parts of the world, the risk was found to be similar to that of breathing in second-hand tobacco smoke

www.reuters.com...

When I vacationed in Venice, there were NO CARS! Imagine that. It was great. Everyone got around by ferry or just *gasp* walked. I know that this is not possible everywhere, but maybe cars should be restricted in the cores of big cities to only buses and cabs. You commute to a mass transit station and head downtown from there...

PhoenixOD

It's funny that people think banning cigarette smoking will somehow stop lung cancer, when in reality we are dumping tons of junk into the air every day from other sources.

Even with the pollution in the air you are far more likely to get lung cancer if you smoke than if you dont. Its a simple fact.

Would you please be so kind as to point to some information regarding that claim? I don't believe there is that much lung cancer in the smoking population, show me.

reply to post by toastyr


Wait when did people who smoked and people who didn't become seperate 'populations' nevermind the fact there's plenty evidence(he actually linked it too..) that carcinogens cause lung cancer.

Why are people arguing about smoking? Its a damn choice. Yous Americans are supposed to be wanting freedom not bickering about who's killing you.

reply to post by ScottProphhit


Thanks for your opinion, now, please direct me to this link, I must have missed it.

reply to post by ionwind


Which means nothing. Coal is carcinogenic. We burn it and it's a contributor to air pollution.

It doesn't take an international organization to point out what has already been known for a very long time.

webedoomed
reply to post by ionwind

 

Which means nothing. Coal is carcinogenic. We burn it and it's a contributor to air pollution.

It doesn't take an international organization to point out what has already been known for a very long time.

Actually since "Air pollution, mostly caused by transport, power generation, industrial or agricultural emissions and residential heating and cooking, " are now classified as Class 1 carcinogens, governments may be more inclined to act to reduce emissions.

Also, what's to stop someone who doesn't have a car and doesn't smoke and gets lung cancer from launching a Class Action suit against car manufactures because they live in a high traffic area? Like they did with tobacco companies, remember?