I’d argue that the leading cause is actually genetics. I come from a long line of people who smoked like chimneys from their teens until their 90s, with no cancers. My mother has spent her life in harsh sun with no sunscreen, and looks like an old handbag, but has entirely clear skin - but her partner, who wears strong sunblock, hats, and all the rest, has had skin cancer twice. So have two of his kids.
Meanwhile, my father’s second wife’s family have pretty much all had or succumbed to lung cancer. None of them smoke, and unless they all coincidentally chose radon-riddled homes in different corners of the U.S., there’s no correlative environmental cause - which leaves genetics.
Is it genetics or probability distribution? If it is genetics, shouldn't the native american be the most immune to smoking? (genuinely asking if there is such a data)
> Although there are over 50 identifiable hereditary forms of cancer, less than 0.3% of the population are carriers of a cancer-related genetic mutation and these make up less than 3–10% of all cancer cases.[
Took me 5 seconds of research. But keep arguing. Opinions are more important than facts.
No, on the fact that there are plenty of known variants which increase the chance of lung cancer quite dramatically - moreso than smoking.
It’s not just lungs - things like FAP make your chance of getting colon cancer in your lifetime near to 100%, regardless of how many ginseng enemas you have or whatever the hell else you do.
Variants like TP53 (Li-Fraumeni) or EGFR mutations have measurable, population-level impacts on cancer risk.
Genetics loads the gun. Being alive then pulls the trigger.
> No, on the fact that there are plenty of known variants which increase the chance of lung cancer quite dramatically - moreso than smoking.
But didn't you just say that it is the genetics and not the radon and/or smoking? Can you give some examples of those "plenty of known variants" for lung cancer?
EGFR, as mentioned - it’s the most common cause of lung cancer in East Asian women.
TP53, as also mentioned - gives you a >90% chance of cancer of any variety in a lifetime. 50% by age 30.
Smoking presents about a 20% lifetime risk - and that’s without adjusting for genetic predispositions like CHRNA3/5 which increase nicotine addictiveness and promote tumorigenisis, or BRCA2, or CHEK2, which diminish DNA repair capabilities.
Quite strong claims. I would be interested to read more about those. Do you have any references you can point out? A quick research on EGFR and TP53 suggested they are more related to colorectal cancer and not the lung cancer.
Meanwhile, my father’s second wife’s family have pretty much all had or succumbed to lung cancer. None of them smoke, and unless they all coincidentally chose radon-riddled homes in different corners of the U.S., there’s no correlative environmental cause - which leaves genetics.