Most Lifelong Smokers Never Develop Lung Cancer—Why Not?

[Dick Turpin]

He had a great life and lived to the max, by the sound of it.

He certainly had a very colourful life Myth. According to my old man, a book could have been written about his adventures.

In the mid 1930’s, he was a 14 year old stowaway on board a steam ship bound from London to Australia. After a few days he got found out and the captain of the ship asked if his parents knew where he was and he said no.

The captain then ordered him to write a letter to them to be posted at the first port of call, then let him work his passage – he wasn’t yet 15 years of age when he first sailed into Sydney harbour – fancy having an adventure like that at only 14.

He went on to become a Naval man serving wit the Royal Navy and then as a merchant sailor during the war.

I’ll have to speak to my Dad about it again, but his adventures I was told were legendary, including being imprisoned in Nigeria at some point for some drunken misdemeanour.

 

[Xanatic*]

Is there a point to this? We can all mention anecdotes about Uncle Nigel who smoked 10 packs per day and was run over by a truck at 90 years old. We need better data to make any kind of conclusion.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

the older one gets, the more likely it is that one will develop cancer. die.

FTFY.

And in answer to somebody else's query on 'stuff' in fags that 'adulterate' them.

'Tailor made' tabs have saltpetre added to the tobacco so that it continues to burn at a steady rate instead of 'going out' when left (eg) in an ashtray.
AFAIA Cigarette companies did/do this deliberately so that they se

Trev - no, that is not the point I was making. Although what you changed my text to read - die - rather than develop cancer, is true, it implies that developing cancer is not age-related. Cancer is unarguably age-related. Could you perhaps post a link for us about age and cancer in your country? The information below is for the US.

From: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer...ce rates for cancer,groups 60 years and older.

Advancing age is the most important risk factor for cancer overall and for many individual cancer types. The incidence rates for cancer overall climb steadily as age increases, from fewer than 25 cases per 100,000 people in age groups under age 20, to about 350 per 100,000 people among those aged 45–49, to more than 1,000 per 100,000 people in age groups 60 years and older.

ENLARGE
Incidence rates by age at diagnosis, all cancer types. Source: SEER 21 2013–2017, all races, both sexes.
Credit: National Cancer Institute

 

[Trevp666]

age and cancer in your country

The ratio of incidence is probably broadly similar to that in the US.
As a lot of cancers are reportedly as a result of some sort of cell mutation, and cell mutations can be brought on by interactions with all sorts of things, then the increase in age will lead to an equal yet cumulative increase in encounters with those factors that create the cell mutations.
To say that 'cancer is unarguably age-related' is rather simplistic - Correlation does not imply causation.

It's a curious artefact of the data you show above that the incidence appears to decrease at the 85+ point.
Would that be because of a reduction in actual diagnosis as a result of octogenarians just giving less of a damn about what is taking their last years, or that they are passing due to something else?
I wonder if the data and graphs for other illnesses/diseases show a similar curve as a ratio of age vs rate?

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

The ratio of incidence is probably broadly similar to that in the US.
As a lot of cancers are reportedly as a result of some sort of cell mutation, and cell mutations can be brought on by interactions with all sorts of things, then the increase in age will lead to an equal yet cumulative increase in encounters with those factors that create the cell mutations.
To say that 'cancer is unarguably age-related' is rather simplistic - Correlation does not imply causation.

It's a curious artefact of the data you show above that the incidence appears to decrease at the 85+ point.
Would that be because of a reduction in actual diagnosis as a result of octogenarians just giving less of a damn about what is taking their last years, or that they are passing due to something else?
I wonder if the data and graphs for other illnesses/diseases show a similar curve as a ratio of age vs rate?

"Cancer is unarguably age-related." It is, in the aggregate, this simple. Not simplistic. I did not intend to imply that age causes cancer. To quote the primary source directly: "Advancing age is the most important risk factor for cancer overall". I am guessing that with age, immune systems degrade, and cumulative exposure to toxins and other environmental stresses (such as HPV) increases, leading to cell mutation, as you pointed out.

I spent about an hour trying to locate age charts for other diseases to show a compare and contrast with the cancer bar chart. I wanted to show similar bar charts for other diseases; infectious vs noninfectious, and usually diagnosed at different stages of life. The decrease at age 85+ caught my attention as well. In the US currently, as far as I could find out, about 2.5% of the population is 85 years old or older.

 

[catseye]

My Grandmother smoked Woodbines unfiltered. My Grandfather smoked Capstain Navy. Both cigarettes could strip the bark off trees. He died aged 96, she died aged 92. Both born around 1880. (That seems incredible now, that I knew people born during the reign of Queen Victoria.)

There are always individual examples that seem to be contrary to proper studies.

I've often wondered is there a weird link. Maybe those who are prone to smoking are prone to chest diseases or, going by the original study posted at the top, perhaps those who are prone to smoking are lifelong are resistant to diseases that smoking causes? Rather like those that naturally take to swimming when young are less likely to die by drowning?

Cancer went from being almost unheard of when I was young, born 1957, to being now common place. Maybe the causes of cancer are by some other reason but now amplified by modern life styles? Cancer of all types is definitely on the increase, smoker or non smoker. There must be a reason for that?

I'm not sure that cancer was quite as unheard of as we think, but it often wasn't detected as early as is possible now. Also add in people who'd been brought up in an era pre NHS when you had to pay to see a doctor, so didn't go when they found something 'odd' and the slight shame of having 'a growth', and you end up with people who died of something only spoken of among the family in hushed tones.

To those outside the family they died of 'an illness'.

 

[Xanatic*]

It might also be worth keeping in mind that tobacco isn't the only source of smoke we inhale. If you are cooking on a woodstove or similar, you might also be inhaling a lot of smoke. That could perhaps have led to lung cancers.

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

I'm not sure that cancer was quite as unheard of as we think, but it often wasn't detected as early as is possible now. Also add in people who'd been brought up in an era pre NHS when you had to pay to see a doctor, so didn't go when they found something 'odd' and the slight shame of having 'a growth', and you end up with people who died of something only spoken of among the family in hushed tones.

To those outside the family they died of 'an illness'.

Yes. I am in the US; three of my grandparents died from cancer (1950s-1960s); and it was considered a shameful disease which was not discussed. When my mother died from it (1980s), and her sister died from it (1990s), it was still not talked about. I resolved that if I ever got it, and I did (1980s and 2000s), I would talk about it openly. I have had a few women seek me out afterwards to tell me that my talking about it inspired them to get checked out by their doctors. One had cancer and it was caught and treated in time.

Although personal experiences are compelling, I do trust the compiled medical records about stuff. It is not perfect - no data set is - but it shows clear trends and associations.

 

[Ronnie Jersey]

It might also be worth keeping in mind that tobacco isn't the only source of smoke we inhale. If you are cooking on a woodstove or similar, you might also be inhaling a lot of smoke. That could perhaps have led to lung cancers.

One thing I cannot stand is those 'firepits' that they sell now, people stick them in their backyards and fire them up after dark, they smoke away all night, and give me choking fits for days.
They should call them 'smokepits', because that's what they are - and personally I feel that they are an extreme health hazard.
They outlaw 'bonfires' and allow 'firepits', just silliness.

 

[Mythopoeika]

One thing I cannot stand is those 'firepits' that they sell now, people stick them in their backyards and fire them up after dark, they smoke away all night, and give me choking fits for days.
They should call them 'smokepits', because that's what they are - and personally I feel that they are an extreme health hazard.
They outlaw 'bonfires' and allow 'firepits', just silliness.

They are supposed to use smokeless fuel for those, but I guess they chuck in whatever they want to burn.

 

[Ronnie Jersey]

They are supposed to use smokeless fuel for those, but I guess they chuck in whatever they want to burn.

Oh it's all garbage wood, whatever's around, and the smoke is like a house on fire, unbearable.
We had a neighbor once who got out his grill (the type you cook hamburgers on) and put pieces of wood on it to smoke away all summer.

 

[Sharon Hill]

This is my mother-in-law, right now. She is 84. For the past year she was misdiagnosed with a breathing disease even though she was a lifelong smoker. But it was cancer and they didn't even screen for it (a major oversight). When she got pneumonia, they discovered how extensive it was. Now, she has weeks (maybe only days) to live. The outcome seemed inevitable it me. It became serious rather suddenly because she was not an active person, so the decline wasn't noticeable.

 

[Ronnie Jersey]

This is my mother-in-law, right now. She is 84. For the past year she was misdiagnosed with a breathing disease even though she was a lifelong smoker. But it was cancer and they didn't even screen for it (a major oversight). When she got pneumonia, they discovered how extensive it was. Now, she has weeks (maybe only days) to live. The outcome seemed inevitable it me. It became serious rather suddenly because she was not an active person, so the decline wasn't noticeable.

Sharon, my condolences.

 

[Coal]

This is my mother-in-law, right now. She is 84. For the past year she was misdiagnosed with a breathing disease even though she was a lifelong smoker. But it was cancer and they didn't even screen for it (a major oversight). When she got pneumonia, they discovered how extensive it was. Now, she has weeks (maybe only days) to live. The outcome seemed inevitable it me. It became serious rather suddenly because she was not an active person, so the decline wasn't noticeable.

My condolences Sharon.

 

[ramonmercado]

This is my mother-in-law, right now. She is 84. For the past year she was misdiagnosed with a breathing disease even though she was a lifelong smoker. But it was cancer and they didn't even screen for it (a major oversight). When she got pneumonia, they discovered how extensive it was. Now, she has weeks (maybe only days) to live. The outcome seemed inevitable it me. It became serious rather suddenly because she was not an active person, so the decline wasn't noticeable.

That's terrible. my condolences. I hope they're made pay for their in competence

 

[Endlessly Amazed]

This is my mother-in-law, right now. She is 84. For the past year she was misdiagnosed with a breathing disease even though she was a lifelong smoker. But it was cancer and they didn't even screen for it (a major oversight). When she got pneumonia, they discovered how extensive it was. Now, she has weeks (maybe only days) to live. The outcome seemed inevitable it me. It became serious rather suddenly because she was not an active person, so the decline wasn't noticeable.

My condolences as well.

 

[Ronnie Jersey]

That's terrible. my condolences. I hope they're made pay for their in competence

That's a tough one to win, but certainly deserved.

 

[JahaRa]

It really is a mystery - Mr. R is a lifelong heavy smoker, recently cut back to one pack a day (which I still think is too much).
He worked through most of the virus and was fine, even though the huge company he worked for had employees coming down with the virus continually, and then returning when better.
Mr. R said he read that smoking helped to protect some from the virus, don't know if that is true or not, but he still believes it.

I don't think that is true. My daughter is a smoker and got the virus after being vaccinated. There are so many variables about why some smokers get sick and others don't. And I would bet that any article written to claim smokers are protected from Covid 19 were sponsored or written by cigarette companies, because that is how things work in the U.S.

Speaking to the title of this thread, true not all smokers get lung cancer, they get other cancers and most of them get emphazima. But like I said before, there are too many variables, a lot ignored by the medical community, that determine what disease people are suseptible to and what they are somewhat or mostly protected from.

 

[Fanari_Lloyd]

My gramps died of lung cancer at only 64, however he had a couple of other lifelong problems with his immune system. His older brother died at 93 and not from cancer (had a fall, got pneumonia and died) and he certainly did smoke lifelong — and enjoyed his pint! So two brothers, both lifelong smokers and two separate causes of dying.

 

[Tunn11]

This is my mother-in-law, right now. She is 84. For the past year she was misdiagnosed with a breathing disease even though she was a lifelong smoker. But it was cancer and they didn't even screen for it (a major oversight). When she got pneumonia, they discovered how extensive it was. Now, she has weeks (maybe only days) to live. The outcome seemed inevitable it me. It became serious rather suddenly because she was not an active person, so the decline wasn't noticeable.

My condolences as well, Sharon

 

[catseye]

Adding my condolences to your family, Sharon.

 

[Mr. Banooka]

Back in 1979 my dad had his first heart attack aged 32. The cause was put down to being overweight and being a heavy smoker. He would smoke up to 100 cigs a day, usually woodbines or capstan full strength. He’d been smoking since around the age of 13. As you can imagine, this put me off the idea of smoking for life. I’m still to this day staggered that he didn’t develop lung cancer.

My Nan who had been a smoker all her life (never inhaled though) got throat cancer when in her early eighties once she’d quit. Thankfully it was cured and she got a few more years with us before being taken by vascular dementia.