Why are non-smokers getting Lung Cancer? Scientists cite possible risk factors
These tumors can also spread to other parts of the body. Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.
If we look at the recent past, an alarming number of non-smokers are now being diagnosed with the disease.
In recent years, oncologists and researchers have observed a growing trend: individuals with no history of smoking, sometimes even young, healthy adults, are developing lung cancer.
What else, other than smoking, could be the culprit behind one of the deadliest cancers?
Scientists are probing to find the answer
to the pressing question, and here are the factors that have been narrowed down into so far.
The changing face of lung cancer
Traditionally viewed as a smoker's disease, lung cancer has undergone a startling demographic shift. According to statistics provided by the
American Cancer Society
, up to 20% of lung cancer cases in the United States now occur in people who have never smoked. In some regions of Asia, this figure rises to nearly 50%, especially among women. This growing incidence among non-smokers has not only perplexed researchers but also reshaped the scientific approach to lung cancer research.
Risk factor #1: Air pollution (and fine particulate matter – PM2.5)
One of the most significant factors behind lung cancer is air pollution, especially fine particulate matter known as PM2.5. These microscopic particles, less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. They can penetrate deep into lung tissues and even enter the bloodstream.
Studies have found
that long-term exposure to PM2.5 is strongly linked to the development of lung cancer, particularly in non-smokers.
A 2022 study
published in Nature by researchers at the Francis Crick Institute found that air pollution triggers pre-existing mutations in lung cells, acting as a catalyst for cancer development.
Unlike smoking, which causes mutations, air pollution may awaken already dormant mutations, essentially turning a dormant risk into an active disease.
Risk factor #2: Radon gas exposure
Radon is an odorless, colorless radioactive gas that occurs naturally from the decay of uranium in soil and rocks. It can seep into homes through cracks in foundations or walls, particularly in poorly ventilated basements. According to the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer overall, and the leading cause among non-smokers in the United States.
Prolonged exposure to radon increases the risk of lung cancer significantly, especially when combined with other environmental factors. Unfortunately, many people remain unaware of radon exposure because it's undetectable without specialized equipment.
Risk factor #3: Secondhand smoke
Now, this one's a factor we keep on overlooking. Even if a person has never smoked, secondhand smoke can pose a serious health threat. Inhaling smoke from someone else's cigarettes exposes non-smokers to the same carcinogens as active smokers. The
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
reports that secondhand smoke causes approximately 7,300 lung cancer deaths annually in non-smoking adults in the US alone.
Children and spouses of smokers are at the highest risk due to prolonged indoor exposure, making it a persistent, yet preventable, risk factor.
Risk factor #4: Genetic susceptibility and mutations
Genetic predisposition also plays a critical role. Certain mutations in the EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) gene are far more common in non-smokers diagnosed with lung cancer. These mutations are particularly prevalent among Asian women and younger patients, suggesting a strong hereditary or ethnic component.
Unlike smoking-related lung cancers, which often involve KRAS mutations, non-smoking-related lung cancers tend to respond differently to treatments. Fortunately, the presence of EGFR mutations has led to the development of targeted therapies that improve survival rates for affected individuals.
Risk factor #5: Indoor pollution from cooking fumes
In many developing countries, especially in parts of Asia and Africa, cooking with biomass fuels (like wood, charcoal, or dung) in poorly ventilated kitchens exposes individuals to harmful smoke and toxins.
A 2020 study
in The Lancet Planetary Health found that indoor air pollution is a major contributor to lung cancer risk, particularly among women who spend more time cooking at home.
Oil fumes from high-temperature frying in non-ventilated kitchens have also been linked to increased cancer risk. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), produced during frying, are well-known carcinogens.
Risk factor #6: Viruses and infections
Though still under investigation, researchers have begun to explore the role of viruses in triggering lung cancer among non-smokers.
Certain strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) have been detected in lung tumor samples, particularly in patients with no history of smoking. The exact mechanism remains unclear, but it's hypothesized that these viruses may induce cellular changes that lead to tumor formation over time.
The importance of awareness
The rise in lung cancer among non-smokers calls for a broader public health approach. In 2025, according to the
Lung Cancer Research Foundation
, lung cancer remains a significant global health concern, projected to be the leading cause of cancer death worldwide.
Approximately 227,000 people are expected to be diagnosed with lung cancer in the US, while an estimated 125,000 lives will be lost.
Because lung cancer is often diagnosed in later stages, especially in those not deemed high-risk (i.e., non-smokers), early screening and detection are critical. Several countries are now reconsidering screening guidelines to include long-term exposure to pollution or genetic risk as criteria.
Additionally, raising awareness about environmental risks, promoting indoor air quality testing (for radon and other pollutants), and encouraging the use of clean cooking technologies can go a long way in reducing preventable cases.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
15 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
A road map to mitigate Delhi's pollution crisis
We are months away from Delhi becoming unliveable again. Every breath then will cut years off the lives of its residents. Progress in technology, infrastructure, and economic growth is meaningless if the air we breathe is toxic. Delhi produces about 11,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste daily; yet, over half of it ends up in overloaded landfills, causing land and water pollution. (Hindustan Times) In 2021, the annual average level of particulate matter of a diameter less than 2.5 micron (PM2.5) peaked at 126.5 µg/m3 — more than 25 times the safe limit set by the World Health Organization (WHO). During winter, these levels soar, flooding hospitals with respiratory patients. According to the 2023 Air Quality Life Index, pollution claims up to 25,000 lives annually in Delhi alone, shortening life expectancy by about 6.3 years. The economic toll is also staggering. Estimates peg GDP loss at 3%, roughly $100 billion annually, due to disrupted work, soaring health care costs, and decreased productivity. Low-income families often left unprotected against toxic fumes are the most vulnerable. To breathe safely has become a privilege. Despite this, policymakers have offered only temporary band-aids. Bureaucracy, overlapping authorities, and political apathy have failed the people. It is a failure of governance and of moral responsibility. The time for excuses has run out. The only option left is radical, decisive action. What must be done? Burning of biomass is the single-largest contributor to Delhi's air pollution, responsible for nearly 60% of PM2.5 emissions annually. Burning dung, firewood, and agricultural waste releases vast amounts of particulate matter, especially in winter. Policies promoting clean cooking fuels like LPG — with subsidies of 75% — starting in NCR+ areas need to be enforced and community biomass plants with subsidies for transition provided, even as traditional cooking methods and agricultural waste burning are phased out. Contributing approximately 31% of PM2.5, industrial processes and thermal power plants are the second-largest source of Delhi's pollution. Delhi-NCR hosts 12 thermal power plants with a total capacity of 13.2 GW, but only seven comply with the 2015 emissions standards. The outdated and poorly regulated plants emit pollutants that jeopardise both health and the environment. Accounting for 8% of total emissions, brick kilns are another large factor of Delhi-NCR's air pollution. Currently, around 4,608 kilns are operating primarily in areas such as Baghpat and Bulandshahr, making India's brick production industry the second-largest globally, trailing only China. Present methods employed by these kilns release harmful pollutants into the atmosphere, and also expedite soil degradation and groundwater depletion. Mandatory flue gas desulphurisation in thermal plants must be enforced in accordance with the applicable emission standards, outdated plants older than 35 years must be shut with cleaner technologies replacing these. At the brick kilns, adoption of zigzag technology — arranging bricks in a zigzag pattern to enhance heat transfer and combustion efficiency, leading to reduced fuel consumption and lower emissions — must be accelerated. SMEs must be shifted to electric boilers, supported by rooftop solar. Industrial zones must have efficient waste management, with quarterly emission reporting and public disclosures. Establish efficient waste management in industrial zones. Responsible for roughly 8% of PM2.5 emissions, Delhi's vehicles are a significant but addressable pollution source. The dominance of older, polluting vehicles and slow adoption of electric mobility hinder air quality improvement. India is witnessing rapid growth, where two-wheelers and three-wheelers account for about 95% of total EV sales. Delhi, however, contributes only 5% of this figure. The need is to transition all delivery two-wheelers to electric within two to three years, retrofit or replace two-wheelers older than 10 years within 24 months. All new autorickshaws must be electric, and those older than eight years replaced within the next year (older than five years replaced in the next two years). All 30,000 taxis older than eight years must be replaced with EVs over the next two years. Procure and deploy 5,000 new electric public and school buses within three years. Delhi produces about 11,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste daily; yet, over half of it ends up in overloaded landfills, causing land and water pollution. Its sewage treatment capacity is far below the volume of wastewater generated; untreated sewage flows into the Yamuna, polluting its waters and endangering public health. Despite some efforts, ineffective waste segregation, inadequate treatment infrastructure, and neglect of urban sanitation have only compounded the crisis. Waste segregation at source, modelled after Surat's, must be enforced with digital monitoring and penalties. Modern, decentralised sewage treatment plants must be set up and old infrastructure repaired. Focus on formalising waste picking, expanding recycling, and supporting circular economy practices. The city must prioritise land reclamation and beautification, turning contaminated sites into green spaces. Municipal governance must be strengthened with data-driven management, akin to Bhubaneswar's, and public participation promoted through community cleanup drives and awareness campaigns. There must also be regular public disclosure of pollution data, with community-led monitoring. Regional cooperation is another focus area, with collaboration with neighbouring states key to reducing external pollution; the aim must be to bring PM2.5 levels by 40-50% from the 2023 standards by 2028. By 2036, India's population could reach 1.5 billion, and if growth remains unplanned, our cities will be swallowed by unsustainable expansion. In Delhi-NCR alone, real estate prices have skyrocketed by 57% since 2019, yet infrastructure remains woefully inadequate to support this surge. Residents are caught in a vicious cycle of mismanagement: government agencies, planners, and industries repeatedly neglect their responsibilities, turning urban growth into a ticking environmental time bomb. To remedy this, implement comprehensive master planning — focused on walkability, green spaces, and sustainable growth. Enhance public transport and de-incentivise car dependence while promoting citizen involvement in urban development. Every delay exacerbates the health crisis — especially for Delhi's most vulnerable demographics. Delhi must realise that progress without clean air is hollow. The city's survival hinges on an urgent pursuit of environmental justice, underlined by a policy overhaul, tech innovation, community push, and regional unity. Amitabh Kant was India's G20 Sherpa and is the former CEO of NITI Aayog. The views expressed are personal.
Indian Express
16 hours ago
- Indian Express
In 12 years, 5 billion starfish ‘wasted away' from a mysterious disease: How culprit was finally found
Twelve years after a mysterious disease started killing off starfish in droves — more than 5 billion are estimated to have died since 2013 — scientists have found the culprit to be a bacterium. The starfish, or sea stars, of various species were dying off a wasting disease, in which their limbs fell off and their bodies melted away to leave just a pile of gunk. The epidemic was found along the Pacific coast of North America, all the way from the freezing waters off Alaska to the warmer shores of Mexico. Till a few years ago, scientists believed a virus was causing the outbreak. However, a study published in the journal Nature on August 5 said the starfish were falling victim to Vibrio pectenicida, which is related to the bacteria that causes cholera in humans. Why was this epidemic a cause for major concern, and how has the bacterium responsible finally been found? The problem The wasting disease was impacting whole populations of starfish, but the worst affected were sunflower sea stars, which lost almost 90 per cent of their population. Starfish perform a vital function in the marine ecosystem, maintaining a stable food chain. When billions of starfish died, the population of sea urchins, which they feed on, exploded. These sea urchins started eating away whole forests of kelp, a seaweed other marine animals thrive on and which helps sequester carbon. It was a long process. While studies earlier focused on a virus type called the densovirus, it was later found to occur naturally in some starfish. Also, some studies were examining the tissue samples of the dead starfish, when the bacterium was in fact present in the coelomic fluid, the equivalent of starfish blood. The breakthrough came at the Hakai Institute in British Columbia, Canada, where scientists raised sunflower sea stars in the labs, and then began exposing them to the infected starfish in various ways, like bringing them physically in contact with diseased body parts or injecting mixtures from such parts. It was found that injections passed on the infection, but not when their contents had been treated with heat. In effect, boiling was killing off the cause of the disease, pointing to a bacterium. The scientists then examined the coelomic fluid of both healthy and infected starfish. Dr Alyssa Gehmanopens, co-author of the study, was quoted by the UK's National History Museum as saying, 'When we compared the coelomic fluid of exposed and healthy sea stars, there was basically one thing different: Vibrio. We all had chills. We thought, 'That's it. We have it. That's what causes wasting'.' However, they conducted further confirmatory tests, by injecting the bacterium in healthy starfish, and examining sea water before and after an outbreak. How will this finding help? Understanding the cause of a disease is of course the first step to treating it. Scientists will now see if starfish in the sea can be given probiotics to fight off the bacteria, and if Vibrio-resistant starfish can be grown in labs and introduced into the wild, among other measures. Is there need for caution? Yes. 'It's absolutely critical not to jump the gun…It's really, really hard to do these type of experiments, and particularly the interpretation of it is somewhat difficult,' Cornell marine biologist Ian Hewson told The Washington Post. He pointed out that the study was carried out on only one type of starfish, and also injecting a starfish in a lab may throw up different results from what actually happens in the ocean. To add to this, the environment in an ocean is highly changeable, unlike the controlled surroundings of a lab.
India Today
17 hours ago
- India Today
Tight bras don't cause cancer, but they're not completely risk-free
Tight bra? Underwire digging in? Wearing it all day and night? If you've ever paused mid-Instagram scroll or heard an aunt whisper, 'You know, wearing that too long can give you cancer,' you're not alone. The idea that bras especially underwire ones can cause breast cancer has lingered like a bad rumour since the 1990s. And while the claim sounds serious enough to spark panic, doctors and researchers say it's simply not said, if your bra is leaving red marks, shoulder dents, or feels like a daily battle with elastic, your body is trying to tell you something but it's not about cancer. From back pain to circulation issues, wearing the wrong size or type of bra can cause plenty of problems but not the one everyone fears the DID THIS MYTH COME FROM?The roots of the bra-cancer myth can be traced back to a 1995 book titled Dressed to Kill by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer. The authors speculated that bras especially underwire bras could obstruct lymphatic flow, thereby "trapping toxins" in breast tissue and leading to cancer. It was a hypothesis, not a scientific study. But the theory spread like wildfire, despite having no basis in medical research. Over time, the idea embedded itself into public consciousness, amplified by social media and anecdotal 'evidence' that lacked scientific RESEARCH ACTUALLY SAYSIn 2014, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle conducted a large-scale, population-based study to examine this very issue. The study, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, involved over 1,500 women, both with and without breast RESULTS?There was no link between wearing bras regardless of type, duration, or tightness and an increased risk of breast cancer. Dr. Lu Chen, the lead author of the study, concluded: 'Our study found no evidence that wearing a bra increases breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women.'This aligns with the stance of globally trusted institutions:The American Cancer Society: 'There is no scientifically valid study that shows wearing bras of any type causes breast cancer.' The National Cancer Institute and the Cancer Council of Australia echo the same: No link. No risk. No WEIGH INDr. Therese Bevers, Medical Director at MD Anderson Cancer Center, is direct in her assessment: 'We don't have any evidence to support that underwire bras cause breast cancer cancer is not caused by a wire pinching or poking you anywhere.'Dr. Homayoon Sanati, a breast cancer specialist at MemorialCare Breast Center, also finds the myth implausible: 'Most of the breast cancers we diagnose occur in the upper outer quadrant of the breast, far away from where an underwire rests. If bras were causing blockages that led to cancer, the distribution of tumors would look very different.'WHY THIS MYTH PERSISTSadvertisementSo if there's no evidence, why does the myth live on?Some believe it's tied to the discomfort many women experience with ill-fitting bras. When something feels painful or unnatural, it's easy to associate it with harm. Add in a distrust of the medical establishment or fear of cancer, and the rumor finds fertile ground. Additionally, misinformation spreads faster than scientific nuance especially WEARING THE WRONG BRA CAN DO'Wearing a tight or ill-fitting bra won't give you cancer—but it can certainly give you chronic neck and back pain,' says Dr. Priya Ahuja, senior gynecologist at Bloom Women's Clinic. 'I see women with deep shoulder grooves and posture issues all because their bra isn't giving the right support.' A well-fitting bra is about comfort and support not disease prevention or REAL RISK FACTORS FOR BREAST CANCERRather than fearing your lingerie drawer, experts recommend focusing on these proven risk factors:Age and family historyBRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutationsEarly menstruation or late menopauseObesity and sedentary lifestyleAlcohol consumptionHormonal therapyCOMFORT OVER CANCERBras, underwire or not, are not the enemy. If you're wearing a bra that fits well and makes you feel good keep it. If it digs into your skin, causes discomfort, or feels too tight, it's time to get measured and switch it out—not because of cancer, but because you deserve better with all health-related concerns, it's best to turn to science and trusted medical professionals not whispers in WhatsApp groups or decades-old conspiracy theories.- Ends
