Ten to Fifteen Percent of Lung Cancer Sufferers Never Smoked

My husband was a heavy smoker, 60 a day, but I`ve never smoked, but am aware of the risk from passive smoking. 2 of my 5 children have been smokers, one died from lung cancer. It`s over 8 years since my husband died, so hopefully the risks have decreased.

My dad, who never smoked, worked for 30 years in an office full of chain smokers. Nobody smoked
at home.
He died of lung cancer in the early 90s.

AGA same with my mother. 😨

Slightly worrying but of course it also means that 85 to 90% of lung cancer patients were smokers!

Was it pressure from tobacco companies or taxation that led to government apathy?

Tax on alcohol and tobacco is a huge source of revenue. I suspect that cigarettes would have been banned long ago if this were not the case, and alcohol would have been priced out of danger levels for most people.

The NHS offer over the telephone lung health checks to people between 55 and 75.

The first question is 'have you ever smoked?' and if you answer no they tell you you're not entitled to the check. They could be missing a lot of people who fall into the 10 -15% group.

My friend was diagnosed with lung cancer last year. It was very early so they operated and said she is now clear.

She never smoked nor did any of her family.

Doodledog

Was it pressure from tobacco companies or taxation that led to government apathy?

Tax on alcohol and tobacco is a huge source of revenue. I suspect that cigarettes would have been banned long ago if this were not the case, and alcohol would have been priced out of danger levels for most people.

I think government apathy was definitely influenced by the fact that tobacco tax was a massive earner. But the tobacco companies certainly played their part in suppressing proper scientific data and publishing reports on research financed by them.

That smoking caused lung cancer was well known long before the knowledge went official in 1950.

My aunt was a nurse in the 1930s and developed a persistent cough and was very worried about he possible cause. She was sent to see an eminent lung specialist, who looked at her when she came in to the consulting room looking frightened and he turned to her and said. Let us be clear. You are a non-smoker, you will not have lung cancer. Not entirely correct but shows that the link was made well before 1950.

My lovely sister in law died of lung cancer aged just 59.She had never smoked although her husband had when he was younger.But never in the house.So it was a great shock.Especially as it was only diagnosed when she had terrible back ache and a scan showed a secondary tumour in her spine had cracked a vertebrae. And then her primary in the lung was found.

An old schoolfriend of mine died at the early age of 65. She was a lifelong non smoker, as was her husband. She was very fit, ate healthily and took a lot of exercise, but she was diagnosed with lung cancer which then spread to her brain. I have heard that the strain of lung cancer that non smokers get is more aggressive than the one smokers get.

It's a devastating diagnosis, whatever the reason for it. As said, there are several different types, and even if someone has never smoked, the outcomes of the disease can be just as poor, or even worse. Doctors are searching for answers, particularly where younger women are concerned, because cases are rising. I think Esther Rantzen falls into the non smokers category, and this is the area where more research needs to be done urgently.

The first questions asked are, "Do/Did you smoke?" "Do/Did you have parents with the disease?" From there on it all becomes very unsure, apart from having breathed in particles in an asbestos environment for example.
And offering ct scans to non smokers isnt always the answer because the possible harms of screening can outweigh the possible benefits of finding out early on.

I’m not sure of the points being made here. Is it that non-smokers are somehow less ‘deserving’ of the nightmare that is cancer?

Nobody deserves to be ill, IMO, and anyone who apportions blame to illness is at the top of a very slippery slope as more causal links to illness are discovered.

Monica I disagree I had my first baby in 1967 and had no idea that smoking was dangerous it was only after reading an article on small babies born to smokers ( and she was small) that I stopped and learned a lot more …eventually working in the NHS where one of my jobs was as a smoking cessation advisor
😀

To me that just seems ridiculous - how can anyone think that sticking something in their mouth, setting it on fire and breathing it in can possibly be good for you? Surely no-one needed any kind of 'official' warning to know that smoking is one of the most vile habits on the planet?

I guess the point is more awareness, so more can be done early on. From my experience, blame doesn't enter into it, but medical questions about smoking - quantity and frequency- do have to be asked where smoking is concerned. Lifestyle unarguably plays a big part in lung cancer.
The thing with a non-smoker being diagnosed is that you possibly feel more shocked than some one who is a regular smoker.

my dear father died of lung cancer but that was caused by asbestosis. he was a lorry driver going to building sites in the 60s when the asbestos was being used for so many buildings. the air was thick with the fibres from it and it was thrown about like it was nothing

I think an important point is being made. Just because you have never smoked doesn't mean you can't be diagnosed with lung cancer.
People who have a persistent cough may not see their GP if they have never smoked as they believe they can't have lung cancer.
My DD works in oncology and has said there are other causes of lung cancer not just smoking.

escaped

I guess the point is more awareness, so more can be done early on. From my experience, blame doesn't enter into it, but medical questions about smoking - quantity and frequency- do have to be asked where smoking is concerned. Lifestyle unarguably plays a big part in lung cancer.
The thing with a non-smoker being diagnosed is that you possibly feel more shocked than some one who is a regular smoker.

That makes sense, but a lot of the posts do seem to be simply recounting examples of people who did not smoke but got cancer.

Medical questions are always valid, but I am uneasy about ‘people in the street’ blame.

Any main cause for a cancer should never preclude other unexpected causes or no obvious cause at all. A friend's nephew developed breast cancer, something always assumed as being something only women suffer from.

There have always been non-smokers who get lung cancer, just not many.

Washerwoman

My lovely sister in law died of lung cancer aged just 59.She had never smoked although her husband had when he was younger.But never in the house.So it was a great shock.Especially as it was only diagnosed when she had terrible back ache and a scan showed a secondary tumour in her spine had cracked a vertebrae. And then her primary in the lung was found.

Exactly the same thing happened to my mother's best friend. She went to the doctor about a pain in her back and tests showed a secondary tumour with the primary in her lungs. She was told that this was not uncommon. She died a few months later. Believe it or not she too was 59.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

My father chain smoked cigarettes all the time I was at home until 21 and I remember the fug but I never got lung cancer (and neither did he). It's a puzzle.

There are four different types of lung cancer, and one of them (adenocarcinoma) is not associated with smoking.