Breakthrough: Air Pollution/Cancer Research Challenges the Science on Tumors (bbc.com) 33
"Scientists have uncovered how air pollution causes lung cancer," reports the Guardian, "in groundbreaking research that promises to rewrite our understanding of the disease."
The BBC is calling it "a discovery that completely transforms our understanding of how tumours arise." The team at the Francis Crick Institute in London showed that rather than causing damage, air pollution was waking up old damaged cells. One of the world's leading experts, Prof Charles Swanton, said the breakthrough marked a "new era". And it may now be possible to develop drugs that stop cancers forming.
The findings could explain how hundreds of cancer-causing substances act on the body. The classical view of cancer starts with a healthy cell. It acquires more and more mutations in its genetic code, or DNA, until it reaches a tipping point. Then it becomes a cancer and grows uncontrollably.... The researchers have produced evidence of a different idea. The damage is already there in our cell's DNA, picked up as we grow and age, but something needs to pull the trigger that actually makes it cancerous....
Around one in every 600,000 cells in the lungs of a 50-year-old already contains potentially cancerous mutations. These are acquired as we age but appear completely healthy until they are activated by the chemical alarm and become cancerous. Crucially, the researchers were able to stop cancers forming in mice exposed to air pollution by using a drug that blocks the alarm signal.
The results are a double breakthrough, both for understanding the impact of air pollution and the fundamentals of how we get cancer.
The BBC is calling it "a discovery that completely transforms our understanding of how tumours arise." The team at the Francis Crick Institute in London showed that rather than causing damage, air pollution was waking up old damaged cells. One of the world's leading experts, Prof Charles Swanton, said the breakthrough marked a "new era". And it may now be possible to develop drugs that stop cancers forming.
The findings could explain how hundreds of cancer-causing substances act on the body. The classical view of cancer starts with a healthy cell. It acquires more and more mutations in its genetic code, or DNA, until it reaches a tipping point. Then it becomes a cancer and grows uncontrollably.... The researchers have produced evidence of a different idea. The damage is already there in our cell's DNA, picked up as we grow and age, but something needs to pull the trigger that actually makes it cancerous....
Around one in every 600,000 cells in the lungs of a 50-year-old already contains potentially cancerous mutations. These are acquired as we age but appear completely healthy until they are activated by the chemical alarm and become cancerous. Crucially, the researchers were able to stop cancers forming in mice exposed to air pollution by using a drug that blocks the alarm signal.
The results are a double breakthrough, both for understanding the impact of air pollution and the fundamentals of how we get cancer.
It's not a toomah! (Score:3)
It's not a toomah at all!
Re: (Score:2)
Hilarious movie!
Re: It's not a toomah! (Score:1)
More cancer research: (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists Think They've Solved The 'Enigma' of How Air Pollution Causes Lung Cancer [sciencealert.com].
Air Pollution May be Associated With Many Kinds of Cancer [aacr.org].
Blood test spots multiple cancers without clear symptoms, study finds [theguardian.com].
Only for lung cancer? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reading this, is this research only for lung cancer or all cancers? Specifically:
Around one in every 600,000 cells in the lungs of a 50-year-old already contains potentially cancerous mutations. These are acquired as we age but appear completely healthy until they are activated by the chemical alarm and become cancerous. Crucially, the researchers were able to stop cancers forming in mice exposed to air pollution by using a drug that blocks the alarm signal.
Even the aricle keeps mentioning lung cancer and air pollution, but no other cancers.
Re:Only for lung cancer? (Score:5, Insightful)
is this research only for lung cancer or all cancers?
That's not really the correct question. The research is only IN lung cancer. Additional studies would need to be done if the results were found to be similar in other forms of cancer. And very likely the answer is maybe some but not all. Cancer is a complex group of diseases that have all kinds of causes, or at least thought to be of vastly different causes.
The correct question would be, what other cancers might this relate to if any? As some cancers share somewhat similar processes of evolution before they arrive. Perhaps if other cancers share the same process as lung cancer, they would be candidates for checking.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not really the correct question. The research is only IN lung cancer.
Not sure how using "in" instead of "for" makes much difference to the meaning. Clearly the answer to his question is "yes", if it's only "concerning" (to use another interchangeable word) lung cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
No. But you obviously are; a good Slashdot reader, you didn't even read the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One unfortunate effect of early stage cancers (even when no symptoms are evident) is the inability to read and comprehend text displayed on a screen. Amazingly though, one's ability to type nonsensical strings of words is often elevated to a zen like status.
Re: (Score:2)
One unfortunate effect of early stage cancers (even when no symptoms are evident) is the inability to read and comprehend text displayed on a screen. Amazingly though, one's ability to type nonsensical strings of words is often elevated to a zen like status.
Your latter statement, tends to confirm that social media is in fact a cancer.
Quite literally.
Ever wonder what majority of retrovirus do? (Score:2)
I am guessing that much of this 'damaged DNA' is nothing more than virus plucking sequences from other species as well, and sitting around.
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly plausible that SOME of the "damaged DNA" is retroviruses. I can see not basis for concluding that all, or even the majority, is of that nature. It's not like copying errors are that unusual.
Re: Ever wonder what majority of retrovirus do? (Score:2)
Waiting (Score:5, Funny)
For the resident experts on everything here to explain why this study is completely wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's quite simple my dear boy: Lung cancer is a ridiculous liberal myth invented by the liberal elites to control you by making you not smoke good, healthy, tobacco, like God himself intends you to do. If Trump smokes, and he's 94 and not dead, unlike the socialist Queen who never smokes and just died at barely 70, doesn't that tell you all you need to know about so-called "cancer"?
Even if lung cancer existed, it's fairly obvious that a simple anti-parasitic veterinary medicine would be sufficient to kee
Re: Waiting (Score:1)
The media libs just ignore facts they don't agree with, so them so-called "scientists" never wondered why the Marlboro Man and that Chesterfield Doctor looked so healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, FWIW, I heard that the "Marlboro Man" died of lung cancer several decades ago. (Perhaps they've replaced him?)
Re: (Score:1)
At least, everyone *I* know does...
Re: (Score:2)
We can wait together. Might as well crack a beer and get comfortable...it won't be long.
Gene activation (Score:3)
All genes need to be activated, otherwise you would develop random body parts in wrong positions.
It is an interesting idea that the cancer is coming from INSIDE YOUR BODY all along, and the pollution we thought was causing it was merely activating the gene.
This would mean that reducing pollution would be more of a delay for cancer rather than a cure. Of course, if we delay it long enough people can die from other causes. Even if it comes late, I would love to not get lung cancer until I turn 120.
Not a new idea, exactly (Score:2)
The idea that the mutations are already there but stay inactive until something triggers them is not new, though this study may have added something to our understanding of some of the mechanisms. I read a number of years ago that experiments in mice have shown that you can cause a bunch of DNA mutations in mice that stay silent until you cut the area that was exposed to the carcinogen. When the cells start dividing to heal the cut, the silent mutations suddenly become active and cancer develops. The mut
Effects with radon? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am curious how this affects the view on radon. Radon is a noble gas emitted from natural rocks which decays and releases alpha particles. This is extremely bad to inhale and is the leading cause of lung cancer after smoking, according to present knowledge.
There is an excellent and dramatic TED talk on the subject here: https://www.ted.com/talks/aaro... [ted.com]
I have long suspected the mixture of radon and fine particulate matter to be dangerous, as radon daughters are known to attach to them. This is even used in animal studies to find out where nano-particles migrate to when inhaled.
In Sweden, the rock material used for concrete is very rich in uranium and historically we have used alum shale to create lightweight "gas" concrete. The latter has high enough uranium content that it was once mined for our indigenous nuclear programme.
The use of this construction material did not stop until the late eighties and ever single house I have lived in on the west coast of Sweden has used this conctrete. Our current radon level limits are twice that recommended by the WHO and 45% higher than US EPA limits.
A recent vote on lowering the allowable limits to WHO standards failed, motivated soley by cost. Despite 500 yearly lung cancer cases in Sweden (compared to 350 yearly traffic deaths) it was considered cheaper to let people die than to fix the problem.
Re: (Score:1)
that's very interesting, thx.
That makes me happy I live in a wood-framed house without a concrete foundation.
Radon might also come from the ground (Score:2)
I was focusing mostly on concrete due to the fact that it is such a widespread problem here, used in many old apartment buildings. But radon also comes from the ground, especially rock- and sand-rich environments. In Sweden our municipalities publishes color-coded radon maps based on data from the Swedish Geographical Survey office. You can use these to get a rough estimate of the risk.
The best thing is to actually measure the levels, provided you can stomach a bad result. Unfortunately in Sweden, if you ar
Re: (Score:2)
It is the same issue in Canada. The WHO limit is 100 Bq / cubic meter, while Health Canada has it at 200, and the USA has it at 150.
Bq is a Becquerel, which is one radio active decay event per second.
I had 'measure radon' on my list of to do things for many years. Then last year Health Canada sent reminders for people to measure radon at home, because more people are spending time working from home due to
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the tip, but I already own a RadonEye RD200: http://radonftlab.com/radon-se... [radonftlab.com]
It is a Bluetooth-connected logger with an excellent app and a real-time display. It measures in 10 minute intervals and applies a sliding window average. It can give a momentary reading in about an hour and runs on 12V, so you can even spot-check buildings on the go. Mine has been going strong for 3+ years now, but officially needs calibration after 2 years.
You can download graph data over Bluetooth as text files via t
Re: (Score:2)
If your population dies young, cancer will not be a major contributor.
Unfortunately (Score:1)