this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
45 points (97.9% liked)

Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

2195 readers
365 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

More young and middle-aged women are being diagnosed with lung cancer at a higher rate than men, and scientists are struggling to understand why, new research shows. Awareness of the disease’s effects on women is lacking, experts say, and the US government spends significantly less on its research than on similar studies in men.

“When you ask people what the number one cancer killer of women is, most will say that it’s breast cancer. It’s not. It’s lung cancer. Lung cancer is a women’s health disease, but we clearly need to educate more people about it,” said Dr. Andrea McKee, a radiation oncologist and volunteer medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 29 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Have you been in a salon? Those spray products are unholy. Breathing in those things every day for years can't be good.

[–] PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Makeup and perfumes are inhaled way more by women outside of a salon too. That just can’t be good for a person.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah, people are fixating on the salon, but I just meant that as an example. Many women use a lot of product at home every day. It can't be good.

[–] Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (3 children)

So why don't barbers have a high cancer rate?

[–] Fermion@mander.xyz 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Hairdressers do have above average rates of cancer, amongst other elevated rates of health conditions linked to chemical exposure.

https://womensvoices.org/safe-salons/beauty-and-its-beast/

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/38/6/1512/672312?login=false

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Who says they don't? Was there a study done on them?

Anecdotal but I’ve not seen a barbers on the level of women’s salons, and I was in the barbers yesterday.

Not an aerosol in sight. Sure sprayed me with some liquors but nothing like what women spray.

Plus women have salons for hair, nails and whatever else so more exposure.

[–] IonAddis@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is completely pulling ideas out of my butt, but it's been shown time and time again that small particulate matter is bad for lungs, and women tend to wear makeup daily for large chunks of their lives.

Could there be some subtle carcinogen effect from makeup dust which only builds up through years/decades of constant makeup use? And now that tobacco use is on the wane, that spike is only being uncovered now?

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago

Anything with talc, has a certain percentage of asbestos in it.

Ask J&J why they’re hiding their assets to avoid paying for the baby powder that killed people for decades.

I know powdered makeup used to have talc, but none of the stuff my wife ever used had much in the way of ingredients listed on it. That needs to change, especially with regard to carcinogens and allergens.

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Conjecture; natural gas stove cooking, it's been shown to contain all sorts of awful carcinogens and many stoves are not properly vented and often still venting is not regularly used enough as education on the dangers of gas emissions has been subdued by industry for decades.

[–] dxc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So if we go stereotypical, men gotta breath all sorts of different particles from construction sites or even the garage

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Silicosis is a big disabler of men in mining and concrete work. Proper PPE can pretty much eliminate it, and has helped bring down cases in the last couple decades.

Women working with particulates and VOCs should also be taking preventative steps.

[–] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

The article mentions that non smokers should be screened and then links to current eligibility for screening and basically if you haven't smoked enough you're not eligible.

[–] athos77@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

the US government spends significantly less on its research than on similar studies in men.

Typical ...

[–] o0joshua0o@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I wonder if vaping is more popular with young women than other demographics.

[–] LostDeer@infosec.pub -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's probably just some sexist bias influencing the studies. I'm guessing the doctors performing the studies have reviewed cases from actors and actresses, who use a lot of makeup and hair spray, and still found a higher rate of lung cancer in women.

Maybe women are more likely to the doctor at the first sign of trouble rather than waiting until the cancer spreads leading to more diagnosisis?

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Not sure why you are getting down voted. This could easily be true and where not needs to be controlled for. Controlling variables is the only way to get good science. It in no way is a dismissal of the potential problem.