Saturday, February 14, 2009
Lung cancer research deserves more funding
This was published in the Buffalo News Opinion section on February 14, 2009. The name of the person who wrote it was not published.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~My father smoked heavily for decades. Six years before his death, he decided to stop, but it was too late. The lungs have no nerve endings inside, so tumors can grow undetected. There they remain painless until symptoms like a persistent cough or breathlessness present.
In my father’s case, tumors spread to his shoulders, causing him intense pain. Eventually, a doctor pinpointed the cause of his discomfort. Less than six months later, he died at the age of 59.
I find it both alarming and offensive that no more funding goes toward lung cancer research now than when my father died in 1977, despite the fact that lung cancer kills more people than breast, prostate, colon, liver, kidney and melanoma cancers combined.
Health officials know that at least 164,000 new diagnoses occur each year. The amount of funding for lung cancer research remains an abysmal $1,829 for each lung cancer death compared to more than $23,000 for breast cancer and $14,300 for prostate cancer. Early detection programs and successful treatments for those latter two cancers mean anyone having either of them stands a good chance of surviving. Only about 14 percent of those diagnosed with lung cancer will overcome it.
When a dear friend of ours suffered from lung cancer last year, we were asked, “Did he smoke?” Apparently he did years ago, but hadn’t for decades.
It bothered me to hear that question as if it were an accusation: somehow he had brought his disease on by willful carelessness. Despite the fact that lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in our country, the “blame the victim” mentality persists.
My father heard that attitude from health care professionals. When Dad complained of a horrible sore throat, one asked, “What do you want when you abused your body like that?” Those who ask the question of whether a lung cancer victim smoked subscribe to the myth that it is a smoker’s disease, which it is not.
More than half of patients diagnosed with this type of cancer either never smoked or quit years earlier. People who never smoked account for between 15 percent and 20 percent of lung cancers. Of those 20,000 who never smoked and yet suffer from the disease, 80 percent are women. Some of these cases might be attributed to secondhand smoke. Researchers estimate 2,000 deaths result from that exposure each year.
But besides the effects of secondhand smoke, we have a large number of sufferers for which the cause remains elusive. And that number increases, especially among men and women in their 40s. More should be done to combat this disease. More aggressive screening is needed.
Perhaps, because there are no celebrity spokespersons for lung cancer, despite celebrity deaths from it like that of Dana Reeve, lung cancer is the poor step-child of cancers. People don’t want to talk about it, but we must.
More money must be funneled to lung cancer research to stop the carnage. It is horrible to watch a loved one die of cancer, and made more painful when so little is being done to fight this particular one. No one — smoker or nonsmoker — deserves to suffer from its ravages.
Obviously, funding for anything is made more difficult by our economic morass. But finding a cause and cure for lung cancer may save money in the end and stop families from suffering along with their suffering loved ones. It is too late for our friend.
Labels: bone cancer, Dana Reeve, funding, lung cancer, lungs, smoking cessation, suffering
Posted by Henry (Calem's Opa) :: 3:55 PM :: 0 people are more aware
---------------------------------------
Friday, March 28, 2008
Radon: The Silent Home Invader That Can Kill
By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter
Friday, March 28, 2008; 12:00 AM
FRIDAY, March 28 (HealthDay News) -- You can't see, smell or taste radon.
The gas emanates naturally from the soil, seeping up into homes that rest on the ground. The only way to avoid it, really, is to have a house on stilts.
But the radioactive gas is the leading cause of lung cancer among nonsmokers in America, as well as the second leading cause of lung cancer overall, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It claims about 21,000 lives annually.
"It is a health risk you can't see," said Kristy Miller, spokeswoman for the EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. "You can't touch it, you can't feel it. It is an inert gas. It's in your home for a long time, leaving no trail of evidence. It's only your proactive interest and testing that's going to prevent this health risk."
Radon is a global problem -- the World Health Organization says radon causes up to 15 percent of lung cancers worldwide.
About one of every 15 homes in the United States is estimated to have a dangerous radon level, which the EPA defines as more than 4 picocuries per liter of air.
Radon is produced from the natural decay of uranium, an element found in nearly all soils. "The earth is always emitting radon at some level," Miller said. "It's always a part of the outdoor ambient air, in trace amounts."
The gas typically moves up through the ground to the air above and into your home through cracks and other holes in the foundation. The home then traps radon inside.
"A home over the soil can act as a holding tank, allowing radon to accumulate to high levels," Miller said.
When inhaled, radon can damage the lungs by continuing to emit tiny bursts of alpha radiation, she said.
"The alpha emitters can actually damage the DNA of the lung tissue," Miller said. "The lung is extremely sensitive, compared with the skin."
Any amount of radon exposure is bad, the EPA says, but the cancer risk increases over time, as exposure is prolonged.
Because a house's radon level depends on many variables -- the composition of the soil, the construction of the house -- experts warn that any house might have high levels of the gas.
"Even if you have a new home, you might have high radon," said Bruce Snead, an extension specialist at Kansas State University specializing in radiation and indoor air quality. "The only way to know is to test."
The EPA recommends that any homeowner should conduct a radon test. The tests are easy to obtain. They're sold at hardware stores, and some local health departments and extension services offer to sell them at cost to homeowners, Snead said.
"People can test a home on their own," he said. "All they have to do is purchase a test kit, and read and follow the instructions."
The U.S. Surgeon General has recommended that people test their homes for radon every two years, and retest any time they move, make structural changes to the home or occupy a previously unused level of a house.
Homeowners also can hire a radon expert to come in and test levels, an action that some states require as part of a home sale, Snead said. About 20 states have laws requiring notification of radon levels in real estate transactions, and more are considering it, he said.
"Just as lead is a required notification, should the same thing happen with radon?" Snead said.
If high levels of radon are discovered, a relatively low-cost home repair can alleviate the problem, Snead said. The EPA recommends hiring a qualified radon mitigation contractor to do the work, because lowering high radon levels requires specific technical knowledge and special skills.
The most common method of radon reduction is called soil suction. It prevents radon from entering your home by drawing the radon from below the house and venting it through a pipe, or pipes, to the air above the house where it is quickly diluted, Snead said.
"The pipe discharges above the roof line, so this well-known carcinogen will dissipate into the atmosphere," he said. The pipes can work either passively, or with a fan used to pull air from the soil.
The average cost of a radon reduction system is about $1,200, according to the EPA. The cost generally ranges from $800 to $2,500, depending on the characteristics of the house and choice of radon-reduction methods.
Some homes now are being built to be radon-resistant, with gas-resistant foundations and sub-slab fill materials that allow gases to move easily away, Snead said.
Snead recommends that everyone, homeowner or renter, be proactive in dealing with the radon that could be building up in their homes.
"We save lives by having tests done and performing mitigation, and by building houses that are radon-resistant," he said.
More information
To learn more, visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SOURCES: Kristy Miller, spokeswoman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air; Bruce Snead, extension specialist, Kansas State University, ManhattanLabels: lung cancer, lungs, Radon
Posted by Henry (Calem's Opa) :: 11:53 PM :: 1 people are more aware
---------------------------------------