> 99% of people in the world live in places where air pollution exceeds the WHO guidelines<p>Wow. I knew cities are polluted but this is extreme. In 50 years we might look at pollution as we look at smoking now, a terrible self-inflicted wound on civilization that took way too long to acknowledge and fix.
So... what are possible side effects of suppressing that signal? As I understand the article, one would have to do so long-term. I mean, is that signal really so useless? I would think it occurs for a reason?<p>My understanding is that sure, inflammation is a heavy weapon of the immune system that causes quite a bit collateral damage because it's more like a weapon of mass destruction instead of carefully targeted strikes. I would think it exists for a reason though, although frequently repeated use, again as I understand it, is not how it's supposed to work. Still, suppressing it entirely and long-term, what would that do?
Proponents of fasting will love this, since the idea is that not eating for a while will cause the body to scavenge for this old / damaged cell material.
"The idea of taking a cancer-blocking pill if you live in a heavily polluted area is not completely fanciful. " - Prof Charles Swanton<p>Really interesting and, obviously major news in the battle against cancer.<p>In terms of research funding; wonder if it will lead to industries linked with cancer, e.g. tobacco, alcohol, motor vehicles ... , quietly starting to fund prophylactic R&D as well?
It would be interesting to know if the probability of developing cancer has a linear relationship with the amount of air pollution. For example would double the amount of PM2.5 pollution double the cancer risk?
This sounds amazing, and anything that go towards curing cancer is fantastic.<p>I do hope this means that we don’t give up trying to reduce pollution though, that it won’t sap the resolve for clean air.
This is a known fact: PM 2.5 causes irreversible inflammation of the specific cells, leading to an immune cascading effect that may go unregulated. The timing of the news is with the Oncology conference, so it attracts more attention. It is rehashed news. It requires an environmental clean up, but must be balanced by the costs. It is usually difficult to reverse sunk costs for prior human activity. Often, it requires careful deliberation around vehicular pollution.
If I were at a cigarette company, I’d be telling my bosses to fund this research more so then they’d be able to market “cigarettes that don’t cause cancer” right?