I mean, you could try looking literally anywhere.. This is a well known problem;<p>From 2014:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;bw&#x2F;articles&#x2F;2014-02-28&#x2F;rates-of-lung-cancer-rising-steeply-in-smoggy-beijing" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;bw&#x2F;articles&#x2F;2014-02-28&#x2F;rates-of-lun...</a><p><pre><code>    In 2002, for every 100,000 men living in Beijing, 49
    had lung cancer. By 2010, that number had risen 
    more than 50 percent, to 75. Women in China are 
    less likely to smoke and so have lower rates of the 
    disease. But among those living in Beijing, a similar 
    sharp rise in lung cancer cases occurred over the 
    last decade. In 2002, for every 100,000 women 
    living in Beijing, 30 had lung cancer; by 2010, that 
    number had also risen more than 50 percent, to 46.
</code></pre>
So the rate in the US is 60&#x2F;100,000 -- As of 2010, in Beijing, the rate is closer to 121&#x2F;100,000. Does a 100% increase in risk change your opinion of these &#x27;marginal&#x27; deaths? For a population of 21M, this is equivalent to ~13,000 additional lung cancer deaths.