Not sure what the source is on that chart, but I'll assume it's credible. If that's the case, then despite what the article says, it's hard to believe that most of this decline is not accounted for by the decline in smoking. Surely the decline in smoking accounts for the vast majority of the lung cancer decline, and the peaks for colon and prostate cancer are very close to the same time.

Weird. Why would lung cancer go the opposite direction as smoking prevalence? I understand the dynamic of "cancer only kills people who outlive every other cause of death", but for the discorrelation to be that strong?

Wooow! That's lot of lung cancer deaths, counterintuitively coupled with air pollution elimination.

I wonder how this correlates not with tobacco smoking, but especially with smoking of factory-made cigarettes? Because as I understand those contain virtually no tobacco and you end up smoking garden fertilizer-soaked paper.