Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#71

Post by arethuza »

ThomPete wrote: post #36
monochromatic wrote: post #32

With socialized medicine, these people are stealing from the state. Britain should outlaw smoking, drinking, and eating fatty foods. Two servings of vegetables per day is now compulsory, enforceable by a fine of 20 shillings.

Or they should drop socialized medicine so that people can do whatever they want.

"people can do whatever they want"

People can do whatever they want in the UK when it comes to healthcare - you can go to the NHS or go private if you want. Nobody makes you go to an NHS hospital.

Of course, what you can't opt out of is the tax bill that pays for the NHS - but as the NHS is reasonably efficient I don't mind paying for it if it means that everyone in the country has access to decent health care.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#72

Post by anamax »

DrPhish wrote: post #69
itmag wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean a person can potentially get tested for this, and find out that they have a free pass to smoke as much as they want?

Don't forget that, even if the health-care costs are zero, the financial costs of smoking are non-trivial. In addition to the costs of the cigarettes themselves, there is associated wear on one's home, car and clothes. You can also make arguments for the opportunity costs of time spent smoking, but that's harder to measure.

Don't forget that there are significant benefits to smoking as well.

Yes, even for people who it will kill. (In fact, that's probably one of the benefits for some.)

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#73

Post by lincolnq »

DevX101 wrote: post #43
melling wrote: post #26

The top comment is from a healthy smoker of 65. People always love to discuss how they or someone they know has smoked their entire life and never had a problem. I know lots of smokers who still aren't convinced of the health issues. Seems like there's still a long way to go.

Susceptibility to lung cancer due to smoking is at least partly genetic. If you have certain variants of a specific gene (don't have time for the lit search right now), smoking won't significantly increase your chances of lung cancer. The problem is not everyone has this gene variant, and you probably don't want to be playing Russian Roullette with your health.

OK, the gene is called CHRNA5 and it seems to be related to a nicotine receptor. Here's where I found that: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v40/n5/abs/ng.109.html

According to that article, the SNPs in question are rs1051730 and rs8034191. 23andme tests for both.

(My results indicate that I'm at lower risk, but I'm still not going to pick up a pack of cigarettes anytime soon :)

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#74

Post by lincolnq »

nsxwolf wrote: post #57
_delirium wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give specific numbers, according to one study ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7895211 ), the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is: male smokers: 17% female smokers: 12% nonsmokers: 1%

Which backs up what I said. It's really unusual to see anyone talk about the actual lifetime risk. It's not as scary as saying "your chances are X times greater"... greater than what? If those numbers are accurate, and entirely due to the effects of smoking (not just other lifestyle behaviors more common with smokers, like drinking) that's easily reason enough to quit. But even in the worst case, the fact remains, mo…

"X times greater risk" refers to the likelihood ratio over the Bayesian prior, assuming that this bit of evidence (smoking/not) is independent of other known evidence. Usually the prior is "all people" or "people of ethnotype" or something like that.

You can compute the lifetime risk if you have a prior for the lifetime risk of lung cancer (1% in above example), just by multiplying.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#75

Post by maxerickson »

barrkel wrote: post #41
AznHisoka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating healthy and exercising improves the quality of your life right now, as well as in the future. As does cutting back on alcohol, and smoking.

Almost all food advertised or described as "healthy", I've found to be neutral at best, to actively unpleasant. High fibre, lots of vegetables, fruit, etc.; I actively dislike almost all of it. My favourite foods are lamb, butter, cheese and freshly baked goods, to the point that my morning ritual, before breakfast, involves a (scooter) trip to a bakery. Similarly, I've never enjoyed exercise. I used to cycle to and…

A still useful definition of eating healthy is to eat approximately the correct amount of calories.

Obviously the what is also going to have impact, but it is easy to observe that the great majority of people are not walking around with severe nutritional deficiencies.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#78

Post by DrPhish »

anamax wrote: post #72
DrPhish wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that, even if the health-care costs are zero, the financial costs of smoking are non-trivial. In addition to the costs of the cigarettes themselves, there is associated wear on one's home, car and clothes. You can also make arguments for the opportunity costs of time spent smoking, but that's harder to measure.

Don't forget that there are significant benefits to smoking as well. Yes, even for people who it will kill. (In fact, that's probably one of the benefits for some.)

Could you expand on that? I'd be interested in hearing what the benefits are, as it doesn't seem to be something that is talked about (taboo against discussing the positive aspects of things seen as societally undesirable?).

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#79

Post by herbivore »

While the study did consider fruits and veggies, it did not account for factory farmed meat and dairy consumption, genetically modified foods, animal protein intake, food dyes, cell towers, etc. In 20 years from now we might finally realize that genes alone play a very small role in development of cancer cells. Time will tell.

Re: Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review

#80

Post by freehunter »

DrPhish wrote: post #78
anamax wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that there are significant benefits to smoking as well. Yes, even for people who it will kill. (In fact, that's probably one of the benefits for some.)

Could you expand on that? I'd be interested in hearing what the benefits are, as it doesn't seem to be something that is talked about (taboo against discussing the positive aspects of things seen as societally undesirable?).

I am a user of the e-cigarettes for these benefits he mentioned. I don't like that term, I prefer personal vaporizer, since cigarettes contain much more than just nicotine and vegetable glycol. Particularly for me, I like the increased awareness, concentration, and focus that come from the stimulant effect. When I need to do a code sprint or do a double shift, that plus coffee will keep me awake, focused, and able to work longer than I would normally have been able to. The drug is also useful for appetite suppression (similar again to coffee). Again useful for code sprints or late shifts when getting up for a snack or going for lunch would be counter-productive.

Some people claim nicotine is a relaxant in the correct dose. I have not personally experienced this, the same may not be true of the pure nicotine found in my delivery method of choice.

I won't say it's without risk. Even with e-cigs, there's not enough data to show any long term harm that they may have (although the ingredients separately and with a different vaporization method have been medically approved and are commonly found in asthma inhalers, minus the nicotine). Any stimulant use/abuse carries risks. You have to take that into account before deciding to use one, and limit yourself to using it only when you need the benefits.

Here's the Wikipedia article that explains with some sources how nicotine affects the body.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects)

Post reply on HN