Live data from Hacker News

Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

nytimes.com

1–10 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#3
Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil fuel emissions, mainly from autos.

When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work.

But, I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in cancers for people under 50.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#4
> The thinking used to be that smoking was “almost the only cause of lung cancer,” said Dr. Maria Teresa Landi, a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.

Well, that tells a lot: overfocusing on a single cause because it is obvious and major. Well, let us hope the medical science learns this lesson.

ETA: not that I blame them, it is a reasonable attitude but not so good in science.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#6
post #3

Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil fuel emissions, mainly from autos. When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work. But , I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in cancers…

Modern cars should be equipped with a catalysator, making the majority of pollution to be Co2, worsening the global warming.

To some extent heavy metals are being distributed in the air by the wheels in heavily populated areas.

This can be greatly improved by limiting traffic in heavily populated areas. Trump removed such a rule from New York City recently for reasons I can not comprehend.

Many european cities have improved air quality successfully and hence increased life expectancy by limiting car traffic.

The majority of air pollution of particles however, is caused by the industry (the companies making those cars, among others).

In fact, you are a worse polluter of the earth today if you buy a new Tesla than if you kept driving your 1980s gasoline car due to the amount of pollution created by producing a single vehicle.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#8
> Leah Phillips, of Pewee Valley, Ky. Doctors first mistakenly diagnosed her with asthma and then anxiety. Later, they said she had pneumonia. When an oncologist finally told her in 2019 that she had metastatic lung cancer, he gave her six to 12 months to live. “Go home and get your affairs in order,” Ms. Phillips remembered him saying. She was 43, and her children were 9, 13 and 14.

(One of many cases mentioned in the article.)

Before you head for the lab, to start researching "why" - maybe you should tighten up the standards for diagnosis and testing? That could enormously improve the qualities & quantities of life for a huge number of patients.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#9
post #3

Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil fuel emissions, mainly from autos. When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work. But , I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in cancers…

I know no one's ever going to change their ways cause of the increasingly evident ravages of climate change but I swear I feel like throwing rocks at the big SUVs rolling by with exactly one person in them during the heat domes here in NYC.

Just, so, gross.

And it truly is the _vast majority_ of cars going by with exactly one person in them. So wasteful, so much pollution, so hot... frustrating.

Post reply on HN