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

Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#61

Post by giraffe_lady »

potato3732842 wrote: post #40
QuercusMax wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But she's making everyone else less safe by driving in her tank-mobile. Those are much more deadly to pedestrians, cyclists, and those in smaller vehicles.

And for every comment screeching about pedestrians and rollover safety there's another one screeching about occupant safety. You can't really fault people for picking the one that benefits them when confronted with roughly equal screeching in both directions.

You absolutely can fault people for taking the choice that makes them safer at the expense of others' safety. I don't know how it became such a popular idea that a moral imperative is only valid if it carries no personal cost.

It may be small in the grand scheme of things but it is wrong to do this, in exactly the same way, but a much smaller degree, it is wrong to shove a child out of your way to escape a burning building.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#62

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

codyb wrote: post #9
jmclnx wrote: 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.

Now imagine the massive global polluting supply chain to put that SUV together for a single person.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#63

Post by Spooky23 »

colordrops wrote: post #37
nancyminusone wrote: post #16

Every time you look up something related to Radon, it's always cited as "the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking" I wonder if that's really true. Radon is a big deal where I live. Most homes have a radon mitigation system which is a 20-watt fan that goes over your sump pump hole, and runs continuously to a vent on the roof.

I bought a house in the hills of Los Angeles and we tested for radon. Turned out it was very high, and LA is one of the few places in California that has high radon. We got it mitigated, and it wasn't that expensive. I talked to neighbors and real estate agents, and no one wanted to know anything about it. I was shocked. Everyone is pulling the wool over their own eyes here.

It’s knowledge that can only hurt you if you’re selling houses. Just like lead paint - it’s smart to be dumb.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#64

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

potato3732842 wrote: post #34
jmclnx wrote: 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 think you grossly underestimate the degree to which cars (and industry that we had yet to kick out to China) were dirtier decades ago than they are today. We're talking like literal orders, plural, of magnitude when comparing between the generally no cats automotive fleet of the 70s with anything since the advent of both cats and computerized fuel injection. Any old timer can tell you of the smog that used to be fr…

Cars were dirtier but I think there were fewer.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#65

Post by NegativeLatency »

simonsarris wrote: post #57
abakker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Airthings radon monitor because of that stat, and one thing that I have learned is that those mitigation systems do not necessarily work. I have a system that works, but initially, even though my house had a system, it did not reliably keep the radon levels below the federal action level. Barometric pressure, temperature, and HVAC all seem to have some bearing - tightening the house for air leaks actually…

> tightening the house for air leaks actually did a lot of good in keeping levels low Wait, really? Intuitively I would expect the opposite, that a draftier house is better for radon levels indoors

There's probably a tipping point between the stack effect (hot air rising and pulling on the radon) and drafts bringing in fresh air diluting the radon.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#66

Post by severino »

colordrops wrote: post #37
nancyminusone wrote: post #16

Every time you look up something related to Radon, it's always cited as "the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking" I wonder if that's really true. Radon is a big deal where I live. Most homes have a radon mitigation system which is a 20-watt fan that goes over your sump pump hole, and runs continuously to a vent on the roof.

I bought a house in the hills of Los Angeles and we tested for radon. Turned out it was very high, and LA is one of the few places in California that has high radon. We got it mitigated, and it wasn't that expensive. I talked to neighbors and real estate agents, and no one wanted to know anything about it. I was shocked. Everyone is pulling the wool over their own eyes here.

> We got it mitigated, and it wasn't that expensive

What's the process, usually, adding some special ventilation system to the house?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#67

Post by Spooky23 »

awakeasleep wrote: post #38
tmountain wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just talking to my wife about playgrounds using shredded tires as the "mulch". I don't know where the rubber comes from, if and how it is cleaned, or what particulate material it carries, but it seems dubious at best.

6PPD (N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine) •Purpose: Antioxidant to prevent rubber cracking. •Danger: When it reacts with ozone and air, it forms 6PPD-quinone, a toxic compound shown to kill salmon and other aquatic life at trace levels. •Status: Under increasing regulatory scrutiny (e.g., Washington State has started restricting it). ⸻ 2. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) •Purpose: Byproducts fr…

They contain heavy metals like lead and PFAs. They also break down over time and leach microplastic into the wider environment.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#68

Post by asdff »

colordrops wrote: post #37
nancyminusone wrote: post #16

Every time you look up something related to Radon, it's always cited as "the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking" I wonder if that's really true. Radon is a big deal where I live. Most homes have a radon mitigation system which is a 20-watt fan that goes over your sump pump hole, and runs continuously to a vent on the roof.

I bought a house in the hills of Los Angeles and we tested for radon. Turned out it was very high, and LA is one of the few places in California that has high radon. We got it mitigated, and it wasn't that expensive. I talked to neighbors and real estate agents, and no one wanted to know anything about it. I was shocked. Everyone is pulling the wool over their own eyes here.

Do you have a source for the high radon in LA? According to this county source it is pretty low in LA county but much more pronounced in Ventura county (1% homes with high levels vs 14%). I imagine there is some potential for accumulation effects but this is probably much worse in markets where the homes actually have basements.

http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/safety/radon.htm

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#69

Post by asdff »

QuercusMax wrote: post #29
doubled112 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really like our station wagon. Well, in principle at least. We won't get into the details of keeping a 12 year old German car going. It's fuel efficient. It's not big. It's a decent people mover. It has more cargo space than many SUVs that are larger. Is low enough the roof racks are easily accessible. Added a hitch, mostly for more cargo space. I'm starting to wonder if I've done more "truck things" than many of…

When I had a Honda Fit I hauled a TON of cargo in it. A friend borrowed it to pick up a full-sized pinball machine from the next state over. I moved half of a 5-bedroom house (except for big furniture) across town in my Fit. You don't need a gigantic beast. A kei truck is more than adequate for the vast majority of what people use pickup trucks for.

Even my old Integra had a ton of trunk space when you fold down the seats. It was almost like a small pickup truck. I think a lot of people would get by with a sedan but it seems like the seats no longer fold down on a lot of smaller cars like that.
Post reply on HN