Live data from Hacker News

Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

nytimes.com

71–80 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#71

Are lung cancer rates up? Obviously eliminating or reducing the primary cause will lead to larger percentages of the other causes among cases.

Yeah, this title for the article is really terrible. The "why" that scientists are investigating is not why many lung cancers aren't in nonsmokers. The "why" they are investigating is "why are these non smokers getting cancer?". Once smoking stops being such a dominant cause, you put more energy into the other cases.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#72
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly what I was getting at. There are several ways to view the story. Another commenter mentioned failing to design cars for women (totally fair! Volvo famously had a botched attempt at this) What I have come to appreciate is how vulnerable women feel in the world. It is hard to appreciate how that plays into car choice if you are a man. Most men will never be able to understand, imo.

Only 20 years ago used to be the "hairdresser car" meant a tiny little sporty coupe or convertible like a miata. I guess the marketing changed and cultivated a new generation with a new mindset.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If ignorance gives you cancer while you live there, maintaining it in the hopes of avoiding disclose requirements in the future is both dumb and evil.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#74
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…

Pollution was way worse in the past. Old pictures of american cities from 50 years ago look like Beijing. We hadn't yet offshored heavy industry by that point and like you said, a larger percent of the metro was living closer to it. And whatever you saw outside was actually better than your air quality inside where these pollutants would accumulate and mix with Dad's cigarette smoke.

This was the air you were breathing back then (1, 2, 3).

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://...

2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/SKYSCRAP...

3. https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satev...

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just look at old photos of city smog in the 1960s. It is night and day different compared to air today even with larger populations in these same metros in some cases.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#76
post #51

Are lung cancer rates up? Obviously eliminating or reducing the primary cause will lead to larger percentages of the other causes among cases.

On the surface, the data from the American Lung Association appears to support that hypothesis... https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/lung-ca...

The graph seems to shoe me it's peaked and is back on the way down ?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#77
post #31
post #11

It happens more in women, especially in countries with traditional gender roles. They are doing more cooking in the kitchen where there is fire.

not in the US: https://www.cdc.gov/united-states-cancer-statistics/publicat...

The US fairly typically has electric stoves. Natural gas stoves are going to be the second most common form of cooking.

In the countries the OP is talking about, people cook over literal fires and fire pits (sometimes enclosed). Even when that happens in the US, unless you are talking about camping, you are likely talking about something like a well vented wood stove or wood stove oven like my grandma had.

An example of what I'm talking about: https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/financ...

And here's what wood fired stoves look like in the US even 100 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XcuznPQjLs

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#78
post #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.

But they are so tough though...

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#79

Are lung cancer rates up? Obviously eliminating or reducing the primary cause will lead to larger percentages of the other causes among cases.

Except reducing the first cause does nothing about whether air pollution is a nontrivial factor. And nonsmoker cancers are a nontrivial proportion since they account for 10-25 percent of lung cancer worldwide, please just read the article.

Besides the base rate fallacy there is the fallacy of assuming only the biggest factor is what matters, when other factors are nontrivial weights already. Another fallacy is the fallacy of relativizing a problem framing by insisting on comparison with an obsolete problem --campaigns against smoking have done a lot, so why are we still comparing today's problems against the problems of the 20th century. It smacks of "well, things were even worse back then", which surely the base rate fallacy is not trying to suggest.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#80
The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon. My high schooler came home and said her science teacher said everyone should do a radon test. I scoffed, but humored her by getting a kit from Home Depot and sending it away to a lab. The results came back very high. So I purchased an electronic radon monitor and it showed almost the exact same results. Well, crap. I installed a radon mitigation system and now the numbers are almost nil.
Post reply on HN