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

101–110 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#101

Post by ProAm »

zamadatix wrote: post #97
irrational wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$5000? I got a bunch of quotes and none came anywhere near that high and I live in a home that made it difficult to install the system (finished basement, large footprint, three stories tall, concrete outer walls (ICF), etc. I think the highest was $3,000 and the lowest $1,600. I ended up installing it myself for about $500 in materials.

That's only the initial capex though. $5,000 is a realistic swag for install + lifetime electricity + minor system maintenance.

That is still insanely high. The highest Ive seen for install is $650 but required quite a bit of piping to the exterior.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#102

Post by Ancalagon »

irrational wrote: post #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 num…

I am super uneducated on this, but I thought radon was only a concern for people with brick homes or basements?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#103

Post by johncolanduoni »

Ancalagon wrote: post #102
irrational wrote: post #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 num…

I am super uneducated on this, but I thought radon was only a concern for people with brick homes or basements?

It has more to do with the land you’re built on, though basements make it worse.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#104

Post by gerdesj »

irrational wrote: post #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 num…

"The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon"

Perhaps. I smoked for 30 years and I lived on and off in Devon for at least 15 years.

There is a bloody great pluton underneath Dartmoor in Devon and Bodmin in Cornwall and so on. Hence lots of lovely granite and radon and stuff.

This is the SW of England (UK). Radon emanates out of the earth and pools in cellars and the like and is a major health hazard. Ideally you know about the hazard and dissipate it. A simple fan will do the job.

I'm not sure it is the second leading cause of lung cancer. There are plenty of other pollutants to worry about.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#105

Post by gerdesj »

irrational wrote: post #81
cbsmith wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be radon, wouldn’t it?

... well that is irrational

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#106

Post by TacticalCoder »

arevno wrote: post #56
hansonkd wrote: post #18

I used to live by a busy street in a semi-dense part of town. Cars would be going around 45mph. When I moved from that apartment after 4 years. I was shocked by the amount of black dust covering everything. from the walls to the shelves and floors. I think it was all tire pollution so switching to 100% electric won't mitigate. It was pretty shocking and I wondered how much i increased my risk for lung cancer or other…

The lungs are exposed to air, but they're also exposed to a lot of bloodborne compounds, since a full vascular cycle goes through the pulmonary arteries. The null hypothesis is "it's something in the air", but with the increase in non-lung cancers in young people[1] noted over the past decade, it's entirely possible it's something else, and lung tissue is one of the susceptible ones to whatever it is. [1] https://www…

[dead]

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#107

Post by pessimizer »

polotics wrote: post #59
hulitu wrote: post #44

> Many Lung Cancers Are Now in Nonsmokers. Scientists Want to Know Why Because hypocrisy does not live long. They blamed cigarettes for lung cancer, ignoring all other causes. "Oh, you have cancer but didn't smoke ? You surely were inhaling cigarettes smoke from somebody else.". We can polute further with no repercursions.

smokers thirds FYI: - one third dies a direct smoking related death - one third suffers from smoking related diseases then dies - one third dies of something else, younger than the other two

They used to exaggerate the risks of cancer to smokers. Not many people get lung cancer at all, so 80% of them being smokers still doesn't represent that much risk for an individual smoker.

But like half of smokers ultimately end up with COPD, which can be like taking years to drown to death.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#108

Post by aorloff »

Waterluvian wrote: post #86
irrational wrote: post #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 num…

The difficult thing for me is that while I believe radon can cause lung cancer, I think products are often sold based on fear. “Second leading cause” doesn’t really mean anything in isolation, does it? What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? Could I spend $5000 to cut a bigger slice out of it in another way, like eating better or hiring a grizzly bear to make me exercise more often?…

I might not be in as tight with the grizzlies, but $5k a year for a personal bear trainer seems a bit low. For a regular brown bear sure, but the grizzlies are expensive

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#109

Post by glaucon »

squigz wrote: post #95
nancyminusone wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My (wealthy) high school had a "turf" field which uses little rubber pellets as the "dirt". Those were probably shredded tires too. During football season you would see them tracked around the school, and if you were a football player or in the band they would show up at your house. also, they would periodocially dump "more dirt" onto the field, once every year or so. Not sure if they vacuumed the old stuff up or jus…

Why not just use dirt?! Our planet is covered in it!

Where I live during the Rugby and Soccer seasons it's not uncommon for the 'normal' pitches to be unplayable due to consistent periods of rain.

A number of schools, and public facilities, near me have switched to plastic pitches for this reason. I'm not advocating for them but there is a rationale.

BTW it's not just that being very muddy makes it difficult to play on but that using the pitch in that state trashes the grass.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#110

Post by dgfitz »

zamadatix wrote: post #100
bradlys wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These fans are not using $3000 in electricity over their lifetime.

I guess that depends how old you are when you install it and how long you plan to live but ~$7 per month is not at all an unrealistic electricity usage estimate for the system. 7*12*35 = $2,940. Edit: E.g. the numbers from this site suggest, for 15 out of the 16 listed fan models, the lifetime electricity cost is likely to be significantly larger than the install cost unless you are already much older at the time you…

This point always amuses me. Thats like, 1 starbucks coffee a month, or 1 trip to a fast food place a month, or one extra thing at the grocery store a month, or half a movie ticket a month, or half a streaming service a month, or less than half an LLM subscription a month, I could go on for a while.

For the cost, preventing cancer seems like it's a wise investment. I say this as a cancer survivor.

Post reply on HN