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

Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#51

Post by Mezzie »

tombert wrote: post #44
Mezzie wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong recommend a UV umbrella. I also hate the feeling of sunscreen and will also fry the minute I so much as look at the sun. Also, linen clothing. Far more comfortable in heat while keeping you covered. Hoodies and jeans sounds miserable.

I've more or less gotten used to the jeans. Probably due to a combination of undiagnosed autism and some very mild bullying in middle school (due to me growing rapidly and people making fun of me for wearing "short shorts"), I have been almost exclusively wearing jeans for everywhere but the gym since eighth grade. The hoodies are a more recent thing and are more miserable. I'll check out linen clothing.

Yeah, there are linen pants too, so you don't have to wear shorts if you don't feel comfortable showing your legs. Linen in general is a great option if you want to not die of heat and you don't feel like showing your whole body to the world.

Since you're autistic, you might want to buy them in person: the tactile sensation of linens can be pretty different, so you might want to touch them before buying if sensory issues are a clothing concern.

One thing to look out for is that a lot of clothing that will come up when you search for linen are linen blends, which are better than a hoodie by far, but aren't going to have the same breeziness as 100% linen. Also, 100% linen wrinkles, so you've got to hang it right out of the dryer if you care about that.

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#52

Post by leawi »

tombert wrote: post #37
leawi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit offtopic, but have you tried different sunscreen types? There are quite a lot of formulations from matte creams to solid sticks. Mentioned because I remember avoiding sunscreens precisely because of that slimy feeling I got from the drugstore ones, that is, until I found an "invisible" one that doesn't feel like anything at all on my skin.

I have not. Do you have any recommendations for specific brands? I'll order a bottle and try it out.

There are honestly quite a lot of them, I usually take whatever's on sale. My favorite so far is Haruhatu Airyfit, but I was also happy with La Roche-Posay (Athelios dry-touch) and Neutrogena (dry-touch or matte). I also like to take Abib stick with me when I travel, it's just really easy to reapply and fits in the pocket.

Edit: I'd also say avoid anything that says "moisturizing" unless you have a really dry skin, they all claim their product is not greasy, and they are all lying, from my experience.

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#53

Post by kelipso »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #31
Noaidi wrote: post #11

This is why Zinc is needed to prevent cancer[1]. The gene they are focusing on in the study [2] is Methylated-DNA--protein-cysteine methyltransferase (MGMT) and it needs zinc as a cofactor [3]. Not enough zinc, lower MGMT, and less DNA protection and repair. Nutritional deficiencies and genetic differences increase the risk of cancer. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-023-03818-6 [2] https://www.na…

That would imply that red meat eaters would be less likely to get cancer which doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not saying that zinc isn't a factor, but I think that saying a blanket "Zinc is needed to prevent cancer" is irresponsible. We should be so lucky that we can narrow it down to a single dietary element or be able to blame it simply upon nutrition.

That’s not how statistical implication works… Learn about sufficient condition vs required condition before you start criticizing people. Taking zinc and smoking cigarettes still increases your chances of cancer, for example.

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#54

Post by wpm »

crims0n wrote: post #47

As a millennial growing up it was beaten into our head that smoking was a death sentence. I recently looked up what the actual cancer rate among smokers was... about 125k people in the US die of lung cancer annual. 25 million people smoke annually. That is a 0.5% chance for occasional smokers. Even if you smoke a pack a day your entire life, the cancer rate is less than 15%. I am in no way saying it is okay to smoke,…

And that 125k includes people who don't smoke and never have. Sometimes the DNA in a single cell just gets fucked up in just the right way to cause cancer. Smoking just increases the odds.

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#55

Post by Mezzie »

Krssst wrote: post #48
Mezzie wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strong recommend a UV umbrella. I also hate the feeling of sunscreen and will also fry the minute I so much as look at the sun. Also, linen clothing. Far more comfortable in heat while keeping you covered. Hoodies and jeans sounds miserable.

I would bet on the sunscreen being a better protection since it also protects against reflected light, but UV umbrellas are so much more convenient. Takes 2s to take out rather than 5min to apply sunscreen properly. (except when it's windy. Rain usually follows the wind, sunlight does not)

Good point re: wind. We don't really get substantial wind + sunlight where I live often. Definitely something to keep in mind.

I'm not sure re: the sunscreen being better. Maybe as a platonic ideal, but it's really easy to miss places when applying sunscreen, whereas a UV umbrella does cover everything with no fuss.

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#56

Post by worldsavior »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #41
brightball wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I typically do the same thing. I only wear sunscreen if I am planning on being in direct sun for an extended period of time where I can't easily get back in the shade. The more you're able to build up a base tan the less you need it to avoid a burn at least.

Isn't tanning basically body's reaction to cellular damage? It reduces further damage but that's due to damage done? (It's largely irrelevant to myself, I pretty much burn immediately and don't / can't really tan, but my wife and her family tan well).

The damage gets healed at sleep. Tanning reduces the need to heal.

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#57

Post by pixel_popping »

GlickWick wrote: post #10
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vitamin D deficiency

Definitely not. Vitamin D takes a while to synthesize and build up. A quick fix like this isn't possible.

It's just that getting sun is healthy (in moderation) and our body reward us, we have this new anti-sun obsession which is likely to cause many health (and mental health) issues

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#58

Post by brightball »

vondur wrote: post #49
brightball wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I typically do the same thing. I only wear sunscreen if I am planning on being in direct sun for an extended period of time where I can't easily get back in the shade. The more you're able to build up a base tan the less you need it to avoid a burn at least.

I'm pretty light skinned and the burn pretty easily. I just put on sunscreen by default when going hiking/mountain biking. I'm really excited for the new sunscreens coming out here in the US that have those new to us ingredients that the Euro's have had forever.

Agreed completely. I also leverage sun shirts quite a bit.

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#59

Post by causalmodels »

IshKebab wrote: post #39
bob1029 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can spend a solid hour in the sun before I start to burn, assuming I have a hat on my head. I've also noticed some correlation between my diet and how fast I burn. Whenever my metabolism is running at/near ketogenesis, it seems like it takes a lot longer for the sun to affect me.

Just so you know, burning & cancer isn't the only reason to avoid strong sunlight - it also causes skin aging (i.e. wrinkles). If you don't want to be super wrinkly when you're old, wear suncream!

When we were dating, the first thing my now wife did was get me on a regimin of sunscreen and tretinoin. I now have significantly fewer wrinkles than my younger siblings (2-3 years).

Re: Why DNA damage from smoking and UV rays cause cancer in some but not others

#60

Post by pdntspa »

crims0n wrote: post #47

As a millennial growing up it was beaten into our head that smoking was a death sentence. I recently looked up what the actual cancer rate among smokers was... about 125k people in the US die of lung cancer annual. 25 million people smoke annually. That is a 0.5% chance for occasional smokers. Even if you smoke a pack a day your entire life, the cancer rate is less than 15%. I am in no way saying it is okay to smoke,…

The actual infection rates for some STIs are also similarly low, per-encounter. But they are high enough that if you are promiscuous and have a large number of at-risk encounters then you will eventually get a bad roll of the dice.
Post reply on HN