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

111–119 of 119 posts

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

#111

Post by willy_k »

manarth wrote: post #28
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These comments are filled with people who believe that everyone else here is dumber than they are. Leaving shallow dismissive comments explaining something that doesn't need to be explained is like crack to them.

It's a bit more than that. The migration from mouse models to human understanding is long and complex, and although it's a meme, "in mice" is a good shortcut for saying "This is a good start, but it's not ready to extrapolate into conclusions against the impact to human beings". https://www.in-mice.com/

That was a good example of their point, thank you!

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

#113

Post by asdff »

Authors seemed to have considered genetic implications of the driver mutation and downstream effects, but there are considerations to be made ahead of this point too. This sort of damage for example is typically detected and repaired. The fidelity of that repair mechanism is liable to vary among the population for many reasons.

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

#114

Post by pazimzadeh »

piguin wrote: post #109
pazimzadeh wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea of checking for that, but not sure the numbers add up. Anterior head + legs + arms = 31.5% Anterior + Posterior torsos = 36% > which would probably be similar to how many times the burns on the arms in terms of surface area x added probability I disagree, my whole point is that frequent low/moderate exposure (such as arms) reduces the chance of burning during high exposure I looked up the number, and…

My point is more that you are fishing for confirmation of your theory instead of answers that fit the data. High sunscreen use (assuming rational choices for when to use it) and left arm truck driver risk is very consistent with a microeconomics model of UVR x filter factor on each cell determining probability for any given cell. Some other problems with a study of Ontario work exposure are covered in the study itsel…

> you are fishing for confirmation of your theory instead of answers that fit the data

If you say so.

> left arm truck driver risk

Truck driver sunlight exposure is spectrally different from ordinary sunlight. It is all UVA, over many hours a day. To repeat myself, moderate exposure to preferentially UVB likely yields the highest reward/risk.

> a microeconomics model of UVR x filter factor on each cell

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the economics stuff but in addition to not mentioning the UVA/UVB difference, your model doesn't seem to take into account host repair pathways, which actually require some moderate damage to be activated, but are overloaded by too much damage (similar to the effect of exercise on the body).

Enhancement of UVB-induced DNA damage repair after a chronic low-dose UVB pre-stimulation

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15687...

> Some other problems with a study of Ontario work exposure are covered in the study itself.

Some other potential problems, sure, along with a mention of potential benefits of vitamin D from optimal sunlight levels.

Since sunlight is associated with a lower risk of almost all cancers (including recovery from melanoma), not to mention autoimmune diseases, and skin cancers are amongst the easiest to catch early and to treat when caught early, it is very irresponsible to argue against the benefits of sun exposure. The idea that every additional unit of "UVR" carries an identical marginal risk is especially harmful.

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

#115

Post by pazimzadeh »

anon48293 wrote: post #105
pazimzadeh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool anecdote but as I said, in the middle of the day you should go for a shorter amount of time (starting with just a few minutes) to get ideal UVB exposure. Tourists are an especially bad example since they often work indoors all year or come from less sunny countries, so the sudden sun exposure is doubly bad for them. Spain is sunnier yet has lower melanoma incidence than Northern Europe..almost like moderate sun…

Or like the people living there for generations have slightly darker skin which protects better against the sun..

For sure that contributes to their higher ceiling for exposure, and also makes it harder for them to get vitamin D, which is why they shouldn't avoid going to the beach until the sun is down, since as a population they are quite deficient in Vitamin D.

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

#116

Post by piguin »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #114
piguin wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is more that you are fishing for confirmation of your theory instead of answers that fit the data. High sunscreen use (assuming rational choices for when to use it) and left arm truck driver risk is very consistent with a microeconomics model of UVR x filter factor on each cell determining probability for any given cell. Some other problems with a study of Ontario work exposure are covered in the study itsel…

> you are fishing for confirmation of your theory instead of answers that fit the data If you say so. > left arm truck driver risk Truck driver sunlight exposure is spectrally different from ordinary sunlight. It is all UVA, over many hours a day. To repeat myself, moderate exposure to preferentially UVB likely yields the highest reward/risk. > a microeconomics model of UVR x filter factor on each cell I'm not quite…

If we live long enough to reproduce and usually impart some guidance to offspring evolution has done the optimization it will do. You seem to want to believe in a lot of systems that may sort of work but really we are not right to expect that every dose of UVR isn't a roll of the dice for a game plan that works out to less than 30 years in the sun while having hair or taking reasonable precautions for having no hair.

Trying to hide low but perpetual UVR risk for people who think they are going to be immortal is counterproductive compared to fixing the delusion that would make someone avoid life expecting to get more of it.

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

#117

Post by pazimzadeh »

piguin wrote: post #116
pazimzadeh wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are fishing for confirmation of your theory instead of answers that fit the data If you say so. > left arm truck driver risk Truck driver sunlight exposure is spectrally different from ordinary sunlight. It is all UVA, over many hours a day. To repeat myself, moderate exposure to preferentially UVB likely yields the highest reward/risk. > a microeconomics model of UVR x filter factor on each cell I'm not quite…

If we live long enough to reproduce and usually impart some guidance to offspring evolution has done the optimization it will do. You seem to want to believe in a lot of systems that may sort of work but really we are not right to expect that every dose of UVR isn't a roll of the dice for a game plan that works out to less than 30 years in the sun while having hair or taking reasonable precautions for having no hair.…

you lost me, you seem to keep trying to guess my intentions and you ignore the data you don't like

you might want biology be really simple and describable by simple equations but in my experience it's not

paradoxically your sentences are complicated and hard to parse, I have less of an idea of what you are saying the more you say

I'm not hiding anything, if anything your gibberish hides the nuances of biology, causes unnecessary stress, and is probably actively harmful

"every dose of UVR is a roll of the dice" is an insane position not supported by the data

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

#118

Post by KetoManx64 »

aantix wrote: post #3

Anecdotally, whenever I go swimming with my kids in the summer, and I don't put sunscreen on right away, but let myself get some intense direct sun, I feel good and sleep really well that night. As long as I don't let myself get in a red, sunburn situation.

Vitamin D levels are directly tied to melatonin production, that's why the less sun you get the worse your sleep gets. Vitamin D also lowers inflamation throughout the body.

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

#119

Post by firmretention »

keeganpoppen wrote: post #91
coolThingsFirst wrote: post #9

Even if smoking didnt cause cancer it would still be terrible. 6 months since i quit using nic gums.

trying to get off vaping, myself, and it is both "not that hard" and... a very sticky habit. good for you. was never a smoker, but that doesn't make it a good habit.

I found the physical addiction much harder to kick. I switched to no-nicotine e-liquid and felt very little in the way of withdrawals. But months later I was still reaching for a phantom vape to puff on. It's been almost two years now and I never think about it anymore.
Post reply on HN