Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers • Hacker News Board

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#161

Post by Waterluvian » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 3:28 AM UTC

tumult wrote: post #155

Waterluvian wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the average level of radon in the air outdoors is 10% of that, being outdoors is 20 chest x-rays per year, eh? That’s almost a cigarette per day being outdoors! https://www.epa.gov/radon/what-epas-action-level-radon-and-w... The EPA doesn’t make such creative claims. But the sites that do will also conveniently sell you stuff. https://radonbegone.com/what-does-your-radon-number-mean/ https://www.nationalradonde…

The indoor level of radon isn't going to be lower than outdoors. Indoors is either the same or higher than outdoors. Your level of exposure to radon will not go up by going outside. That's your background exposure level, and is already baked into the calculation of how much an effect an elevated exposure to radon in your home will have on you. Radon is a serious thing to consider, especially if your home has a baseme…

Like any good scam, they take a legitimate issue for few and sell it to many who don’t need it.

These websites will try to tell you that the average indoor radon level is equivalent to 2.5 cigarettes per day or 66 chest X-rays per year. The EPA doesn’t make that claim though.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#162

Post by lordofgibbons » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 3:40 AM UTC

aetherspawn wrote: post #160

I can think of a few hypothesis, but I’d hit all the reasons we already know that people in their 30s are getting cancer first, like: Natural gas burning inside with poor ventilation (solve by pushing electric everything, paid for by carbon tax paid by big oil) ICE car exhaust (solve with EVs, subsidised by carbon tax paid by big oil) Second hand smoke (ban smoking in public and within XX distance of a child, and mak…

But all of these factors have been around for many decades, why is it showing up now?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#163

Post by userbinator » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 3:41 AM UTC

diziet_sma wrote: post #135

userbinator wrote: post #134

Among certain groups of Asian and Asian American women, that share is estimated to be 50 percent or more. I suspect certain perfumes may be causing it.

Or perhaps cooking? Cooking can really spike AQI if ventilation is suboptimal. Another potential explanation is cleaning products. I think these are both far more likely than perfume, as there is a much stronger link between AQI and lung cancer than perfume and lung cancer (if there is any at all).

Professional chefs are largely not Asian women, and cook a lot more. Has there been a similar trend in them?

Cleaning products is a possibility.

Incense is another one --- those who burn incense may not consider it smoking, but any burning plant matter is going to emit similar products of combustion.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#164

Post by temp0826 » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 3:53 AM UTC

asgraham wrote: post #140

gerdesj wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... well that is irrational

I can’t find any complete numbers (most prevalent factors after smoking would be environmental, and therefore underreported, especially when as hard to detect as radon), but national health agencies tend to put the Radon section second, after Smoking [1,2]. An uncited figure on a Hopkins webpage suggests 30% of non-smoking lung cancer cases are caused by Radon [3]. Among the well-known environmental factors (asbestos…

> Of course this is all moot because vaping will be revealed to be the current #1 cause of lung cancer in the coming decades, by a long shot. No citation necessary.

That isn't obvious or apparent to me at all so I do think a citation would be good to see. Nicotine is definitely a culprit in a lot of cardio-related issues for sure. I think some flavoring agents are the more questionable thing and would be curious to hear about those specifically in relation to lung cancers.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#165

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 4:11 AM UTC

>Studies have also shown that people who don’t smoke but have a family history of lung cancer, such as Ms. Chen and Ms. Liu — both of Ms. Liu’s grandfathers had the disease — are at increased risk. This could be because of shared genetics, a common environment or both, said Dr. Jae Kim, chief of thoracic surgery at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif.

Couldn't this be secondhand smoke?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#166

Post by ojosilva » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 4:19 AM UTC

lordofgibbons wrote: post #162

aetherspawn wrote: post #160

I can think of a few hypothesis, but I’d hit all the reasons we already know that people in their 30s are getting cancer first, like: Natural gas burning inside with poor ventilation (solve by pushing electric everything, paid for by carbon tax paid by big oil) ICE car exhaust (solve with EVs, subsidised by carbon tax paid by big oil) Second hand smoke (ban smoking in public and within XX distance of a child, and mak…

But all of these factors have been around for many decades, why is it showing up now?

Because smoking is down, and with it, smoking-related lung cancer. Nonsmoker lung cancer numbers OTOH remain steady and its percentage is therefore higher.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#167

Post by SkyPuncher » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 4:25 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #112

dgfitz wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it doesn’t prevent cancer. It lowers the risk of a specific kind of cancer by some amount. Is it $650 worth? That’s what I’m stuck on. People just go by vibe and say things like “it’s a good investment” but that’s just coming from I don’t know where.

While your technically correct, you're practically wrong.

Literally, the CDC only mentions two primary sources of lung cancer: smoking and radon. Unless you have an unusual, alternative risk factor, it's practically correct to say eliminating smoking and radon prevent lung cancer.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#168

Post by owenversteeg » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 4:26 AM UTC

I think a large contributor is poor indoor air quality - of all types, not just one specific pollutant - causing inflammation and thus cancer. Homes have gotten far tighter in recent years, and people buy ever more cheap furniture and inexpensive consumer products. So you have formaldehyde and other VOCs off-gassing, you have plasticizer vapors, nanoplastics in the air from synthetic furniture and cloth, you have refrigerants leaking from appliances and from insulation foam… I don’t think nearly anyone understands just how many unique poorly-studied chemicals are emitted into your indoor air by your average set of household products. That’s all to say nothing of common and better-understood air quality issues from gas cooking, radon, mold, etc.

So we have all these irritants in the air, and we have the most airtight homes in human history by orders of magnitude… what did we think was going to happen? That you could slap a laughably undersized carbon filter on an air purifier and call it good? Or that a limited number of too-small ERV systems would help? At some point we will need a radical rethinking of our approach to health and safety of new technology.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#169

Post by adamsiem » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 4:34 AM UTC

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.

And heating/cooling the fresh air replacing evacuated air + radon.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#170

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 4:48 AM UTC

owenversteeg wrote: post #168

I think a large contributor is poor indoor air quality - of all types, not just one specific pollutant - causing inflammation and thus cancer. Homes have gotten far tighter in recent years, and people buy ever more cheap furniture and inexpensive consumer products. So you have formaldehyde and other VOCs off-gassing, you have plasticizer vapors, nanoplastics in the air from synthetic furniture and cloth, you have ref…

Houses weren’t so much better, but people are living in those houses longer (well, that’s true about all cancers). Perhaps one reason California life expectancy is better than other states is that they can mostly keep their windows open year round.