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

171–180 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#171

Post by somenameforme »

mschuster91 wrote: post #60
autoexec wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> primarily to get rid of a microplastics emission source I wouldn't be surprised to learn that inhaled microplastics were causing an increase in lung cancers. We know they end up deep in the lungs.

Personally, I more suspect vehicles. We got a grip on particulate emissions from diesel engines, but brakes and tires still emit fine dust particles. The average one way commute is 30 minutes in the US, so you're breathing in pretty filthy air for an hour a day...

This would be 'pretty easy' to demonstrate by comparing cancer rates by people who live adjacent to busy highways against those who live in rural areas. 'Pretty easy' is always nonsense in observational studies because the confounders have confounders that are confounded by other confounders; even more so for things that are relatively poorly understood, like cancer. But it's at least something that would certainly get (and probably already has been?) funded.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#172

Post by conradev »

Waterluvian wrote: post #148
nic_wilson wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EPA recommends home owners mitigate with radon levels of 4 pCi/L and above, and the EPA recommends home owners mitigate ”consider” mitigation at levels 2-4. Often you will see people post radon results in the 10+ or even 50+ range, which may lead you to think 4 pCi/L is not too bad, but in fact exposure to that level is the equivalent of 8 cigarettes a day or 200 chest X-rays/year.

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…

It’s very region specific. Just like some regions don’t have many basements, some have a lot of radon:

  Here in Maine about 36.5% of radon test results equal or exceed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action level of 4 pCi/L, according to the Lung Association’s “State of Lung Cancer” report.
https://www.lung.org/media/press-releases/maine-radon-2024

If you own a basement in Maine, you should probably test it!

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#173

Post by thaumasiotes »

necheffa wrote: post #137
Waterluvian wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

> What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000? You'll never know. The same way people in the exclusion zone will never know if their thyroid cancer was always destined to be or if it really was related to the Chernobyl meltdown. But spending (closer to $1000) to mitigate some risk from a known threat vector does seem thrifty.

> But spending (closer to $1000) to mitigate some risk from a known threat vector does seem thrifty.

No, there are a lot of known threat vectors.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#174

Post by somenameforme »

mschuster91 wrote: post #46
RajT88 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it. My wife drives a big SUV. She is a small lady, and says the car let's her see the road better and overall feel more safe. Back when SUV's started to get popular, this was a trend they noticed as well. Back then, it was met with a lot of guffaws about yuppie housewives and all that. (This was before the term Karen had been coined)

> She is a small lady So, yet another case of cars not being designed for women (for those that don't get what I'm going on about - crash test dummies are modeled after men, leading to significantly worse crash outcomes for women [1])... it's infuriating. Even a "small" BMW i3, a car one might think to be suitable for people of lower height - my wife tried out one at carsharing, and even despite the seat being all up…

I'm curious about what the peak potential is and how close (or far) we are from there, because even if all things were 100% equal somehow, in a serious crash women will always fair significantly worse due to less musculature, lower bone density, thinner bones, and so on.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#175

Post by omcnoe »

userbinator wrote: post #163
diziet_sma wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Commercial kitchens generally are better equipped for proper ventilation.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#176

Post by HocusLocus »

It was Jimmy Carter days and the OPEC Oil crisis. Prior to 1973... electricity and heating oil was cheap, there were many single pane windows that didn't seal completely. So the default condition was houses as originally built, cooler temps in Winter and more natural ventilation in houses with corresponding higher energy costs.

In 1973 fears that heating in Winter would get more expensive, saw an increase in home renovation. IR viewers were employed for the first time and IR images showed windows and attic vents as glowing with heat (as they had all along) and it looked like money escaping. Rubber seals on doors and windows. Double pane windows.

This trapped the radon in basements (and for some rising out of the basement onto the first floor) to be breathed by humans and gain higher concentrations for the first time in US history. Homes were hermetically sealed.

Since smokers bore the penance of sin... the rise of the '2nd leading cause' went unrecognized for years.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#177

Post by devjab »

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?…

Radon gas is a pretty big thing in construction where I live since our underground is mainly boulder clay (which apparently has or leaks or whatever a lot of radon gas). Anyway, In Denmark a little over 5000 get lung cancer every year, and 300 of thouse are from radon gas. Acording to our Kræftens Bekæmpelse (anti-cancer NGO) there may be an additional 25% risk of radon causing lung cancer if you smoke.

Since around 2000, it's been part of building regulations that you gotta build air-gapped foundations in family homes. Those who can measure radon gas are adviced to buy things to fight it, and you can reduce it to basically 0% for little money.

I never really considered it from an advertisement perspective as it's adviced by our government and non-profit NGO's. So there is that, if that helps you.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#178

Post by lazide »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #153
lazide wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, visit a big city in India for a third view.

Have to wonder what happened differently between countries like China, Japan, and India. I'm not an expert but yeah there is something more to it. Better managed government perhaps?

Indian society is a non-homogenous mix of thousands of different coherent factions, with different languages, clear ethnic/genetic differences, identities, etc. all vying for control.

Many groups have tried to conquer and unify India over the millennia (Mughals, various Hindu kings, the British), but they always lose steam/interest before they can finish the job.

It is (in modern times) also an environment where you’re not allowed to murder your neighbor (generally) or the other factions will gang up on you.

It’s the perfect environment for backstabbing, corruption, and performative changes without actual changes.

No one has ever successfully forced a coherent unifying identity on India - the British just papered over things, and as long as they got paid, rarely attempted to exert more low level control.

China, in contrast, had the Qin dynasty/Qin Shi Huang, which not only did unify China into a coherent ethnic-religious state, but also had periods of clear ‘murder anyone who didn’t fit in exactly as the emperor wanted’.

This resulted in 90%+ of China being from a single genetic group (Han Chinese), having the same religious background (or lack thereof), and being used to being steered from a single central gov’t control point (the central Court in Beijing). The CCP only temporarily diverged from the same historic pattern.

China has a lot of ‘local control’ diversity on the ground (Hokkien, Cantonese, Mandarin are very different languages for example, and say to day life in Southern China vs Eastern or Northern China is very different), but is very used to the central gov’t coming in and stomping everyone into the ground if anyone messes with things the central gov’t cares about. And everyone is generally going to agree they are all Chinese first, instead of say Shanghainese.

Still not a trivial thing to ‘steer’, but China is more steerable.

Japan, being a relatively small Island that isn’t in the middle of any major trading routes or the like, has had even more extreme levels of ‘be like how I say or else’ applied over time, also from a central gov’t/emperor/shogun, and has a far more extreme version of ‘be like everyone else’ than China. They’re even more ethnically consistent - 95% ish.

  To the point they seem to ‘lock in’ to one mindset even at a really extreme level, then ‘flip’ more in lockstep.
Either xenophobia, or conquering, or chill, or whatever.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#179

Post by safety1st »

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?…

My approach is to think carefully about exactly what I want to know, word the question that way, then throw it to the AI and pray. I think this is better than ignoring it or spending too much time on it.

Question: Where does radon related mortality rank versus other mortality factors in the United States?

...

Summary: Radon in perspective

Category / Cause Approx. Deaths per Year (U.S.) Rank / Context

Heart disease ~680,000 #1 overall cause of death

Cancer (all causes) ~613,000 #2 overall cause

Chronic lower respiratory disease ~145,000 #5 overall (includes COPD, etc.)

Lung cancer due to radon ~20,000–21,000

Subset of cancer deaths; about 3–4%

Toxic agents (inc. radon, pollutants) ~55,000 ~2.3% of all deaths (includes radon part)

So AI says it's a bit less than 1% of preventable deaths (or something) annually. Probably puts it in the top 150 causes or so. What you want to do with that hypothesis, or whether you want to spend time sanity checking it, is up to you. Hitting the gym to avoid heart disease is like 35 times more important. A radon home testing kit to eliminate uncertainty about this particular <1% risk is a one time cheap thing though.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#180

Post by 8bitsrule »

Spooky23 wrote: post #67
awakeasleep wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6PPD (N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine) •Purpose: Antioxidant to prevent rubber cracking. •Danger: When it reacts with ozone and air, it forms 6PPD-quinone, a toxic compound shown to kill salmon and other aquatic life at trace levels. •Status: Under increasing regulatory scrutiny (e.g., Washington State has started restricting it). ⸻ 2. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) •Purpose: Byproducts fr…

They contain heavy metals like lead and PFAs. They also break down over time and leach microplastic into the wider environment.

Just ran across this new article on the microplastics in tires:

https://theconversation.com/one-of-the-biggest-microplastic-...

And it links to this further article on 'tire toxicity':

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/toxic-tires-6ppdq-auto-pollutio...

"When tires wear on pavement, 6PPD is released. It reacts with ozone to become a different chemical, 6PPD-q, which can be extremely toxic — so much so that it has been linked to repeated fish kills in Washington state.... Testing by a British company, Emissions Analytics, found that a car's tires emit 1 trillion ultrafine particles per kilometer driven — from 5 to 9 pounds of rubber per internal combustion car per year....

a team of researchers, led by scientists at Washington State University and the University of Washington, who were trying to determine why coho salmon returning to Seattle-area creeks to spawn were dying in large numbers.... in 2020 they announced they'd found the culprit: 6PPD....

Tests by Emissions Analytics have found that tires produce up to 2,000 times as much particle pollution by mass as tailpipes."

Post reply on HN