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

181–190 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#181

Post by dmurray »

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…

One cigarette a day doesn't sound that bad for you. 40-a-day smokers exist and while they're unhealthy, they're not universally dying in their fifties, so one fortieth of that effect seems small.

The biggest risk of smoking one cigarette a day is not that it will give you cancer, it's that it will give you nicotine addiction which will lead to smoking twenty a day and getting cancer. Radon exposure doesn't have that effect.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#182

Post by [deleted] »

HocusLocus wrote: post #176

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 ren…

[deleted]

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#183

Post by seszett »

HocusLocus wrote: post #176

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 ren…

Radon is measurable, my CO2 detector also mesures radon. There is none in my well-insulated house.

Now in a basement in Brittany things would be different, but for most houses in most places, radon is negligible.

There also isn't a notable difference in cancers between radon-rich granitic places like Brittany and the rest of France. I feel like at least in France, the potential dangers of radon are well known.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#184

Post by SubiculumCode »

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…

My daughter wanted to live in the basement area, so I had it tested for radon even though I guess radon is less common where I live. It came back negative, so I feel okay about it...man, the things you need to remember to think about in life.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#185

Post by SubiculumCode »

HocusLocus wrote: post #176

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 ren…

When I finally got to buy a home, we chose one built in the fourties because we really didn't like the feel of newer homes. Love it, but yeah, plenty drafty..erm I mean, fresh air. I do have to worry about lead paint though, which I found out with a cabinet remake.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#186

Post by lelanthran »

calf wrote: post #79
phkahler wrote: post #17

Are lung cancer rates up? Obviously eliminating or reducing the primary cause will lead to larger percentages of the other causes among cases.

Except reducing the first cause does nothing about whether air pollution is a nontrivial factor. And nonsmoker cancers are a nontrivial proportion since they account for 10-25 percent of lung cancer worldwide, please just read the article. Besides the base rate fallacy there is the fallacy of assuming only the biggest factor is what matters, when other factors are nontrivial weights already. Another fallacy is the fa…

> And nonsmoker cancers are a nontrivial proportion since they account for 10-25 percent of lung cancer worldwide, please just read the article.

I read the article, but I can't tell if there's a real problem or not. Having "nonsmokers accounts for 10% - 25% of lung cancer worldwide" doesn't leave me any wiser or more informed. Maybe I missed it in the article, so the rest of my comment is pointless, but ...

What's the percentage of lung cancer in nonsmokers? 10% of the pop? 1%? 0.00001%? Whatever the answer is, why isn't it in the article? Then we can see what "10% - 25% of $BASE_RATE" actually is. If we're seeing "10%-25% of 0.0001%", then that sorta tracks as fine, TBH.

The article seems almost designed to mislead: What's the base rate of lung cancer in nonsmokers? What's the base rate of lung cancer in smokers?

For example, if the base rate of lung cancer in smokers is 25% and the base rate of lung cancer in nonsmokers is 0.1%, then I don't see a problem here; funds directed to eliminating the remaining causes of lung cancer will be better spent on other research.

OTOH, if the base rate of lung cancer in smokers is 25% and the base rate of lung cancer in nonsmokers is %15, then I see a real problem here: maybe we need to direct more research funds towards lung cancer[1].

My expectation is that, with smoking so rare, lung cancer in the combined population must be very low, compared with the time when smoking was not rare.

-----------------------------------

[1] Actually the problem is worse than that: if there was a singular cause for that 15% in my example, then we it would have been cheaper to target that cause instead of spending dollars reducing smoking.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#187

Post by pmezard »

seszett wrote: post #183
HocusLocus wrote: post #176

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 ren…

Radon is measurable, my CO2 detector also mesures radon. There is none in my well-insulated house. Now in a basement in Brittany things would be different, but for most houses in most places, radon is negligible. There also isn't a notable difference in cancers between radon-rich granitic places like Brittany and the rest of France. I feel like at least in France, the potential dangers of radon are well known.

And well communicated, I was surprised to have a full section about this when I changed home last year in Brest.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#189

Post by mschuster91 »

autoexec wrote: post #84
mschuster91 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Hopefully not. I keep the windows up and recycle the air (which should be filtered on its way in anyway). I live a bit closer to road than I'd like considering the traffic levels though so even keeping windows open in the house could be an issue.

> which should be filtered on its way in anyway

Not really unless the car comes with HEPA filters [1], which most don't.

[1] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/car-bus-exposure-...

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#190

Post by karunamurti »

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!

Cost. Maintaining dirt and landscapes in this economy?
Post reply on HN