Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers • Hacker News Board

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#191

Post by asgraham » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 6:59 AM UTC

temp0826 wrote: post #164

asgraham wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Fair enough. Cancer causation is just so weird, I'm going off the heuristic that stuff in your lungs that your lungs aren't prepared for is probably not great, especially with chronic exposure. And your lungs are really only prepared for air (which includes many things within certain tolerances [0]). The "not great" => "cancer" pipeline is really where the hand-waving comes in, and mostly far too early to tell whether the parts of vaping that are "not great" for your lungs will in fact be carcinogenic for your lungs.

So that being said, I'm mostly going to offer citations for "vaping is not great for your lungs." And that being said, I'm just going to offer citations for "specific parts of vaping are not good for your lungs." But my broader argument is that putting stuff in your lungs is going to be bad for your lungs, and these are just the most obvious ones we've found so far. Unfortunately I won't be able to find a citation for that argument.

So, first, the most recent: a study showing disposable vapes had incredibly high level of toxic metal emissions [1]. The non-disposable Juul et al variously have some concerning levels, but the insane numbers are on disposables, which are largely (entirely?) illegal in the US, at least. Still, they're not illegal everywhere, they were used heavily for several years in the US, and several of the top Google results were redditors complaining about the stupid ban and talking about how to get around it. All of this combines to lung damage down the line, and several of the toxic metals are outright carcinogenic, so lung cancer as well.

A more particular example: popcorn lung is a terrifying name, but pretty restricted risk, given the causing chemical is only in certain flavors, and those have supposedly stopped using it [2]. But again, an example of weird chemicals in your lungs cause weird things, and it'll be decades til we figure out all of them.

And finally, a study showing that vaping plus smoking leads to a four-fold higher risk of lung cancer over smoking alone (yes, they adjusted for age, gender, race, location of residence, prevalent comorbidities, and pack-years of smoking) [3].

[0] I was hoping to make a glib point about even high enough pollen concentration being bad for your lungs, but in fact a recent study suggests that allergies reduce risk of lung cancer! I'm chalking that up to allergies being your body's way of keeping non-air particulates from your lungs, but who knows. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.33...

[1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.5c00641

[2] Not a lot of research on popcorn lung, seemingly. Note that the name is related to its etiology, not its symptoms. https://www.summahealth.org/flourish/entries/2025/03/a-warm-...

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39210964/

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#192

Post by degamad » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 7:26 AM UTC

prawn wrote: post #122

nancyminusone wrote: post #16

Every time you look up something related to Radon, it's always cited as "the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking" I wonder if that's really true. Radon is a big deal where I live. Most homes have a radon mitigation system which is a 20-watt fan that goes over your sump pump hole, and runs continuously to a vent on the roof.

I have never heard of radon as a domestic health concern (40+, have owned multiple houses). Does this vary by country or relate to mitigation industries in a locale?

Varies by geography, so yeah, by country as well. It's a major issue in the US as per the comments in this thread, but here in Australia, almost the entire country[0] has indoor radon levels at 5% or less of the concern threshold level[1]. A few people near certain industries may need to be concerned, but it's not the issue it is in the US.

[0] https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation... [1] https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation...

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#193

Post by elric » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 7:37 AM UTC

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…

It always struck me as odd that radon in basements seems to be a big thing in North America, but is relatively un(der)reported of elsewhere. Is this just a matter of the US being too cautious? Is there perhaps more radon in basements over there? Or does the rest of the world not give a shit for some reason?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#194

Post by aetherspawn » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 7:39 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?

These cause cancer after many decades so for example people who were 10 when this started becoming a big issue are now getting cancer in their 30s and 40s.

This is a professional medical opinion from scientists that was aired on the news recently in Australia.

Cancers in the 30s, all types, are waaay up.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#195

Post by elric » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 7:41 AM UTC

Give it a few more years, vapes will boost those numbers again.

I wish I was joking. But I'm not. I'm seeing 12 year olds with vapes quite regularly. They're so addicted, taking sneaky hits on the bus or on the train. Even when smoking was cool back when I was a kid, I didn't know of anyone that young who was that addicted.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#196

Post by irrational » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 7:43 AM UTC

adamsiem wrote: post #169

zamadatix wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The air is under your slab. How would it be replaced by fresh air inside the house?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#197

Post by irrational » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 7:44 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.

How I look it is, if I’m aware of the risk and do nothing to mitigate it and then down the road one of my kids who sleeps in the basement develops cancer…

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#198

Post by simmerup » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 7:53 AM UTC

elric wrote: post #195

Give it a few more years, vapes will boost those numbers again. I wish I was joking. But I'm not. I'm seeing 12 year olds with vapes quite regularly. They're so addicted, taking sneaky hits on the bus or on the train. Even when smoking was cool back when I was a kid, I didn't know of anyone that young who was that addicted.

Vapes are ridiculous, theyre marketed in the UK as being incredibly safe. But they mess with my body so much whenever I’ve used them I just don’t believe it.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#199

Post by Toutouxc » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 7:59 AM UTC

MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #138

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might actually be brake dust. In that case, the situation most likely will be improved by electric cars because they use their brakes far less often, decelerating with their motors.

I've heard that regenerative braking helps, but the relatively higher mass of an electric car (because of the battery) hurts. I wonder how it adds up in terms of brake dust produced.

My EV is around 25 % heavier than comparable ICE vehicles, but it only uses the disc brakes to stop the car from walking pace and hold it in place. I wouldn't be surprised if the amount of brake dust was less than 5 % of what my previous car emitted.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#200

Post by 3036e4 » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 8:14 AM UTC

zamadatix wrote: post #96

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?…

For 93% of people the only cost is the $15 test kit to verify "yep, don't need to even think about it". For the other 7% that then need to really do a cost-benefit the data is out there but you do need to go through your specific circumstances to get a meaningful number. The risk levels vary vastly (orders of magnitudes) between both the radon level and your life choices/situation, so it's relatively meaningless to s…

Saw someone built his own DIY radon fan system. Think it was a clip from Swedish public service tv. He built it using 12V fans from server racks. Guess that is an option as well.