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

201–210 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#201

Post by pjc50 »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #125
jychang wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is the correct heuristic. Spend $15 or $100 for one or two measurements, *then* worry about cost to mitigate.

Advice also applies to mold. A lot of people worry about mold in their house. It's actually quite straightforward to determine if this is actually a problem: Home Depot sells "test kits" for a few bucks that are essentially petri dishes. Buy two of these, put one inside where you are worried and then the other outside and wait 3-4 days. If they look radically different, then send the inside one in for actual analysis…

Is it common to have an invisible mould problem? Lots of people are in the situation where there is really visible mould but the problem is getting their landlord to fix it, without getting into allegations over drying clothes inside etc.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#202

Post by madaxe_again »

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…

I’d argue that the leading cause is actually genetics. I come from a long line of people who smoked like chimneys from their teens until their 90s, with no cancers. My mother has spent her life in harsh sun with no sunscreen, and looks like an old handbag, but has entirely clear skin - but her partner, who wears strong sunblock, hats, and all the rest, has had skin cancer twice. So have two of his kids.

Meanwhile, my father’s second wife’s family have pretty much all had or succumbed to lung cancer. None of them smoke, and unless they all coincidentally chose radon-riddled homes in different corners of the U.S., there’s no correlative environmental cause - which leaves genetics.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#203

Post by falcor84 »

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?…

I was actually thinking of getting one too. Is there a particular Grizzly-as-a-service offering that you recommend? I'm also considering signing up for Ostrich-as-a-service, and am really struggling with this decision.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#204

Post by menaerus »

Waterluvian wrote: post #156
furyofantares wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you on wanting to quantify. https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon Scroll down to "Radon Risk If You Have Never Smoked". Looks pretty worthwhile to take it from "very high" to "almost nil". If "very high" was in the range of the 2nd highest level listed here, that's 2% chance. That's for lifetime exposure but there's also multiple people living in the house. If you DO smoke, the numbers look VERY good f…

That’s exactly the kind of information I was seeking! If your results come back at some ridiculous level, it could make complete sense. But if your results come back much closer to normal background levels, there’s not much you can do. Even the EPA says it’s difficult to get it below 2. Meanwhile, lots of websites out there try to scare you into buying remediation for low values (see comment below). It’s the perfect…

I never heard of the radon cancer impact before and it took me 10 minutes to find couple of representative studies done for my local region which in fact did find the positive correlation between the areas with elevated radon measurements and people living in those areas getting the lung cancer. So, not that "it could make complete sense" but it certainly makes sense. I suggest you do the same research before calling out something as important as this a scam.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#205

Post by menaerus »

madaxe_again wrote: post #202
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…

I’d argue that the leading cause is actually genetics . I come from a long line of people who smoked like chimneys from their teens until their 90s, with no cancers. My mother has spent her life in harsh sun with no sunscreen, and looks like an old handbag, but has entirely clear skin - but her partner, who wears strong sunblock, hats, and all the rest, has had skin cancer twice. So have two of his kids. Meanwhile, m…

And you base your conclusion on top of the sample size of what, N=10?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#206

Post by SiempreViernes »

elric wrote: post #193
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?

I don't know about "rest of the world", but I think in western Europe it is simply just another thing that gets inspected uneventfully, like making sure there is a fuse box.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#207

Post by madaxe_again »

menaerus wrote: post #205
madaxe_again wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue that the leading cause is actually genetics . I come from a long line of people who smoked like chimneys from their teens until their 90s, with no cancers. My mother has spent her life in harsh sun with no sunscreen, and looks like an old handbag, but has entirely clear skin - but her partner, who wears strong sunblock, hats, and all the rest, has had skin cancer twice. So have two of his kids. Meanwhile, m…

And you base your conclusion on top of the sample size of what, N=10?

No, on the fact that there are plenty of known variants which increase the chance of lung cancer quite dramatically - moreso than smoking.

It’s not just lungs - things like FAP make your chance of getting colon cancer in your lifetime near to 100%, regardless of how many ginseng enemas you have or whatever the hell else you do.

Variants like TP53 (Li-Fraumeni) or EGFR mutations have measurable, population-level impacts on cancer risk.

Genetics loads the gun. Being alive then pulls the trigger.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#208

Post by csomar »

madaxe_again wrote: post #202
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…

I’d argue that the leading cause is actually genetics . I come from a long line of people who smoked like chimneys from their teens until their 90s, with no cancers. My mother has spent her life in harsh sun with no sunscreen, and looks like an old handbag, but has entirely clear skin - but her partner, who wears strong sunblock, hats, and all the rest, has had skin cancer twice. So have two of his kids. Meanwhile, m…

Is it genetics or probability distribution? If it is genetics, shouldn't the native american be the most immune to smoking? (genuinely asking if there is such a data)

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#209

Post by messe »

elric wrote: post #193
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?

Radon in houses is certainly a thing in Ireland where I grew up, it's somewhat rare though. I don't know anybody who has a basement.

Same in Denmark where I'm living now, I know nobody whose house has a basement.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#210

Post by menaerus »

madaxe_again wrote: post #207
menaerus wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you base your conclusion on top of the sample size of what, N=10?

No, on the fact that there are plenty of known variants which increase the chance of lung cancer quite dramatically - moreso than smoking. It’s not just lungs - things like FAP make your chance of getting colon cancer in your lifetime near to 100%, regardless of how many ginseng enemas you have or whatever the hell else you do. Variants like TP53 (Li-Fraumeni) or EGFR mutations have measurable, population-level impac…

> No, on the fact that there are plenty of known variants which increase the chance of lung cancer quite dramatically - moreso than smoking.

But didn't you just say that it is the genetics and not the radon and/or smoking? Can you give some examples of those "plenty of known variants" for lung cancer?

Post reply on HN