Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers • Hacker News Board

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#211

Post by lostlogin » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:15 AM UTC

dmurray wrote: post #181

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…

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…

Cancer isn’t the only risk though, the 100 other things are pretty bad too. It isn’t ‘just’ that you might die of cancer, it’s the decades of leg ulcers, stroke, heart and lung disease etc.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#212

Post by mprovost » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:16 AM UTC

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 expect that Americans spend more time in their basements than people in most other countries (other than Canada). The kind of furnished basement that teenagers hang out in from That 70's Show isn't common elsewhere.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#213

Post by lostlogin » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:18 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.

Aren’t we all doing this all the time?

We pay to live further from the toxic waste dump, the motorway or the pylons. We want filtered water. We want clean air. We pay to have nicer, less risky things.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#214

Post by mathw » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:20 AM UTC

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?

It's definitely a thing in parts of the UK - it's to do with what the ground is made of.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#215

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:20 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#216

Post by jajko » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:21 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #201

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would expect that mold can build up ie in ventilation where it remains unseen unless it literally clogs he whole system. You can't see the spores an often there is no strong foul smell.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#217

Post by jcattle » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:21 AM UTC

I love that the article mainly points out that it is unknown why asian women have an unusually high rate of lung cancer but the entire HN comment section (except for 1 thread) is just going on about radon.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#218

Post by jajko » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:25 AM UTC

dmurray wrote: post #181

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…

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…

Those are some powerful claims, do you have any links for that? Generally 2-pack smokers that started early ie in their 20s or even earlier don't live till retirement where I live, but I agree its a small sample and generally such people don't live a healthy life overall.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#219

Post by skeezyboy » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:25 AM UTC

messe wrote: post #209

elric wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i think that maybe peter schmeichel might have one?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#220

Post by madaxe_again » Wed, Jul 23, 2025, 9:29 AM UTC

menaerus wrote: post #210

madaxe_again wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

EGFR, as mentioned - it’s the most common cause of lung cancer in East Asian women.

TP53, as also mentioned - gives you a >90% chance of cancer of any variety in a lifetime. 50% by age 30.

Smoking presents about a 20% lifetime risk - and that’s without adjusting for genetic predispositions like CHRNA3/5 which increase nicotine addictiveness and promote tumorigenisis, or BRCA2, or CHEK2, which diminish DNA repair capabilities.