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

221–230 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#221

Post by ragingroosevelt »

jchw wrote: post #159
Ancalagon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am super uneducated on this, but I thought radon was only a concern for people with brick homes or basements?

I have a brick house and a basement, and I have no radon mitigation system, and I live in an area where radon is generally a concern (southeast Michigan.) Over the last couple years I've had some AirThings sensors collecting data. Last month: - The one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor crossed over 3 pCi/L once... for a very brief period. Around 80% of the time, the one-day average radon…

My understanding is that a radon reading of 2 is the upper bound for reasonable regular exposure. If you're seeing above that, I'd be inclined to look into mitigation.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#222

Post by skeezyboy »

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.

overlooked fact i point out is that the carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke makes you nauseas and puts an upper bound on your possible hourly intake of nicotine, whereas vapes dont contain the CO, and actually taste good enough to drink... you end up taking magnitudes more nicotine than the traditional route

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#223

Post by mathw »

hansonkd wrote: post #18

I used to live by a busy street in a semi-dense part of town. Cars would be going around 45mph. When I moved from that apartment after 4 years. I was shocked by the amount of black dust covering everything. from the walls to the shelves and floors. I think it was all tire pollution so switching to 100% electric won't mitigate. It was pretty shocking and I wondered how much i increased my risk for lung cancer or other…

Yeah there's a lot of stuff comes off tyres, and EVs still have that. They also produce brake dust, although maybe less of it because of regenerative braking.

But they do have no tailpipe emissions, so they're still kicking out a lot less air pollution than a combustion-fuelled vehicle with not just the carbon dioxide but the myriad of pollutants which lower urban air quality so much.

Ultimately, a less dusty tyre would be a good thing, but the significant impact we can make now is to continue the EV transition knowing that like all solutions it's imperfect and we also need to use fewer vehicles and keep looking for better options.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#224

Post by skeezyboy »

codyb wrote: post #9
jmclnx wrote: post #3

Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil fuel emissions, mainly from autos. When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work. But , I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in cancers…

I know no one's ever going to change their ways cause of the increasingly evident ravages of climate change but I swear I feel like throwing rocks at the big SUVs rolling by with exactly one person in them during the heat domes here in NYC. Just, so, gross. And it truly is the _vast majority_ of cars going by with exactly one person in them. So wasteful, so much pollution, so hot... frustrating.

yet they live in a wooden house... boggles the mind

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#225

Post by menaerus »

madaxe_again wrote: post #220
menaerus wrote: post #210

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. 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 capa…

Quite strong claims. I would be interested to read more about those. Do you have any references you can point out? A quick research on EGFR and TP53 suggested they are more related to colorectal cancer and not the lung cancer.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#226

Post by ulrikrasmussen »

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.

Many houses in Denmark have basements. Radon depends on geology, and occurs in relatively high concentrations on the rocky island of Bornholm: https://www.sst.dk/da/Borger/Straaling_-miljoe-og-klima/Om-i...

I Denmark, Radon accounts for about 9% of lung cancer cases: https://www.sst.dk/da/Borger/Straaling_-miljoe-og-klima/Om-i...

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#227

Post by dathinab »

devjab wrote: post #177
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?…

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…

> and you can reduce it to basically 0% for little money.

which is why I'm confused by people second questioning how bad it actually is in context of _fixing_ it (not in context of a national health scope)

if there is something which is known to be quite unhealthy in a non small degree, and there is a cheap fix why wouldn't you just fix it. In the end if it's very bad, or slightly less bad or the 10th leading cause instead or whatever doesn't matter, fixing it is affordable and it's guaranteed dangerous on long term exposure so you do it.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#228

Post by Quarrel »

owenversteeg wrote: post #168

I think a large contributor is poor indoor air quality - of all types, not just one specific pollutant - causing inflammation and thus cancer. Homes have gotten far tighter in recent years, and people buy ever more cheap furniture and inexpensive consumer products. So you have formaldehyde and other VOCs off-gassing, you have plasticizer vapors, nanoplastics in the air from synthetic furniture and cloth, you have ref…

Why do you think this?

There is an entire article linked here, saying that they, Scientists, don't know what the causes are, even though they're actively trying to search for a cause.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#229

Post by potato3732842 »

asdff wrote: post #72
RajT88 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what I was getting at. There are several ways to view the story. Another commenter mentioned failing to design cars for women (totally fair! Volvo famously had a botched attempt at this) What I have come to appreciate is how vulnerable women feel in the world. It is hard to appreciate how that plays into car choice if you are a man. Most men will never be able to understand, imo.

Only 20 years ago used to be the "hairdresser car" meant a tiny little sporty coupe or convertible like a miata. I guess the marketing changed and cultivated a new generation with a new mindset.

20yr ago was 2005 and the "hairdresser and nurse" demographic were all driving Jeep Libertys.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#230

Post by jajko »

Toutouxc wrote: post #199
MathMonkeyMan wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But then you have much more tire dust, since it rises rather exponentially and not linearly with mass of the vehicle. Overall more health-friendly but not as much as people(owners) like to think.
Post reply on HN