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

251–260 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#251

Post by kensai »

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 think Radon exposure is a serious matter, but its concentration in the USA either is probably overrated OR indeed you have a local geological problem. In Europe we even have the tradition of Radon Therapy for certain pathologies in Spa. Of course, one should do these therapies under medical consultation.

https://www.alpentherme.com/en/therapy-health/therapy/radon-...

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#252

Post by elric »

piombisallow wrote: post #248
skeezyboy wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nicotine by itself doesn't cause cancer.

No one said it did. It is however very addictive, causing addicts to smoke/vape more, thus increasing the load of the other toxic and carcinogenic substances.

Wikipedia does raise some concerning points about nicotine:

> Although nicotine is classified as a non-carcinogenic substance, it can still promote tumor growth and metastasis. It induces several processes that contribute to cancer progression, including cell cycle progression, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, migration, invasion, angiogenesis, and evasion of apoptosis.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#253

Post by MengerSponge »

kensai wrote: post #251
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 think Radon exposure is a serious matter, but its concentration in the USA either is probably overrated OR indeed you have a local geological problem. In Europe we even have the tradition of Radon Therapy for certain pathologies in Spa. Of course, one should do these therapies under medical consultation. https://www.alpentherme.com/en/therapy-health/therapy/radon-...

In the early 20th century America also used to have lots of radiation therapy providers. It's quackery, and harmful quackery at that.

Just because you have a tradition of something doesn't mean it's effective. Or safe. Or wise.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#254

Post by infecto »

kensai wrote: post #251
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 think Radon exposure is a serious matter, but its concentration in the USA either is probably overrated OR indeed you have a local geological problem. In Europe we even have the tradition of Radon Therapy for certain pathologies in Spa. Of course, one should do these therapies under medical consultation. https://www.alpentherme.com/en/therapy-health/therapy/radon-...

Absolutely bunk science with no real evidence supporting. It’s like saying autism is created from vaccines.

A lot of the US has radon exposure. I don’t how people come out saying things like you do but at the end of the day it’s exposure to radiation. I have seen it all, people will say it only impacts children or the elderly. Or that it’s an overblown conspiracy. Radon is radioactive, I am sure there are discussions on safe exposure levels but mitigation is so inexpensive and normalized why risk it.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#255

Post by infecto »

bityard wrote: post #250
kelnos wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is radon mitigation affordable, though? Someone in another subthread said they got quotes between $1600 and $3000. Even the low end of that is a difficult amount to spend for a lot of people in the US. If they're going to spend it (if they even can ), they're going to want to know it's going to meaningfully decrease their risk of cancer. I'm not saying it's not worth it -- that's the point, I don't know -- but I agre…

I don't know where you live but where I live in the Midwestern suburbs, $3k is on the low end for almost any significant home improvement/repair project except maybe repainting a room.

Midwest here. Radon mitigation usually starts at $1k. And can go up depending if they are drilling into the slab. For most cases it’s a trivial solve.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#256

Post by d1sxeyes »

blueflow wrote: post #242
dinfinity wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, also, the base rate of smoking in different groups is important to take into consideration to prevent the base rate fallacy. Very few Chinese American women smoke (~2%), so if smokers and non-smokers have the same chance of getting lung cancer not caused by smoking , then the number of non-smokers with lung cancer will be a larger proportion. If 100% of some group would be non-smokers, then obviously 100% of lun…

> It's similar to misinterpreting the fact that most people that were hospitalized from Covid-19 were vaccinated. Whats the correct interpretation of this?

It’s difficult to give any accurate interpretation of, because it’s not a meaningful statistic.

For example, every person hospitalised from COVID-19 had consumed water at some point in preceding months. It’s not evidence that water causes severe complications from COVID-19.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#257

Post by xorcist »

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 depends on which type of ground you build on. The Nordics are mostly granite and have a relatively big problem with radon gas, or at least enough that people in general care about it. Continental Europe is dominated by limestome which hasn't got the same problem.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#258

Post by infecto »

3036e4 wrote: post #200
zamadatix wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? Purpose built radon fans are not expensive and at most you have some pvc and fans.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#259

Post by infecto »

mprovost wrote: post #212
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?

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.

Wrong and wrong. Not all parts of the world have issues with radon, depends on what’s in the ground underneath. Absolutely those countries do care and people are generally aware of it especially in the building process.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#260

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kensai wrote: post #251
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 think Radon exposure is a serious matter, but its concentration in the USA either is probably overrated OR indeed you have a local geological problem. In Europe we even have the tradition of Radon Therapy for certain pathologies in Spa. Of course, one should do these therapies under medical consultation. https://www.alpentherme.com/en/therapy-health/therapy/radon-...

> How radon works: Cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of free radicals is reduced.

Yikes! Not only are free radicals increased, because you're being bombarded with ionizing radiation, but any cellular repair stimulated is because of the cellular damage done!*

I have to assume "the number of free radicals is reduced" is intentionally written awkwardly and in a passive voice, to avoid adding "...after the "radon therapy" stops.

* - And it's not gonna be a net positive!

Post reply on HN