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

271–280 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#271

Post by snarf21 »

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…

This is also making things worse for houses with water damage and mold issues for the same reasons. The concentrations can rise rapidly as there is no dilution effect from leaks or open windows (most houses are always closed up in today's lifestyle).

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#272

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

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 think that if you start from the belief that radon mitigation is sold based on fear, and doesn't have value, then it's easy to cling to that belief and try to dismiss or explain away or minimize information that contradicts it, and to dismiss people who see value in it as 'fear buyers' who believe in a 'bogeyman' and say 'good idea' to things which, in your opinion, might not be good ideas.

A perspective perhaps different from yours: Avoidable cancer risk isn't great, and smart people* properly weighing the facts have repeatedly judged the value of radon mitigation to exceed the costs.

* - Probabilistically speaking, this includes many who are smarter than you and me

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#273

Post by boringg »

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…

So what is the necessary levels of exposure to have some kind of long term implications? With hand wavy claims to drive fear that certainly will make a pump in radon kits + drive more radon mitigation systems.

I've always been under the impression that there was radon in basements since it settles down there ... maybe the correlation is people who spend long periods of time in the basement with radon exposure (thats a guess fwiw).

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#274

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kensai wrote: post #267
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "...aft…

Many physical therapies work on the principle of the stimulus and some net effects happen after that is stopped. Even fasting diets work like this according to specialists like Walter Longo: the best part happens when you stop the fasting and start eating again. You could argue something similar happens when you finish the certain exposure to radon after a trip to Bad Gastein.

> You could argue something similar happens when you finish the certain exposure to radon

I could, but then I'd be arguing something I don't believe, and have no evidence to support!

I don't know that it would be worth it to entertain a hypothesis that, as far as I can tell, nobody here believes and has evidence to support.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#275

Post by kensai »

infecto wrote: post #269
kensai wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not on the same level as autism correlated to vaccines. And radiation hormesis has not been disproved as "bunk science" as far as it is widely known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Nothing you have said in this thread has been supported by studies. Everything is a hypothesis or proposal. I would expect if this was real that there would be more concrete evidence over the decades, yet none exist. Maybe it’s not a falsified hypothesis but it’s at best a hypothesis. I am much more into the proven by a study science and medicine and not feelings.

Actually there are many (admittedly weak or low in n) studies in Europe, which show some benefit. I will post some titles later, check this space.

I agree that there are no big prospective studies and probably will never anymore be, because there is really no interest or gain from big pharma. The big time of physical therapies was last century and all studies, at least in Germany, stop by the 90s.

An interesting article to read about the different approaches in Europe and America is this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2203/dose-response.06-00...

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#276

Post by Spooky23 »

thfuran wrote: post #73
Spooky23 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s knowledge that can only hurt you if you’re selling houses. Just like lead paint - it’s smart to be dumb.

If ignorance gives you cancer while you live there, maintaining it in the hopes of avoiding disclose requirements in the future is both dumb and evil.

Nothing reveals the darkness in people's soul more than real estate.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#277

Post by kensai »

infecto wrote: post #269
kensai wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not on the same level as autism correlated to vaccines. And radiation hormesis has not been disproved as "bunk science" as far as it is widely known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Nothing you have said in this thread has been supported by studies. Everything is a hypothesis or proposal. I would expect if this was real that there would be more concrete evidence over the decades, yet none exist. Maybe it’s not a falsified hypothesis but it’s at best a hypothesis. I am much more into the proven by a study science and medicine and not feelings.

Bogoljudow VM (1988) The clinical aspectsof radon therapy. Y Phys Med Baln Med Klim (Sonderheft 1) 17: 59-66

Pratzel et al (1933) Wirksamkeitsnachweis von Radonbädern im Rahmen einer kurortmedizinischen Behandlung des cervicalen Schmerzsyndroms. Phys Rehab Kur Med 3: 76-82

And I found many more particularly from a certain Gunther R who has published a lot in Germany between the 70s and 90s with minor studies referenced. As said before, this is a dying tradition and no one cares to redo the experiments with better conditions, unfortunately. But until proven otherwise, it's all we have.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#278

Post by infecto »

kensai wrote: post #275
infecto wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing you have said in this thread has been supported by studies. Everything is a hypothesis or proposal. I would expect if this was real that there would be more concrete evidence over the decades, yet none exist. Maybe it’s not a falsified hypothesis but it’s at best a hypothesis. I am much more into the proven by a study science and medicine and not feelings.

Actually there are many (admittedly weak or low in n) studies in Europe, which show some benefit. I will post some titles later, check this space. I agree that there are no big prospective studies and probably will never anymore be, because there is really no interest or gain from big pharma. The big time of physical therapies was last century and all studies, at least in Germany, stop by the 90s. An interesting arti…

Please don’t I won’t read them. I already saw the overview ok Wikipedia. Some studies that may suggest hormesis, most of them flawed. Everything is either a proposal or hypothesis. Absolutely it should be studied but those radiation spas are bunk science for now.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#279

Post by Karawebnetwork »

boringg wrote: post #273
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…

So what is the necessary levels of exposure to have some kind of long term implications? With hand wavy claims to drive fear that certainly will make a pump in radon kits + drive more radon mitigation systems. I've always been under the impression that there was radon in basements since it settles down there ... maybe the correlation is people who spend long periods of time in the basement with radon exposure (thats…

Canada has a great website about radon:

https://www.canada.ca/radon

https://takeactiononradon.ca/

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#280

Post by elric »

xorcist wrote: post #257
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?

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.

Makes sense, and would explain why it's pretty much unheard of in my neck of the woods.
Post reply on HN