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

281–290 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#281

Post by AngryData »

simonsarris wrote: post #57
abakker wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought an Airthings radon monitor because of that stat, and one thing that I have learned is that those mitigation systems do not necessarily work. I have a system that works, but initially, even though my house had a system, it did not reliably keep the radon levels below the federal action level. Barometric pressure, temperature, and HVAC all seem to have some bearing - tightening the house for air leaks actually…

> tightening the house for air leaks actually did a lot of good in keeping levels low Wait, really? Intuitively I would expect the opposite, that a draftier house is better for radon levels indoors

If too much air can leak in from too many places your exhaust fan won't be able to keep up and maintain a pressure differential across the whole area and fully cycle through the air volume. Instead of the air mass as a whole flowing towards the exhaust you will instead get mixing of inside and outside air and then pulling of a fraction of that. Ultimately failing to properly cycle the contaminated air and also spending a lot of energy on exhausting what was previously clean exterior air.

With it more sealed so you can get a decent static pressure it is like flushing a clean fluid through a pipe and only really needs a little more than the pipe's volume of fluid to clear it, with it poorly sealed it is more like scooping one cup of water out of a contaminated bucket, then pouring a clean cup of water back in and letting it mix before repeating the process, with the hopeful goal of eventually having an uncontaminated bucket of clean water. It would eventually be clean enough sure, but you might have to go through 1000x the fluid volume to get to a clean enough point.

Technically you could just increase your exhaust fan's power until it creates decent static pressure in even a leaky home, but you would also be exhausting a lot of the energy you put into your climate control system.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#282

Post by infecto »

kensai wrote: post #277
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.

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 referenc…

Thank you for proving my point. These are at best a hypothesis that no global body has approved. Is the LNT model overly strict? Probably. But is there strong evidence that low doses are beneficial? Nope.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#283

Post by thfuran »

lazide wrote: post #145
thfuran wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And certainly people would not be dumb and evil?

I believe I have a significant body of counterevidence.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#284

Post by kensai »

infecto wrote: post #282
kensai wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 referenc…

Thank you for proving my point. These are at best a hypothesis that no global body has approved. Is the LNT model overly strict? Probably. But is there strong evidence that low doses are beneficial? Nope.

No, you have proven my point. There is no strong evidence and IT WILL NEVER BE cause it's like trying to make a new study for a drug that has its patent expired. Are you willing to sponsor studies with your own money? Cause nobody else will.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with the little evidence there is from the last century when it was the heyday of balneological applications. However, these little studies we have, even with few patients is better than nothing and certainly there is also not enough proof that these patients have been harmed, if doing radon therapy according to modern standards of exposure.

As mentioned before: the linear extrapolation of the risk from high doses of radiation to low doses assumed by the LNT model greatly overestimates the risk of harm, and ignores the potential benefits. Low doses of radiation have been found to stimulate growth (Stebbing 1982), DNA repair (Kondo 1998a and 1998b), antioxidant action (Feinendegen 1987; Pollycove 1998), and immune response (Liu et al. 1987). Other studies have shown that cancer rates actually decrease in populations exposed to low levels of radiation beyond normal background radiation (Bogan 1998; Cohen 1995; Dissanayake 2005; Hattori 1997; Kondo 1993; Mifune 1992). The overestimation of risk by the LNT model is considered important by hormesis advocates, because its cautious perspective prevents patients from receiving low-level ionizing radiation treatments, such as radon, which might help them. Moreover, if radon levels were held to the standards mandated by the EPA and other agencies following the LNT model, the costs of residential radon abatement would be extraordinarily high (Macklis and Beresford 1991; Thomas and Goldsmith 1995).

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#285

Post by codyb »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #62
codyb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Now imagine the massive global polluting supply chain to put that SUV together for a single person.

I think you got downvoted for this but unsure why cause that's a great point that making one subway car that gets used daily to transport thousands of people vs creating a car per individual driven only for an hour a day is absolutely huge in terms of carbon and resource cost

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#286

Post by kensai »

infecto wrote: post #278
kensai wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Prove where is the flaw first. A small or old study is not necessarily flawed. The burden of proving they are flawed falls on you. And no, I care less that they have not been replicated because the community lacks interest. Nobody said the effect is miraculous or similar, to compete with modern medical applications, but certainly they are cheap methods that complement with other general wellness effects of spas.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#287

Post by kensai »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #274
kensai wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The hormesis hypothesis has not been widely proven, but it has not disproved either. It's still a working hypothesis. And yes, patients sometime work with hypothesized therapies, especially if conventional therapies don't work for them or they get many adverse effects from them.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#288

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

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.

There's a lot of fear over things like black mold in the states. It's extremely rare but it can be life threatening, and it's one of those things that people see and get nervous about when they see that for instance their HVAC vent has mold spots, that they are breathing toxic air. 9 times out of 10, it's totally fine. This method mentioned above gives homeowners the peace of mind that they aren't poisoning their families accidentally for an extremely affordable price. The alternative of calling mold remediation experts in is going to be extremely pricey, and those people cannot be trusted to be upfront on whether your mold problem is 1. actually a problem and 2. actually dangerous - because they make money on selling expensive remediation solutions.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#289

Post by HocusLocus »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #185
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…

When I finally got to buy a home, we chose one built in the fourties because we really didn't like the feel of newer homes. Love it, but yeah, plenty drafty..erm I mean, fresh air. I do have to worry about lead paint though, which I found out with a cabinet remake.

Seeing a toddler licking lead paint makes you shudder to think about it. Smart moms renovate before the kids are born and use peanut butter paint.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#290

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kensai wrote: post #287
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The hormesis hypothesis has not been widely proven, but it has not disproved either. It's still a working hypothesis. And yes, patients sometime work with hypothesized therapies, especially if conventional therapies don't work for them or they get many adverse effects from them.

If I told you that hitting yourself in the dick with a hammer was good for you, would you have as much support and deference for The Schwanzhammertherapie Hypothesis as you do for hitting yourself all over with ionizing radiation? After all, I can't find any studies disproving it.

Here is how Schwanzhammertherapie works: 'cellular repair in the body is stimulated, the number of dick hammerings is reduced'.

Post reply on HN