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

301–310 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#301

Post by mschuster91 »

somenameforme wrote: post #174
mschuster91 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She is a small lady So, yet another case of cars not being designed for women (for those that don't get what I'm going on about - crash test dummies are modeled after men, leading to significantly worse crash outcomes for women [1])... it's infuriating. Even a "small" BMW i3, a car one might think to be suitable for people of lower height - my wife tried out one at carsharing, and even despite the seat being all up…

I'm curious about what the peak potential is and how close (or far) we are from there, because even if all things were 100% equal somehow, in a serious crash women will always fair significantly worse due to less musculature, lower bone density, thinner bones, and so on.

Well at the moment we don't even try, so any improvement will have massive impact.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#302

Post by mschuster91 »

somenameforme wrote: post #171
mschuster91 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I more suspect vehicles. We got a grip on particulate emissions from diesel engines, but brakes and tires still emit fine dust particles. The average one way commute is 30 minutes in the US, so you're breathing in pretty filthy air for an hour a day...

This would be 'pretty easy' to demonstrate by comparing cancer rates by people who live adjacent to busy highways against those who live in rural areas. 'Pretty easy' is always nonsense in observational studies because the confounders have confounders that are confounded by other confounders; even more so for things that are relatively poorly understood, like cancer. But it's at least something that would certainly g…

We got at least a link between heavy road traffic and stunted lung growth in children, as well as at least 10% increased lung cancer rates [1]. Additionally, noise from road traffic has been linked to increased rates of cardiovascular disease and mental health issues [2].

Both of this is compounded by the fact that people living next to major roads tend to be poorer, so there is a socio-economic issue present as well.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/25/living-n...

[2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/ver...

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#303

Post by Mawr »

jajko wrote: post #234
RajT88 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it. My wife drives a big SUV. She is a small lady, and says the car let's her see the road better and overall feel more safe. Back when SUV's started to get popular, this was a trend they noticed as well. Back then, it was met with a lot of guffaws about yuppie housewives and all that. (This was before the term Karen had been coined)

I don't think you get it. And also this is an universal response from all women I ever talked about exactly this topic (and several guys too who had no idea about cars in general but knew about those famous football players or other celebrities who had suvs so they also needed one). The root cause is plain and simple - your wife just needs to learn to drive better, then she wouldn't be scared regardless of her seatin…

> The root cause is plain and simple - your wife just needs to learn to drive better, then she wouldn't be scared regardless of her seating position.

Correct, but unfortunately such arguments are like shouting into the wind. Bike helmets are the same. People just cannot be convinced that improving one's safety is 99% down to one's riding style and not a thin piece of padding on their head.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#304

Post by insane_dreamer »

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 depends very much on the soil composition. Some areas might have almost no radon, whereas others do. Here's a high-level view of radon probably by county (WA state), but you can find local maps that show it at the neighborhood level. We looked at the maps when buying our house, had it tested, and radon levels were high so we installed a mitigation system in our garage (which is the bottom level of our house).

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-08/documents/wa...

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#305

Post by samus »

snarf21 wrote: post #271
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).

Properly built houses should have a central ventilation system though.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#306

Post by Mawr »

fragmede wrote: post #300
jajko wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you get it. And also this is an universal response from all women I ever talked about exactly this topic (and several guys too who had no idea about cars in general but knew about those famous football players or other celebrities who had suvs so they also needed one). The root cause is plain and simple - your wife just needs to learn to drive better, then she wouldn't be scared regardless of her seatin…

It doesn't matter how good a driver I, or your wife, or any woman, or any man is. That drunk driver who's also texting and just had a stroke and passed out from fentanyl could plow into you while you're innocently stopped at a stop light and you're being as defensive as possible. I don't see any way to change that calculus for the paranoid, unfortunately.

True, but false. Accidents that you can do nothing about are vanishingly rare. Even the situation you bring up is not one of them. When stopped/stopping you should be checking your mirrors to make sure the car behind you is at least slowing down.

On the other hand, the parent brings up a great example - following distance from the car in front. One of the most basic concepts of operating any vehicle and his wife is apparently incapable of applying it.

The overall point holds - people are irrationally worried about the 0.0000001% edge cases they can do nothing about anyway instead of trying to improve their chances in the 99.999999% of cases where it's their actions that matter.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#307

Post by dinfinity »

Lex-2008 wrote: post #262
blueflow wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Let's start with an extreme example: each day more people die in traffic accidents, than by falling from a 10-story building. But still, we all can agree that driving a car is safer than falling from a building. Why? Because driving a car you get more chance to get to your destination safely than falling from a building. ChatGPT estimates 0.01% chance to die in car accident per year, when driving every day, and 90-99…

Yep, pretty much this. More information found by searching for "base rate fallacy" or just the Wikipedia page for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#308

Post by dinfinity »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #256
blueflow wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, this is incorrect and misleading. It is a meaningful statistic when interpreted right. See sibling comment.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#309

Post by fragmede »

Mawr wrote: post #306
fragmede wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter how good a driver I, or your wife, or any woman, or any man is. That drunk driver who's also texting and just had a stroke and passed out from fentanyl could plow into you while you're innocently stopped at a stop light and you're being as defensive as possible. I don't see any way to change that calculus for the paranoid, unfortunately.

True, but false. Accidents that you can do nothing about are vanishingly rare. Even the situation you bring up is not one of them. When stopped/stopping you should be checking your mirrors to make sure the car behind you is at least slowing down. On the other hand, the parent brings up a great example - following distance from the car in front. One of the most basic concepts of operating any vehicle and his wife is a…

It doesn't matter how rare the scenario is in reality, fear often isn't rational, but it makes us do things and we have no control over it. My point isn't that the fear is rational, it isn't. But unless you have a method to prevent people from assuaging their irrational fear by buying a certain vehicle, (or voting a certain way, for that matter), what is your proposal?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#310

Post by safety1st »

safety1st wrote: post #179
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?…

My approach is to think carefully about exactly what I want to know, word the question that way, then throw it to the AI and pray. I think this is better than ignoring it or spending too much time on it. Question: Where does radon related mortality rank versus other mortality factors in the United States? ... Summary: Radon in perspective Category / Cause Approx. Deaths per Year (U.S.) Rank / Context Heart disease ~6…

What the hell would someone downvote this for lol. Freaking Hacker News
Post reply on HN