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

351–360 of 361 posts

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#351

Post by [deleted] »

dinfinity wrote: post #349
blueflow wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The WHO did not word it badly, it was the accepted knowledge back then. You previously accused me of somehow missing the 2019-2021 timeframe, but that the vaccine doesn't really protect you well from infections was not established until autuum 2021. Consequently, as the scientific data to show it was not collected yet. Either you got the year numbers wrong or there is some retcon happening. > Why did you feel the nee…

> The WHO did not word it badly, it was the accepted knowledge back then. Bullshit. I already showed how they were careful in the rest of their wording in your own source . 100% efficacy was never 'accepted knowledge'. > Why is that on me? You tried a stab at antivax whackos and it backfired Bullshit. The base rate fallacy was and is very present. The misinterpretation I referred to made sense to mention: It is a ver…

[deleted]

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#352

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

safety1st wrote: post #310
safety1st wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why bring up the AI at all, if you're also making those claims and vouching for that info?

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#353

Post by mppm »

nancyminusone wrote: post #16

Every time you look up something related to Radon, it's always cited as "the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking" I wonder if that's really true. Radon is a big deal where I live. Most homes have a radon mitigation system which is a 20-watt fan that goes over your sump pump hole, and runs continuously to a vent on the roof.

> Every time you look up something related to Radon, it's always cited as "the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking"

> I wonder if that's really true.

That claim is in fact based on extremely poor research methodology. It is made by combining the linear no-threshold model of radiation damage (which contradicts everything we know about cellular repair and hormesis) with evidence from "case-control studies", a kind of retroactive hand-waving that has nothing whatsoever to do with a "controlled trial", despite the name.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#354

Post by infecto »

kensai wrote: post #343
infecto wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burden of proof is on the person making claims that goes against the various world organizations that claim otherwise. I agree the current models that deal with exposure are probably not accurate but again nobody has proven the beneficial claims you have stated. I tend to believe in the markets being efficient in the long run, if these spas were beneficial surely someone would have captured the data after multipl…

What are the various world organisations you are talking about? Because the German ones (among others) certainly have not found it harmful and have not banned it. I told you many times, unfortunately, no one will do studies on these things anymore because there is no money it and it cannot be patented. That spas generally are beneficial, though, for general wellbeing and especially if combined with known thermal stim…

No world organization accepts radiation hormesis. Full stop. I am glad you find benefit and I am not suggesting it’s dangerous but I am also not accepting that it is beneficial.

This is not an American vs European thing please don’t make it. I am simply saying no governing body has accepted it beyond a study. Your view of the world is skewed if you think studies are not happening.

People have been questioning LNT, which is the accepted policy by most of the world including Europe. There is nuance and suggestive evidence that low dose is ok, after all humans evolved with background radiation. What is unclear is how beneficial it is and at what doses it becomes harmful. There is no clear study that shows benefit hence LNT being the adopted approach.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#355

Post by infecto »

kensai wrote: post #344
infecto wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it’s still all an unproven hypothesis. Glad you believe in it, placebos can be strong.

If a placebo or nocebo is cheaper than a costly medical intervention, then it's good as that if not better. The problem is: you name it placebo although patients (for example with rheumatological diseases) have really responded to it, sometimes equally good to medications. And rheuma diseases are real debilitating diseases, a placebo would no work so easily. The mechanisms of action of radon baths are potentially man…

What are you even ranting on about? There are multiple papers and work trying to question LNT every year. Despite what you think, not all research is fueled by patents. If you could prove that radiation therapy actually reduces cancer in populations that would be quite a prestige and also a lot of economic opportunity.

You keep sharing anecdotes but again none of them have been proven by science. I understand Germans have a love for homeopathy and some of it may work, similar to TCM but a lot of it does not.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#356

Post by infecto »

1718627440 wrote: post #322
infecto wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it’s still all an unproven hypothesis. Glad you believe in it, placebos can be strong.

What? Is gravity an unproven hypothesis, because Newton had the idea some centuries ago and now nobody bothers to prove it, because nobody expect it not to? I have no stance on radon, but rejection studies solely because they're 30years old is dumb.

The only thing that is dumb is your argument. As I keep repeating myself. No governing body has accepted these therapies as valid. It’s at best a hypothesis. There are been no conclusive studies of the benefits. LNT is probably overly protective at low dose ranges but there is not conclusive evidence on low dosing being beneficial and especially at what doses it becomes harmful. Everything you read are anecdotes or studies that have holes in them. Who is questioning gravity???

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#357

Post by resoluteteeth »

mschuster91 wrote: post #43
resoluteteeth wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think most people are actually doing really high temp wok cooking at home regardless of ethnic background. My impression is that, while woks are more common for home cooking in china (not chinese americans, mind you), even there home cooking is usually not done at the high temperatures that restaurants use.

It's easy, incredibly easy, to overheat cookingware unintentionally. Add oil to a pan/wok that's overheated and it decomposes. Additionally, if the cookingware is coated with Teflon, above 300 °C this degrades into toxic compounds and can lead to "teflon flu" [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever

You can buy nonstick wok-shaped pans but real woks that would be used for high temperature cooking are usually not nonstick. The original assertion that I was responding to was suggesting that the cause of the higher lung cancer rates in asian americans might be because of high temperature wok cooking.

I have no idea if nonstick pans are associated with higher lung cancer rates but even if they are I have no reason to think that asian americans are more likely to use nonstick pans, so the fact that it is easy to overheat nonstick pans in general might not explain asian americans having higher lung cancer rates.

Re: Many lung cancers are now in nonsmokers

#360

Post by QuercusMax »

kccqzy wrote: post #348
QuercusMax wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be morally wrong, however.

That's a problem of the legislators: identifying which immoral activities should be made illegal.

You don't think that we as individuals have any moral choices to make, and we should defer to legislation? That's certainly a view, but I don't think it's the majority view.
Post reply on HN