15 ms·

Great! Now can the people interested in helping fewer women (and men) die of cancer please turn their attention to lung cancer, where there is far better "bang

Great! Now can the people interested in helping fewer women (and men) die of cancer please turn their attention to lung cancer, where there is far better "bang for the buck" on research investment? https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-small-cell-lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/non-small-cell-lung-cancer/abo... Most people who get and die from lung cancer are not smokers. Like my mom.

SerLava 9y ago
Someone should probably run charity drives for something like "non-smoke related lung cancer" research, and then wow, what do you know, it helps smokers also...
overcast 9y ago
Where does it say most people are not smokers? "Overall, the chance that a man will develop lung cancer in his lifetime is about 1 in 14; for a woman, the risk is about 1 in 17. These numbers include both smokers and non-smokers. For smokers the risk is much higher, while for non-smokers the risk is lower."
- acbabis 9y ago
  I haven't researched it, but the two statistics could be reconciled if there are fewer smokers than non-smokers.
DanBC 9y ago
Smoking is the main risk factor for lung cancer. In the US about 80% of lung cancers are related to smoking. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm > Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking is linked to about 80% to 90% of lung cancers. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer. [...] > People who smoke cigarettes are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke. Even smoking a few cigarettes a day or smoking occasionally increases the risk of lung cancer. The more years a person smokes and the more cigarettes smoked each day, the more risk goes up. It's true that not all lung cancer is caused by smoking.
verelo 9y ago
So i've become super interested in lung cancer, and recently found that radon gas is the most common cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. If you want bang for your buck, buy a radon detector and mitigate [slab vacuum treatment or regular ventilation] where you find levels > 100bq/m^3 [probably your basement]
- the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  i see they are like 200 bucks on amazon- are those what i need to get?
  - cmsmith 9y ago
    There are also single-use radon test kits, which should be fine if your home is in a relatively steady-state condition.
  - astura 9y ago
    I paid a home inspector $150 for a professionally administered radon test so I could be confident in the results. I wouldn't trust something so important to Amazon as they have a lot of counterfeits. Also, if you sell your home you want to show the results to prospective buyers.
    - verelo 9y ago
      Do you trust your CO alarm to Amazon or did you call the fire brigade just to be sure? Joking aside, I agree the products will improve but I feel Airthings have gone a long way to prove the reliability of their product and a future where we trust “something from amazon” isn’t all that wacky as we already live in it.
      - astura 9y ago
        No, I absolutely would not buy a CO2 alarm on Amazon! Counterfeits are rampant on Amazon, I would buy life saving devices from a retailer that has better control over their inventory such as Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowe's, True Value, Costco, our local chains, etc, etc. This isn't some sort of exaggeration, house fires have started due to counterfeit electrics. People here on HN have reported getting counterfeit body wash, counterfeit books, counterfeit diapers, and counterfeit toys from Amazon plus there's a lawsuit against Amazon for selling counterfeit eclipse glasses. https://www.dailydot.com/news/amazon-marketplace-conterfeit-fake-goods/ https://www.dailydot.com/news/amazon-marketplace-conterfeit-... >In 2012, Amazon Marketplace was identified by the Consumer Fraud Center as America’s single-largest counterfeit outfit, warning shoppers to be on their guard over the holiday season. [1] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/05/18/amazon-counterfeit-products/amp/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/05/18/amazon-counterfeit... [1] Due to comminging policies items from marketplace sellers can end up "sold and shipped by Amazon."
eatbitseveryday 9y ago
From your URL > Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older, while less than 2% are younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70. [honest question] Could this have any impact on the perceived priority of studying lung cancer? (i.e., you're already near EOL when diagnosed with it?)
- PostOnce 9y ago
  65 isn't so near EOL, the average life expectancy for a 65 year old woman is 20 years, and 18 for a man[1]. 20 years is a long time... everything you do between 15 and 35? The majority of life's accomplishments for most -- you could do that all over again between 65 and 85, now with the capital and experience to do something interesting. I think computer-assisted medical developments might push that out another 5 years in the next decade or two; so the life expectancy is 25 instead of 20 from age 65. [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
  - richforrester 9y ago
    > everything you do between 15 and 35? The majority of life's accomplishments for most I was having a great day.
    - snakeboy 9y ago
      > you could do that all over again between 65 and 85, now with the capital and experience to do something interesting. No reason for your day to be spoiled!
      - richforrester 9y ago
        :) It was a bit of a bluff. I'm loving 35 as much as I loved 18. Life's good when your biggest worry is elevated blood pressure.
    - ams6110 9y ago
nemo44x 9y ago
Why should someone being a smoker deprioritze lung cancer research? They’re people who engage in a legal activity and pay heavy taxes to do so. We rarely discount medicine for the myriad other medical problems that occur from many other activities like eating bad foods (way worse than smoking), avoidable stress (not addictive) and the various substance abuse from pharmaceuticals et al.
- fwn 9y ago
  A major part of the prevention of tobacco use is education. This is partly done through explaining the health impact on the people affected by smoking (smoker+surrounding), partly through moralizing (since health and the personal responsibility for ones own health are exercised as a value). The latter nicely fits with an externality argument based on scarcity of resources in research & treatment. At this point, if you accept all those premises, lung cancer research for smokers is a negative externality for all the non-smokers in need for research & treatment. And it's not necessary that those premises are accepted on an individual level; it's enough to just teach them. Long term policy making is in many value questions just a proxy for mass education. You currently don't have any of that for the misuse of medicine, etc.
- dx034 9y ago
  High taxes on tabacco are not supposed to fund treatment, they're supposed to deter people from smoking. While self inflicted illnesses are (and should be) covered by health care, there is a point in trying to avoid those rather than making them easy to treat. Deterring people from smoking while researching treatment for other forms of cancer can save more lives in the long run.
  - gm-conspiracy 9y ago
    If we didn't want people to smoke, it would be illegal. Yet, as US taxpayers, we have subsidized a synthetic opioid epidemic for almost 20 years, and state governments use legal settlements against drug distributors to subsidize treatment (which are not standardized) and fund the purchase of more pharmaceutical products (suboxone and narcan).
ddeck 9y ago
>Most people who get and die from lung cancer are not smokers This is not true: More than 161,000 lung cancer deaths are projected to occur in the U.S. in 2008. Of these, an estimated 10–15% will be caused by factors other than active smoking, corresponding to 16,000–24,000 deaths annually.[1] That said: lung cancer in never smokers would rank among the most common causes of cancer mortality in the U.S. if considered to be a separate category [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170525/

SerLava 9y ago

Someone should probably run charity drives for something like "non-smoke related lung cancer" research, and then wow, what do you know, it helps smokers also...

overcast 9y ago

Where does it say most people are not smokers? "Overall, the chance that a man will develop lung cancer in his lifetime is about 1 in 14; for a woman, the risk is about 1 in 17. These numbers include both smokers and non-smokers. For smokers the risk is much higher, while for non-smokers the risk is lower."

acbabis 9y ago
I haven't researched it, but the two statistics could be reconciled if there are fewer smokers than non-smokers.

DanBC 9y ago

Smoking is the main risk factor for lung cancer. In the US about 80% of lung cancers are related to smoking. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm > Cigarette smoking is the number one risk factor for lung cancer. In the United States, cigarette smoking is linked to about 80% to 90% of lung cancers. Using other tobacco products such as cigars or pipes also increases the risk for lung cancer. [...] > People who smoke cigarettes are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer or die from lung cancer than people who do not smoke. Even smoking a few cigarettes a day or smoking occasionally increases the risk of lung cancer. The more years a person smokes and the more cigarettes smoked each day, the more risk goes up. It's true that not all lung cancer is caused by smoking.

verelo 9y ago

So i've become super interested in lung cancer, and recently found that radon gas is the most common cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. If you want bang for your buck, buy a radon detector and mitigate [slab vacuum treatment or regular ventilation] where you find levels > 100bq/m^3 [probably your basement]

the_cat_kittles 9y ago
i see they are like 200 bucks on amazon- are those what i need to get?
- cmsmith 9y ago
  There are also single-use radon test kits, which should be fine if your home is in a relatively steady-state condition.
- astura 9y ago
  I paid a home inspector $150 for a professionally administered radon test so I could be confident in the results. I wouldn't trust something so important to Amazon as they have a lot of counterfeits. Also, if you sell your home you want to show the results to prospective buyers.
  - verelo 9y ago
    Do you trust your CO alarm to Amazon or did you call the fire brigade just to be sure? Joking aside, I agree the products will improve but I feel Airthings have gone a long way to prove the reliability of their product and a future where we trust “something from amazon” isn’t all that wacky as we already live in it.
    - astura 9y ago
      No, I absolutely would not buy a CO2 alarm on Amazon! Counterfeits are rampant on Amazon, I would buy life saving devices from a retailer that has better control over their inventory such as Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Home Depot, Lowe's, True Value, Costco, our local chains, etc, etc. This isn't some sort of exaggeration, house fires have started due to counterfeit electrics. People here on HN have reported getting counterfeit body wash, counterfeit books, counterfeit diapers, and counterfeit toys from Amazon plus there's a lawsuit against Amazon for selling counterfeit eclipse glasses. https://www.dailydot.com/news/amazon-marketplace-conterfeit-fake-goods/ https://www.dailydot.com/news/amazon-marketplace-conterfeit-... >In 2012, Amazon Marketplace was identified by the Consumer Fraud Center as America’s single-largest counterfeit outfit, warning shoppers to be on their guard over the holiday season. [1] http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/05/18/amazon-counterfeit-products/amp/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/05/18/amazon-counterfeit... [1] Due to comminging policies items from marketplace sellers can end up "sold and shipped by Amazon."

eatbitseveryday 9y ago

From your URL > Lung cancer mainly occurs in older people. About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older, while less than 2% are younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70. [honest question] Could this have any impact on the perceived priority of studying lung cancer? (i.e., you're already near EOL when diagnosed with it?)

PostOnce 9y ago
65 isn't so near EOL, the average life expectancy for a 65 year old woman is 20 years, and 18 for a man[1]. 20 years is a long time... everything you do between 15 and 35? The majority of life's accomplishments for most -- you could do that all over again between 65 and 85, now with the capital and experience to do something interesting. I think computer-assisted medical developments might push that out another 5 years in the next decade or two; so the life expectancy is 25 instead of 20 from age 65. [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
- richforrester 9y ago
  > everything you do between 15 and 35? The majority of life's accomplishments for most I was having a great day.
  - snakeboy 9y ago
    > you could do that all over again between 65 and 85, now with the capital and experience to do something interesting. No reason for your day to be spoiled!
    - richforrester 9y ago
      :) It was a bit of a bluff. I'm loving 35 as much as I loved 18. Life's good when your biggest worry is elevated blood pressure.
  - ams6110 9y ago

nemo44x 9y ago

Why should someone being a smoker deprioritze lung cancer research? They’re people who engage in a legal activity and pay heavy taxes to do so. We rarely discount medicine for the myriad other medical problems that occur from many other activities like eating bad foods (way worse than smoking), avoidable stress (not addictive) and the various substance abuse from pharmaceuticals et al.

fwn 9y ago
A major part of the prevention of tobacco use is education. This is partly done through explaining the health impact on the people affected by smoking (smoker+surrounding), partly through moralizing (since health and the personal responsibility for ones own health are exercised as a value). The latter nicely fits with an externality argument based on scarcity of resources in research & treatment. At this point, if you accept all those premises, lung cancer research for smokers is a negative externality for all the non-smokers in need for research & treatment. And it's not necessary that those premises are accepted on an individual level; it's enough to just teach them. Long term policy making is in many value questions just a proxy for mass education. You currently don't have any of that for the misuse of medicine, etc.
dx034 9y ago
High taxes on tabacco are not supposed to fund treatment, they're supposed to deter people from smoking. While self inflicted illnesses are (and should be) covered by health care, there is a point in trying to avoid those rather than making them easy to treat. Deterring people from smoking while researching treatment for other forms of cancer can save more lives in the long run.
- gm-conspiracy 9y ago
  If we didn't want people to smoke, it would be illegal. Yet, as US taxpayers, we have subsidized a synthetic opioid epidemic for almost 20 years, and state governments use legal settlements against drug distributors to subsidize treatment (which are not standardized) and fund the purchase of more pharmaceutical products (suboxone and narcan).

ddeck 9y ago

>Most people who get and die from lung cancer are not smokers This is not true: More than 161,000 lung cancer deaths are projected to occur in the U.S. in 2008. Of these, an estimated 10–15% will be caused by factors other than active smoking, corresponding to 16,000–24,000 deaths annually.[1] That said: lung cancer in never smokers would rank among the most common causes of cancer mortality in the U.S. if considered to be a separate category [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170525/