I think a large contributor is poor indoor air quality - of all types, not just one specific pollutant - causing inflammation and thus cancer. Homes have gotten far tighter in recent years, and people buy ever more cheap furniture and inexpensive consumer products. So you have formaldehyde and other VOCs off-gassing, you have plasticizer vapors, nanoplastics in the air from synthetic furniture and cloth, you have refrigerants leaking from appliances and from insulation foam… I don’t think nearly anyone understands just how many unique poorly-studied chemicals are emitted into your indoor air by your average set of household products. That’s all to say nothing of common and better-understood air quality issues from gas cooking, radon, mold, etc.
So we have all these irritants in the air, and we have the most airtight homes in human history by orders of magnitude… what did we think was going to happen? That you could slap a laughably undersized carbon filter on an air purifier and call it good? Or that a limited number of too-small ERV systems would help? At some point we will need a radical rethinking of our approach to health and safety of new technology.
seanmcdirmid · 1m ago
Houses weren’t so much better, but people are living in those houses longer (well, that’s true about all cancers). Perhaps one reason California life expectancy is better than other states is that they can mostly keep their windows open year round.
irrational · 6h ago
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 numbers are almost nil.
Waterluvian · 5h ago
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?
I think action is better than decision paralysis, but I wish I could make much more informed decisions.
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 for spending some cash to get rid of radon. (Of course you should also stop smoking.)
Waterluvian · 1h ago
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 bogeyman. Radon. Cancer. Invisible silent killer. And I think it’s demonstrated by the vibe-based “seems like a good idea” conclusions in these comments.
zamadatix · 5h ago
For 93% of people the only cost is the $15 test kit to verify "yep, don't need to even think about it".
For the other 7% that then need to really do a cost-benefit the data is out there but you do need to go through your specific circumstances to get a meaningful number. The risk levels vary vastly (orders of magnitudes) between both the radon level and your life choices/situation, so it's relatively meaningless to share individual cost-benefit analyses.
nic_wilson · 2h ago
The EPA recommends home owners mitigate with radon levels of 4 pCi/L and above, and the EPA recommends home owners mitigate ”consider” mitigation at levels 2-4. Often you will see people post radon results in the 10+ or even 50+ range, which may lead you to think 4 pCi/L is not too bad, but in fact exposure to that level is the equivalent of 8 cigarettes a day or 200 chest X-rays/year.
Waterluvian · 1h ago
Given the average level of radon in the air outdoors is 10% of that, being outdoors is 20 chest x-rays per year, eh? That’s almost a cigarette per day being outdoors!
The indoor level of radon isn't going to be lower than outdoors. Indoors is either the same or higher than outdoors. Your level of exposure to radon will not go up by going outside. That's your background exposure level, and is already baked into the calculation of how much an effect an elevated exposure to radon in your home will have on you. Radon is a serious thing to consider, especially if your home has a basement. Radon mitigation is not a scam conspiracy.
Waterluvian · 1h ago
Like any good scam, they take a legitimate issue for few and sell it to many who don’t need it.
These websites will try to tell you that the average indoor radon level is equivalent to 2.5 cigarettes per day or 66 chest X-rays per year. The EPA doesn’t make that claim though.
jychang · 4h ago
Yeah, this is the correct heuristic.
Spend $15 or $100 for one or two measurements, *then* worry about cost to mitigate.
SOLAR_FIELDS · 3h ago
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, which is an additional ~$40 USD. Then and only then do you need to action and by that point you know exactly what the problem is so you don't have to pay some "expert" to sell you some massively expensive mitigation strategy that you probably don't need.
xattt · 2h ago
Our local library system offers these to borrow for six-week spans (or whatever the length of the testing is). It’s a one-and-done deal and you’re good for as long as you stay in your home. Batteries included.
necheffa · 2h ago
> What slice of my mortality pie was radon before and after spending $5000?
You'll never know. The same way people in the exclusion zone will never know if their thyroid cancer was always destined to be or if it really was related to the Chernobyl meltdown.
But spending (closer to $1000) to mitigate some risk from a known threat vector does seem thrifty.
irrational · 5h ago
$5000? I got a bunch of quotes and none came anywhere near that high and I live in a home that made it difficult to install the system (finished basement, large footprint, three stories tall, concrete outer walls (ICF), etc. I think the highest was $3,000 and the lowest $1,600. I ended up installing it myself for about $500 in materials.
zamadatix · 5h ago
That's only the initial capex though. $5,000 is a realistic swag for install + lifetime electricity + minor system maintenance.
adamsiem · 15m ago
And heating/cooling the fresh air replacing evacuated air + radon.
bradlys · 5h ago
These fans are not using $3000 in electricity over their lifetime.
zamadatix · 5h ago
I guess that depends how old you are when you install it and how long you plan to live but ~$7 per month is not at all an unrealistic electricity usage estimate for the system. 7*12*35 = $2,940.
Edit: E.g. the numbers from this site suggest, for 15 out of the 16 listed fan models, the lifetime electricity cost is likely to be significantly larger than the install cost unless you are already much older at the time you start using the system or you have extremely cheap electricity (or both) https://www.radonaway.com/radon-fan-operating-cost-calculato...
maxbond · 3h ago
The present value of $7 in 35 years is $1.45, assuming a risk free rate of 4.5%. Paying $2940 over 35 years is much more affordable than paying $2940 up front. If the goal is to be rational about risk, let's right-size the numbers. Otherwise our figures will be misleading.
kevin_thibedeau · 3h ago
You're not going to spend a fixed price over time. You're going to consume a fixed amount of energy and pay an increasing rate as the dollar inflates.
maxbond · 3h ago
Ideally we'd model all relevant parameters, my main point is that presenting the cost as $2940 is misleading.
dgfitz · 4h ago
This point always amuses me. Thats like, 1 starbucks coffee a month, or 1 trip to a fast food place a month, or one extra thing at the grocery store a month, or half a movie ticket a month, or half a streaming service a month, or less than half an LLM subscription a month, I could go on for a while.
For the cost, preventing cancer seems like it's a wise investment. I say this as a cancer survivor.
Waterluvian · 4h ago
But it doesn’t prevent cancer. It lowers the risk of a specific kind of cancer by some amount. Is it $650 worth? That’s what I’m stuck on. People just go by vibe and say things like “it’s a good investment” but that’s just coming from I don’t know where.
SkyPuncher · 23m ago
While your technically correct, you're practically wrong.
Literally, the CDC only mentions two primary sources of lung cancer: smoking and radon. Unless you have an unusual, alternative risk factor, it's practically correct to say eliminating smoking and radon prevent lung cancer.
maxbond · 3h ago
How much does it really have to prevent one of the most painful and expensive forms of cancer, not just for you but also your family, to justify $7/mo? Not very much, in my book.
Spooky23 · 2h ago
It’s a risk/reward. For a nominal cost, you essentially eliminate a gas that causes or accelerates lung cancer.
Enjoy one free beer a month, dude. Chances are you won’t develop a vicious cancer.
dgfitz · 3h ago
I'm just saying, I'm happy to pay for our system at the cost of seven whole dollars in energy cost per month, for my spouse and kids if nothing else.
If in 20 years I find out I got ripped off, I won't really be upset about it.
ProAm · 5h ago
That is still insanely high. The highest Ive seen for install is $650 but required quite a bit of piping to the exterior.
irrational · 2h ago
Just the materials cost was $500. How are they doing labor for $150?
Waterluvian · 5h ago
It’ll vary considerably. But I just picked a random round number that doesn’t affect the point I’m sharing.
No comments yet
ok_computer · 3h ago
Radon fan drawing from two basement surfaces (concrete slab crawlspace addition and original stone foundation with cement floor): $1,200.00 usd in 2020 with warrantied fan and included confirmation test kit. US mid Atlantic. The prior homeowner thought radon was a scam too. It doesn’t make sense as a scam for a one-time capital and labor purchase.
pkaye · 5h ago
Here is something I found comparing the risk of radon exposure to other risks. Seems like if you don't smoke the risks are much lower.
I might not be in as tight with the grizzlies, but $5k a year for a personal bear trainer seems a bit low. For a regular brown bear sure, but the grizzlies are expensive
labster · 2h ago
Yeah but no matter what, you gotta pay for the bear necessities.
Ancalagon · 4h ago
I am super uneducated on this, but I thought radon was only a concern for people with brick homes or basements?
jchw · 1h ago
I have a brick house and a basement, and I have no radon mitigation system, and I live in an area where radon is generally a concern (southeast Michigan.)
Over the last couple years I've had some AirThings sensors collecting data. Last month:
- The one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor crossed over 3 pCi/L once... for a very brief period. Around 80% of the time, the one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor was below 2 pCi/L.
- The one-day average radon concentration detected by the main floor sensor never reached 3 pCi/L and was rarely above 2 pCi/L.
In fact, since January, the main floor sensor has still never reached 3 pCi/L even once, or really gotten all that close. The basement sensor, on the other hand, has reached 4 pCi/L three times this year, with a peak at 5.1 pCi/L for a brief period in May.
I hardly ever check this data, but it is nice to have it. I guess it would probably be wise to double check some other way to make sure that the AirThings sensors are outputting good information, but I have little reason to doubt it.
As long as I'm interpreting the data right, though, it suggests that despite having some of the worst case scenarios for my house, actually it's fine. So I guess it really does depend mostly on the land you're built on. (That, and, you should probably just check instead of guessing.)
johncolanduoni · 4h ago
It has more to do with the land you’re built on, though basements make it worse.
gerdesj · 4h ago
"The second leading cause of lung cancer is radon"
Perhaps. I smoked for 30 years and I lived on and off in Devon for at least 15 years.
There is a bloody great pluton underneath Dartmoor in Devon and Bodmin in Cornwall and so on. Hence lots of lovely granite and radon and stuff.
This is the SW of England (UK). Radon emanates out of the earth and pools in cellars and the like and is a major health hazard. Ideally you know about the hazard and dissipate it. A simple fan will do the job.
I'm not sure it is the second leading cause of lung cancer. There are plenty of other pollutants to worry about.
barbazoo · 5h ago
Folks, check out your local library, ours has radon test devices.
YZF · 3h ago
Same (Canada).
phkahler · 12h ago
Are lung cancer rates up? Obviously eliminating or reducing the primary cause will lead to larger percentages of the other causes among cases.
cbsmith · 6h ago
Yeah, this title for the article is really terrible. The "why" that scientists are investigating is not why many lung cancers aren't in nonsmokers. The "why" they are investigating is "why are these non smokers getting cancer?". Once smoking stops being such a dominant cause, you put more energy into the other cases.
irrational · 6h ago
It would be radon, wouldn’t it?
gerdesj · 4h ago
... well that is irrational
asgraham · 2h ago
I can’t find any complete numbers (most prevalent factors after smoking would be environmental, and therefore underreported, especially when as hard to detect as radon), but national health agencies tend to put the Radon section second, after Smoking [1,2]. An uncited figure on a Hopkins webpage suggests 30% of non-smoking lung cancer cases are caused by Radon [3]. Among the well-known environmental factors (asbestos, secondhand smoke), it seems to be about equal for risk increase [4]. Given that asbestos and secondhand smoke are on the decline, it stands to reason that radon will tend toward being the top cause, barring a rise in prevalence of one of the disease risk factors (asthma, pneumonia, HIV, tuberculosis).
Of course this is all moot because vaping will be revealed to be the current #1 cause of lung cancer in the coming decades, by a long shot. No citation necessary.
> Of course this is all moot because vaping will be revealed to be the current #1 cause of lung cancer in the coming decades, by a long shot. No citation necessary.
That isn't obvious or apparent to me at all so I do think a citation would be good to see. Nicotine is definitely a culprit in a lot of cardio-related issues for sure. I think some flavoring agents are the more questionable thing and would be curious to hear about those specifically in relation to lung cancers.
dinfinity · 8h ago
Yes, also, the base rate of smoking in different groups is important to take into consideration to prevent the base rate fallacy.
Very few Chinese American women smoke (~2%), so if smokers and non-smokers have the same chance of getting lung cancer not caused by smoking, then the number of non-smokers with lung cancer will be a larger proportion.
If 100% of some group would be non-smokers, then obviously 100% of lung cancer cases in that group will be in non-smokers.
It's similar to misinterpreting the fact that most people that were hospitalized from Covid-19 were vaccinated.
dlachausse · 10h ago
On the surface, the data from the American Lung Association appears to support that hypothesis...
The graph seems to shoe me it's peaked and is back on the way down ?
calf · 6h ago
Except reducing the first cause does nothing about whether air pollution is a nontrivial factor. And nonsmoker cancers are a nontrivial proportion since they account for 10-25 percent of lung cancer worldwide, please just read the article.
Besides the base rate fallacy there is the fallacy of assuming only the biggest factor is what matters, when other factors are nontrivial weights already. Another fallacy is the fallacy of relativizing a problem framing by insisting on comparison with an obsolete problem --campaigns against smoking have done a lot, so why are we still comparing today's problems against the problems of the 20th century. It smacks of "well, things were even worse back then", which surely the base rate fallacy is not trying to suggest.
0cf8612b2e1e · 3h ago
I do wonder if non-smokers are segregated based on second hand exposure: have a parent/spouse who smokes. Casino employees may have to spend a full shift bathed in smoke.
0xDEAFBEAD · 38m ago
>Studies have also shown that people who don’t smoke but have a family history of lung cancer, such as Ms. Chen and Ms. Liu — both of Ms. Liu’s grandfathers had the disease — are at increased risk. This could be because of shared genetics, a common environment or both, said Dr. Jae Kim, chief of thoracic surgery at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif.
Couldn't this be secondhand smoke?
ezekiel68 · 1h ago
I'm not sure why this isn't recognized as a great success.
Once a large enough portion of the population were no longer smokers, it was inevitable that many lung cancers would be in smokers. What is important in all of this is not "large sounding numbers" of people, but the percentage of the population, as a whole, who suffer from lung cancer. And a further confounding factor life expectancy today vs even 30 years ago (the longer one lives, the more likely it is for cancer of any kind to develop).
nancyminusone · 12h ago
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.
abakker · 12h ago
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 did a lot of good in keeping levels low. Also, sump pump failures or ground water levels can "push" radon into the house. I dug a deeper sump pit and also put a secondary radon fan to pull air out of my sub-foundation drain pipes to ensure the air below the house is cycled.
Still, in Boulder County, my house will fail its radon test after a 2 hour power outage.
I am an evangelist for continuous radon monitoring, alerts and tests.
simonsarris · 8h ago
> 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
zdragnar · 5h ago
A better seal maintains the pressure in the house better.
Drafts form either from temperature differential and wind outside pushing in.
Radon coming up from the ground is still heavier than air, so it won't mix in very well if it can't displace anything.
It's not a perfect solution, as air movement from circulation will help it mix in, but a good envelope will help a mitigation system out quite a bit.
NegativeLatency · 6h ago
There's probably a tipping point between the stack effect (hot air rising and pulling on the radon) and drafts bringing in fresh air diluting the radon.
nancyminusone · 12h ago
I bought one of those because I have a couple radium clocks and a nice sample of uraninite, which is a tiny collection compared to the real enthusiasts but probably more radioactive stuff than the average person has. Radon is in the decay chain.
I've never seen above 0.7pC/L which is pretty good, although I don't know what proportion of the activity that is there is natural, or how much more it would be without the fan. I'm not sure what the natural radon levels even are in my area, I think the radon fan is just part of code here.
colordrops · 9h ago
My house is a raised foundation and they covered all the ground underneath with plastic and put perforated pipes underneath that pull the air out. Radon went down 10x. The company has a 5 year guarantee.
ellisv · 3h ago
An estimated 38% of homes in my county have elevated radon levels.
We tested for radon when we bought our house and found the levels to be very high.
Fortunately the builders had installed a passive mitigation system so all we had to do was install a fan.
prawn · 3h ago
I have never heard of radon as a domestic health concern (40+, have owned multiple houses). Does this vary by country or relate to mitigation industries in a locale?
daemonologist · 3h ago
It varies with geology yes, produced by the radioactive decay chains of U-238 and Th-232.
If I recall correctly it can accumulate more readily in basements, so that's another factor. The house I grew up in had an exhaust system installed due to elevated radon levels.
WorkerBee28474 · 3h ago
It varies by the amount of uranium underneath you. So yes, by country/state/province/etc.
prawn · 3h ago
Australia has the largest uranium reserves, but I've never heard radon mentioned here as a concern, so I assume it just comes down to the reserves being very specifically located.
WorkerBee28474 · 1h ago
It's a concern for miners, but not normal homes. Also radon often concentrates in basements, and you don't have those.
astura · 1h ago
I guess it's not much of a concern in Australia, I guess.
>In 1990, ARPANSA conducted a nationwide survey of more than 3300 Australian homes to determine the radiation dose to the Australian population from exposure to natural background radiation, including radon. Based on this survey, the average concentration of radon in Australian homes is about 10 Bq m⁻³. This is less than in many other countries and compares to a global average indoor value of 40 Bq m⁻³. Average radon levels in Australian homes are only a little larger than the radon levels in outside air and are of minimal concern to health.
astura · 1h ago
I heard that even houses next door to each other can have different amounts of radon.
colordrops · 11h ago
I bought a house in the hills of Los Angeles and we tested for radon. Turned out it was very high, and LA is one of the few places in California that has high radon. We got it mitigated, and it wasn't that expensive. I talked to neighbors and real estate agents, and no one wanted to know anything about it. I was shocked. Everyone is pulling the wool over their own eyes here.
asdff · 6h ago
Do you have a source for the high radon in LA? According to this county source it is pretty low in LA county but much more pronounced in Ventura county (1% homes with high levels vs 14%). I imagine there is some potential for accumulation effects but this is probably much worse in markets where the homes actually have basements.
I found a map at some point. It was 5 years ago. I'm in the San Fernando valley area myself. I do believe there were hotspots in the hills here but perhaps it was mostly ventura county. I'd have to find the map.
etaioinshrdlu · 4h ago
Much of LA has some of the worst air in the country, so I think it selects for people who don't care about being poisoned by their environment.
severino · 6h ago
> We got it mitigated, and it wasn't that expensive
What's the process, usually, adding some special ventilation system to the house?
irrational · 6h ago
Drill a 6” hole through the concrete foundation and dig out about 15-20 gallons worth of material. Install a 3-4” PVC pipe into the hole (the end of the pipe should be a few inches below the bottom of the foundation) and seal the hole up with hydraulic cement. Continue the PVC pipe up out out of the house. There are lots of rules around distance of the outlet from windows and doors and how high above roof line. Inline install a radon fan. How big a fan you need depends on many factors like soil type, home dimensions, etc. The fan runs 24/7 creating a vacuum under the house.
Marsymars · 6h ago
I’m actually scheduled for an install next Monday. Mine has two components:
1. The ventilation isn’t really “in the house” - the fan pulls from below the slab (and exhausts outside) to prevent radon seeping through.
2. Based on the best guess about my home age/area and radon patterns in my house, the slab was probably poured around the furnace, so the mitigation will include disassembling/reassembling my furnace to seal underneath.
colordrops · 5h ago
Yes. I went into detail in another message in this thread. I neglected to mention that our garage is a slab foundation unlike the rest of the house so it involved drilling a hole and putting in a ventilation pipe into it, as others have mentioned.
Spooky23 · 6h ago
It’s knowledge that can only hurt you if you’re selling houses. Just like lead paint - it’s smart to be dumb.
thfuran · 6h ago
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.
lazide · 1h ago
And certainly people would not be dumb and evil?
aetherspawn · 1h ago
I can think of a few hypothesis, but I’d hit all the reasons we already know that people in their 30s are getting cancer first, like:
Natural gas burning inside with poor ventilation (solve by pushing electric everything, paid for by carbon tax paid by big oil)
ICE car exhaust (solve with EVs, subsidised by carbon tax paid by big oil)
Second hand smoke (ban smoking in public and within XX distance of a child, and make support for parents to quit free from cigarette taxes)
Microplastics in the water and the air including tyre dust (start regulating this/coming up with a long term plan to reduce it and filter it out, and put a government subsidy on certified and professionally installed under sink microplastic water filter products… paid for by those who put the plastic there in the first place)
Poor indoor air quality/high VOX (mandate air flow minimum levels for all new builds and make extraction fans for offices a normal requirement, and give tenants something to lobby against their body corporate to improve airflow in uselessly designed buildings since “sick building syndrome” is real but often impossible to know before you sign the papers)
lordofgibbons · 1h ago
But all of these factors have been around for many decades, why is it showing up now?
ojosilva · 29m ago
Because smoking is down, and with it, smoking-related lung cancer. Nonsmoker lung cancer numbers OTOH remain steady and its percentage is therefore higher.
Huxley1 · 1h ago
This challenges our previous understanding of lung cancer risks, since we’ve always thought it mostly affected smokers. I’m curious how much is due to environmental pollution or other exposures, and how much is genetic. Hopefully, this will push for more research and better screening methods for everyone.
bena · 1h ago
Not necessarily. Smoking has become less prevalent.
So while before, most lung cancer victims were smokers, we’re at the point where overall risk in the general population causes higher numbers than specific risk in smokers.
Because while most lung cancer victims were smokers, most smokers never got lung cancer.
jader201 · 1h ago
Dropping at the root since some threads are talking about radon and whether it’s based on region.
This is the EPA map for radon risks (zones) in the US:
I used to live by a busy street in a semi-dense part of town. Cars would be going around 45mph.
When I moved from that apartment after 4 years. I was shocked by the amount of black dust covering everything. from the walls to the shelves and floors. I think it was all tire pollution so switching to 100% electric won't mitigate.
It was pretty shocking and I wondered how much i increased my risk for lung cancer or other cancers.
apt-apt-apt-apt · 11h ago
Man, similar story. Spent a few months next to a mall parking lot with rough asphalt. Apparently the neighborhood had a car drifting crowd, and they'd regularly do so, which made me irrationally angry.
I only realized later that all the black dust everywhere must have been tire particles, when I realized other places DON'T have the black dust. Given the toxicity of tire pollution, it doesn't seem like my reaction was irrational after all. Sucks for all the people that still live there, who may not even realize what's going on.
arevno · 9h ago
The lungs are exposed to air, but they're also exposed to a lot of bloodborne compounds, since a full vascular cycle goes through the pulmonary arteries.
The null hypothesis is "it's something in the air", but with the increase in non-lung cancers in young people[1] noted over the past decade, it's entirely possible it's something else, and lung tissue is one of the susceptible ones to whatever it is.
I was just talking to my wife about playgrounds using shredded tires as the "mulch". I don't know where the rubber comes from, if and how it is cleaned, or what particulate material it carries, but it seems dubious at best.
nartho · 12h ago
Those are known to be particularly awful and dangerous, particularly on hot days, and have been banned in a lot of places.
awakeasleep · 11h ago
6PPD (N-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine)
•Purpose: Antioxidant to prevent rubber cracking.
•Danger: When it reacts with ozone and air, it forms 6PPD-quinone, a toxic compound shown to kill salmon and other aquatic life at trace levels.
•Status: Under increasing regulatory scrutiny (e.g., Washington State has started restricting it).
⸻
2. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
•Purpose: Byproducts from extender oils and carbon black.
•Danger: Known carcinogens, mutagens, and endocrine disruptors. Persist in the environment and can leach from tire wear particles.
•Status: Regulated in the EU; linked to air and soil contamination.
⸻
3. Benzothiazoles (e.g., 2-mercaptobenzothiazole)
•Purpose: Vulcanization accelerators.
•Danger: Toxic to aquatic organisms, possibly carcinogenic, and bioaccumulative.
•Status: Found in tire leachate and considered a contaminant of emerging concern.
⸻
Nothing definitive about harm to human welfare yet, as far as I know.
Spooky23 · 6h ago
They contain heavy metals like lead and PFAs. They also break down over time and leach microplastic into the wider environment.
nancyminusone · 11h ago
My (wealthy) high school had a "turf" field which uses little rubber pellets as the "dirt". Those were probably shredded tires too. During football season you would see them tracked around the school, and if you were a football player or in the band they would show up at your house.
also, they would periodocially dump "more dirt" onto the field, once every year or so. Not sure if they vacuumed the old stuff up or just dumped more on top, but sometimes you would go out there and there would be a huge pile of rubber in the middle, which I guess got spread out later
squigz · 5h ago
Why not just use dirt?! Our planet is covered in it!
glaucon · 4h ago
Where I live during the Rugby and Soccer seasons it's not uncommon for the 'normal' pitches to be unplayable due to consistent periods of rain.
A number of schools, and public facilities, near me have switched to plastic pitches for this reason. I'm not advocating for them but there is a rationale.
BTW it's not just that being very muddy makes it difficult to play on but that using the pitch in that state trashes the grass.
mschuster91 · 11h ago
It's banned for new installs in Europe and existing installations have to be replaced by 2031 [1] - although primarily to get rid of a microplastics emission source. Additionally, shredded tire rubber as infill is investigated for being contaminated with PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) [2].
> primarily to get rid of a microplastics emission source
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that inhaled microplastics were causing an increase in lung cancers. We know they end up deep in the lungs.
mschuster91 · 8h ago
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...
autoexec · 5h ago
Hopefully not. I keep the windows up and recycle the air (which should be filtered on its way in anyway). I live a bit closer to road than I'd like considering the traffic levels though so even keeping windows open in the house could be an issue.
AnonymousPlanet · 11h ago
This might actually be brake dust. In that case, the situation most likely will be improved by electric cars because they use their brakes far less often, decelerating with their motors.
voxic11 · 11h ago
Breaks are only part of the problem unfortunately.
> Resuspension of dust already on the road’s surface is the most significant contributor to non-exhaust PM by far, however these particles are difficult to characterize and manage because they could come from anywhere before landing on the road. Brakes are the next most significant source, and may also be particularly hazardous because of their small size and high metal content. Tires contribute the least, but they release large amounts of particles which act as microplastics in ecosystems.
I've heard that regenerative braking helps, but the relatively higher mass of an electric car (because of the battery) hurts. I wonder how it adds up in terms of brake dust produced.
dv_dt · 11h ago
And it could be both tire dust and or brake dust are indicators of proximity to combustion engine exhaust. Any individual or combination of those could be an increased cancer risk. But only the dust is immediately visible and leaves behind a tangible trace
No comments yet
CGMthrowaway · 3h ago
Tires and brake dust (yuck)
vel0city · 5h ago
I don't doubt a significant portion was tire and brake dust, but even gasoline and diesel can emit a significant amount of soot and unburned hydrocarbons.
dontreact · 3h ago
Lung cancer screening should be used more broadly and improved over time in a data driven fashion!
We can catch things early, it shouldn’t be limited to only for smokers.
iancmceachern · 12h ago
Its pollution, I door and outdoor, chemical and combustion.
Apreche · 12h ago
It happens more in women, especially in countries with traditional gender roles. They are doing more cooking in the kitchen where there is fire.
The US fairly typically has electric stoves. Natural gas stoves are going to be the second most common form of cooking.
In the countries the OP is talking about, people cook over literal fires and fire pits (sometimes enclosed). Even when that happens in the US, unless you are talking about camping, you are likely talking about something like a well vented wood stove or wood stove oven like my grandma had.
Among certain groups of Asian and Asian American women, that share is estimated to be 50 percent or more.
I suspect certain perfumes may be causing it.
diziet_sma · 2h ago
Or perhaps cooking? Cooking can really spike AQI if ventilation is suboptimal.
Another potential explanation is cleaning products.
I think these are both far more likely than perfume, as there is a much stronger link between AQI and lung cancer than perfume and lung cancer (if there is any at all).
userbinator · 1h ago
Professional chefs are largely not Asian women, and cook a lot more. Has there been a similar trend in them?
Cleaning products is a possibility.
Incense is another one --- those who burn incense may not consider it smoking, but any burning plant matter is going to emit similar products of combustion.
jmclnx · 13h ago
Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil fuel emissions, mainly from autos.
When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work.
But, I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in cancers for people under 50.
asdff · 6h ago
Pollution was way worse in the past. Old pictures of american cities from 50 years ago look like Beijing. We hadn't yet offshored heavy industry by that point and like you said, a larger percent of the metro was living closer to it. And whatever you saw outside was actually better than your air quality inside where these pollutants would accumulate and mix with Dad's cigarette smoke.
This was the air you were breathing back then (1, 2, 3).
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.
doubled112 · 12h ago
We really like our station wagon. Well, in principle at least. We won't get into the details of keeping a 12 year old German car going.
It's fuel efficient. It's not big. It's a decent people mover. It has more cargo space than many SUVs that are larger. Is low enough the roof racks are easily accessible. Added a hitch, mostly for more cargo space.
I'm starting to wonder if I've done more "truck things" than many of the people with trucks in the neighbourhood at this point. If I ever need to haul more, I'll just rent a truck/van for that moment in time. I'm not going to buy one to drive to the office.
QuercusMax · 12h ago
When I had a Honda Fit I hauled a TON of cargo in it. A friend borrowed it to pick up a full-sized pinball machine from the next state over. I moved half of a 5-bedroom house (except for big furniture) across town in my Fit.
You don't need a gigantic beast. A kei truck is more than adequate for the vast majority of what people use pickup trucks for.
cosmic_cheese · 3h ago
Fits are pretty famous for their TARDIS-like nature. It’s a shame they’re not sold in the US any more.
asdff · 6h ago
Even my old Integra had a ton of trunk space when you fold down the seats. It was almost like a small pickup truck. I think a lot of people would get by with a sedan but it seems like the seats no longer fold down on a lot of smaller cars like that.
RajT88 · 12h ago
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)
QuercusMax · 12h ago
But she's making everyone else less safe by driving in her tank-mobile. Those are much more deadly to pedestrians, cyclists, and those in smaller vehicles.
autoexec · 9h ago
It's also an arms race where everyone buys bigger cars to see over all the other giant cars on the road. SUVs have been shown many times to be less safe, even for their drivers, but they give a feeling of safety which matters more than actual safety to buyers.
potato3732842 · 11h ago
And for every comment screeching about pedestrians and rollover safety there's another one screeching about occupant safety. You can't really fault people for picking the one that benefits them when confronted with roughly equal screeching in both directions.
RajT88 · 11h ago
Exactly what I was getting at.
There are several ways to view the story.
Another commenter mentioned failing to design cars for women (totally fair! Volvo famously had a botched attempt at this)
What I have come to appreciate is how vulnerable women feel in the world. It is hard to appreciate how that plays into car choice if you are a man. Most men will never be able to understand, imo.
asdff · 6h ago
Only 20 years ago used to be the "hairdresser car" meant a tiny little sporty coupe or convertible like a miata. I guess the marketing changed and cultivated a new generation with a new mindset.
giraffe_lady · 6h ago
You absolutely can fault people for taking the choice that makes them safer at the expense of others' safety. I don't know how it became such a popular idea that a moral imperative is only valid if it carries no personal cost.
It may be small in the grand scheme of things but it is wrong to do this, in exactly the same way, but a much smaller degree, it is wrong to shove a child out of your way to escape a burning building.
kccqzy · 11h ago
Some people are selfish. It's not illegal to be selfish.
mschuster91 · 11h ago
> 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 front, she was barely able to drive the thing. The Mercedes Sprinter we rented for our last moves? Once she understood how the dimensions of that thing worked, absolutely easy going.
> big SUVs rolling by with exactly one person in them
My mini-suv seems to be getting about double the gas milage my old normal car did.
bamboozled · 6h ago
But they are so tough though...
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 6h ago
Now imagine the massive global polluting supply chain to put that SUV together for a single person.
mrob · 12h ago
I think people underestimate the impact of air pollution because it's so easy to get desensitized to it. Try wearing a respirator with good seal and filter in an urban area for 10 minutes or so. When you take it off you'll probably smell vehicle exhaust you didn't notice before. Human sense of smell tends to tune out constant low level background odors, but they can still be a sign of something harmful.
Enginerrrd · 12h ago
For sure. I live in an area with superb air quality and going down to LA and trying to take a run feels like smoking a couple of cigarettes.
potato3732842 · 11h ago
I think you grossly underestimate the degree to which cars (and industry that we had yet to kick out to China) were dirtier decades ago than they are today.
We're talking like literal orders, plural, of magnitude when comparing between the generally no cats automotive fleet of the 70s with anything since the advent of both cats and computerized fuel injection. Any old timer can tell you of the smog that used to be frequent in urban areas. These days it's mostly gone, at least when California or Canada (depending on where you live) isn't on fire.
(INB4 people who are a net negative to public discourse construe this comment as some sort of endorsement for everyone driving everywhere all the time)
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 6h ago
Cars were dirtier but I think there were fewer.
asdff · 6h ago
Just look at old photos of city smog in the 1960s. It is night and day different compared to air today even with larger populations in these same metros in some cases.
999900000999 · 12h ago
Ohh it's definitely cars.
In more ways than one. A lot of "poor" countries have life expectancies comparable to the US. The big difference is they don't have a culture of every single person needing to own a car that spray carcinogens all over the place.
Obesity, which is its own massive wrecking ball, is also significantly lower in these "poor" countries.
The arrogance of laughing at poor people riding bikes to work when that would create a drastically healthier society.
Imagine if you had a 4km x 4km city with no consumer vehicles ( emergency and delivery exempt). Just walking paths and bike lanes. The people living there would be drastically healthier.
Or hell, it might just be luck. A lot of smokers live until there 80s enjoying a fat cigar once a day
SchemaLoad · 5h ago
It's honestly such awakening experience to see videos or visit these "poor" low GDP, stagnant economy countries and see their streets are full of happy, healthy people out walking, talking with each other. Kids out playing on the street, old people dancing in the parks. And then see our rich cities where everyone sits in traffic scoffing McDonalds raging out at other people doing the same. Huffing in diesel exhaust and tire microplastics.
lazide · 1h ago
Eh, visit a big city in India for a third view.
SchemaLoad · 1h ago
Have to wonder what happened differently between countries like China, Japan, and India. I'm not an expert but yeah there is something more to it. Better managed government perhaps?
0points · 12h ago
Modern cars should be equipped with a catalysator, making the majority of pollution to be Co2, worsening the global warming.
To some extent heavy metals are being distributed in the air by the wheels in heavily populated areas.
This can be greatly improved by limiting traffic in heavily populated areas. Trump removed such a rule from New York City recently for reasons I can not comprehend.
Many european cities have improved air quality successfully and hence increased life expectancy by limiting car traffic.
The majority of air pollution of particles however, is caused by the industry (the companies making those cars, among others).
In fact, you are a worse polluter of the earth today if you buy a new Tesla than if you kept driving your 1980s gasoline car due to the amount of pollution created by producing a single vehicle.
danielbln · 12h ago
Particulate matter is still a huge problem, mainly produced by tires and break pads, but also road abrasion. In terms of pure engine exhaust, catalysts don't do much here, you'd need a particulate filter, which not all cars have. So, cars still a problem wrt cancer, as particulate matter is carcinogenic.
ChrisArchitect · 12h ago
Related from last year, similar asian women angle for whatever reason:
Asian American women are getting lung cancer despite never smoking
Wok cooking is done at really high temp, which releases gases that are not present in moderate/low temp cooking. Woks trends asian, cooking trends towards women.
blindriver · 11h ago
I don’t think you know young Asian American women if you think they are cooking with woks or even cooking in general.
resoluteteeth · 11h ago
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.
lukeschlather · 4h ago
It doesn't have to be super-high-temp wok cooking. Just using a wok and a normal residential gas stove is not great for you. Even at home stove temps stir frying can throw up a fair amount of oil aerosols. And it potentially means standing over the stove with the gas going on high, even if it's not going to get as hot as a restaurant wok. The gas is bad for you, the aerosols are probably bad for you. It's plausible Asian-Americans use this sort of cooking method more often than non-Asians.
mschuster91 · 11h ago
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].
> Leah Phillips, of Pewee Valley, Ky. Doctors first mistakenly diagnosed her with asthma and then anxiety. Later, they said she had pneumonia. When an oncologist finally told her in 2019 that she had metastatic lung cancer, he gave her six to 12 months to live. “Go home and get your affairs in order,” Ms. Phillips remembered him saying. She was 43, and her children were 9, 13 and 14.
(One of many cases mentioned in the article.)
Before you head for the lab, to start researching "why" - maybe you should tighten up the standards for diagnosis and testing? That could enormously improve the qualities & quantities of life for a huge number of patients.
pfortuny · 12h ago
> The thinking used to be that smoking was “almost the only cause of lung cancer,” said Dr. Maria Teresa Landi, a senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.
Well, that tells a lot: overfocusing on a single cause because it is obvious and major. Well, let us hope the medical science learns this lesson.
ETA: not that I blame them, it is a reasonable attitude but not so good in science.
SoftTalker · 12h ago
Not jumping the paywall but I'd guess that because relatively nobody smokes cigarettes anymore, cases of lung cancer with other causes are now more of what doctors are seeing.
JKCalhoun · 12h ago
Did jump the paywall — and FTA, regardless, the question remains what causes these non-smoker lung cancers. Issues of environment and heredity are discussed.
> Many Lung Cancers Are Now in Nonsmokers. Scientists Want to Know Why
Because hypocrisy does not live long. They blamed cigarettes for lung cancer, ignoring all other causes. "Oh, you have cancer but didn't smoke ? You surely were inhaling cigarettes smoke from somebody else.". We can polute further with no repercursions.
polotics · 8h ago
smokers thirds FYI:
- one third dies a direct smoking related death
- one third suffers from smoking related diseases then dies
- one third dies of something else, younger than the other two
pessimizer · 4h ago
They used to exaggerate the risks of cancer to smokers. Not many people get lung cancer at all, so 80% of them being smokers still doesn't represent that much risk for an individual smoker.
But like half of smokers ultimately end up with COPD, which can be like taking years to drown to death.
So we have all these irritants in the air, and we have the most airtight homes in human history by orders of magnitude… what did we think was going to happen? That you could slap a laughably undersized carbon filter on an air purifier and call it good? Or that a limited number of too-small ERV systems would help? At some point we will need a radical rethinking of our approach to health and safety of new technology.
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?
I think action is better than decision paralysis, but I wish I could make much more informed decisions.
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 for spending some cash to get rid of radon. (Of course you should also stop smoking.)
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 bogeyman. Radon. Cancer. Invisible silent killer. And I think it’s demonstrated by the vibe-based “seems like a good idea” conclusions in these comments.
For the other 7% that then need to really do a cost-benefit the data is out there but you do need to go through your specific circumstances to get a meaningful number. The risk levels vary vastly (orders of magnitudes) between both the radon level and your life choices/situation, so it's relatively meaningless to share individual cost-benefit analyses.
https://www.epa.gov/radon/what-epas-action-level-radon-and-w...
The EPA doesn’t make such creative claims. But the sites that do will also conveniently sell you stuff.
https://radonbegone.com/what-does-your-radon-number-mean/
https://www.nationalradondefense.com/radon-information/radon...
These websites will try to tell you that the average indoor radon level is equivalent to 2.5 cigarettes per day or 66 chest X-rays per year. The EPA doesn’t make that claim though.
Spend $15 or $100 for one or two measurements, *then* worry about cost to mitigate.
You'll never know. The same way people in the exclusion zone will never know if their thyroid cancer was always destined to be or if it really was related to the Chernobyl meltdown.
But spending (closer to $1000) to mitigate some risk from a known threat vector does seem thrifty.
Edit: E.g. the numbers from this site suggest, for 15 out of the 16 listed fan models, the lifetime electricity cost is likely to be significantly larger than the install cost unless you are already much older at the time you start using the system or you have extremely cheap electricity (or both) https://www.radonaway.com/radon-fan-operating-cost-calculato...
For the cost, preventing cancer seems like it's a wise investment. I say this as a cancer survivor.
Literally, the CDC only mentions two primary sources of lung cancer: smoking and radon. Unless you have an unusual, alternative risk factor, it's practically correct to say eliminating smoking and radon prevent lung cancer.
Enjoy one free beer a month, dude. Chances are you won’t develop a vicious cancer.
If in 20 years I find out I got ripped off, I won't really be upset about it.
No comments yet
https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon
Over the last couple years I've had some AirThings sensors collecting data. Last month:
- The one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor crossed over 3 pCi/L once... for a very brief period. Around 80% of the time, the one-day average radon concentration detected by the basement sensor was below 2 pCi/L.
- The one-day average radon concentration detected by the main floor sensor never reached 3 pCi/L and was rarely above 2 pCi/L.
In fact, since January, the main floor sensor has still never reached 3 pCi/L even once, or really gotten all that close. The basement sensor, on the other hand, has reached 4 pCi/L three times this year, with a peak at 5.1 pCi/L for a brief period in May.
I hardly ever check this data, but it is nice to have it. I guess it would probably be wise to double check some other way to make sure that the AirThings sensors are outputting good information, but I have little reason to doubt it.
As long as I'm interpreting the data right, though, it suggests that despite having some of the worst case scenarios for my house, actually it's fine. So I guess it really does depend mostly on the land you're built on. (That, and, you should probably just check instead of guessing.)
Perhaps. I smoked for 30 years and I lived on and off in Devon for at least 15 years.
There is a bloody great pluton underneath Dartmoor in Devon and Bodmin in Cornwall and so on. Hence lots of lovely granite and radon and stuff.
This is the SW of England (UK). Radon emanates out of the earth and pools in cellars and the like and is a major health hazard. Ideally you know about the hazard and dissipate it. A simple fan will do the job.
I'm not sure it is the second leading cause of lung cancer. There are plenty of other pollutants to worry about.
Of course this is all moot because vaping will be revealed to be the current #1 cause of lung cancer in the coming decades, by a long shot. No citation necessary.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/lung-cancer/risk-factors/index.html
[2] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/lung-cancer/causes/
[3] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
[4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6777859/
That isn't obvious or apparent to me at all so I do think a citation would be good to see. Nicotine is definitely a culprit in a lot of cardio-related issues for sure. I think some flavoring agents are the more questionable thing and would be curious to hear about those specifically in relation to lung cancers.
Very few Chinese American women smoke (~2%), so if smokers and non-smokers have the same chance of getting lung cancer not caused by smoking, then the number of non-smokers with lung cancer will be a larger proportion.
If 100% of some group would be non-smokers, then obviously 100% of lung cancer cases in that group will be in non-smokers.
It's similar to misinterpreting the fact that most people that were hospitalized from Covid-19 were vaccinated.
https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/lung-ca...
Besides the base rate fallacy there is the fallacy of assuming only the biggest factor is what matters, when other factors are nontrivial weights already. Another fallacy is the fallacy of relativizing a problem framing by insisting on comparison with an obsolete problem --campaigns against smoking have done a lot, so why are we still comparing today's problems against the problems of the 20th century. It smacks of "well, things were even worse back then", which surely the base rate fallacy is not trying to suggest.
Couldn't this be secondhand smoke?
Once a large enough portion of the population were no longer smokers, it was inevitable that many lung cancers would be in smokers. What is important in all of this is not "large sounding numbers" of people, but the percentage of the population, as a whole, who suffer from lung cancer. And a further confounding factor life expectancy today vs even 30 years ago (the longer one lives, the more likely it is for cancer of any kind to develop).
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.
Barometric pressure, temperature, and HVAC all seem to have some bearing - tightening the house for air leaks actually did a lot of good in keeping levels low. Also, sump pump failures or ground water levels can "push" radon into the house. I dug a deeper sump pit and also put a secondary radon fan to pull air out of my sub-foundation drain pipes to ensure the air below the house is cycled.
Still, in Boulder County, my house will fail its radon test after a 2 hour power outage.
I am an evangelist for continuous radon monitoring, alerts and tests.
Wait, really? Intuitively I would expect the opposite, that a draftier house is better for radon levels indoors
Drafts form either from temperature differential and wind outside pushing in.
Radon coming up from the ground is still heavier than air, so it won't mix in very well if it can't displace anything.
It's not a perfect solution, as air movement from circulation will help it mix in, but a good envelope will help a mitigation system out quite a bit.
I've never seen above 0.7pC/L which is pretty good, although I don't know what proportion of the activity that is there is natural, or how much more it would be without the fan. I'm not sure what the natural radon levels even are in my area, I think the radon fan is just part of code here.
We tested for radon when we bought our house and found the levels to be very high.
Fortunately the builders had installed a passive mitigation system so all we had to do was install a fan.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2408084121
If I recall correctly it can accumulate more readily in basements, so that's another factor. The house I grew up in had an exhaust system installed due to elevated radon levels.
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation...
>In 1990, ARPANSA conducted a nationwide survey of more than 3300 Australian homes to determine the radiation dose to the Australian population from exposure to natural background radiation, including radon. Based on this survey, the average concentration of radon in Australian homes is about 10 Bq m⁻³. This is less than in many other countries and compares to a global average indoor value of 40 Bq m⁻³. Average radon levels in Australian homes are only a little larger than the radon levels in outside air and are of minimal concern to health.
http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/safety/radon.htm
What's the process, usually, adding some special ventilation system to the house?
1. The ventilation isn’t really “in the house” - the fan pulls from below the slab (and exhausts outside) to prevent radon seeping through. 2. Based on the best guess about my home age/area and radon patterns in my house, the slab was probably poured around the furnace, so the mitigation will include disassembling/reassembling my furnace to seal underneath.
Natural gas burning inside with poor ventilation (solve by pushing electric everything, paid for by carbon tax paid by big oil)
ICE car exhaust (solve with EVs, subsidised by carbon tax paid by big oil)
Second hand smoke (ban smoking in public and within XX distance of a child, and make support for parents to quit free from cigarette taxes)
Microplastics in the water and the air including tyre dust (start regulating this/coming up with a long term plan to reduce it and filter it out, and put a government subsidy on certified and professionally installed under sink microplastic water filter products… paid for by those who put the plastic there in the first place)
Poor indoor air quality/high VOX (mandate air flow minimum levels for all new builds and make extraction fans for offices a normal requirement, and give tenants something to lobby against their body corporate to improve airflow in uselessly designed buildings since “sick building syndrome” is real but often impossible to know before you sign the papers)
So while before, most lung cancer victims were smokers, we’re at the point where overall risk in the general population causes higher numbers than specific risk in smokers.
Because while most lung cancer victims were smokers, most smokers never got lung cancer.
This is the EPA map for radon risks (zones) in the US:
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/radon-zon...
When I moved from that apartment after 4 years. I was shocked by the amount of black dust covering everything. from the walls to the shelves and floors. I think it was all tire pollution so switching to 100% electric won't mitigate.
It was pretty shocking and I wondered how much i increased my risk for lung cancer or other cancers.
I only realized later that all the black dust everywhere must have been tire particles, when I realized other places DON'T have the black dust. Given the toxicity of tire pollution, it doesn't seem like my reaction was irrational after all. Sucks for all the people that still live there, who may not even realize what's going on.
The null hypothesis is "it's something in the air", but with the increase in non-lung cancers in young people[1] noted over the past decade, it's entirely possible it's something else, and lung tissue is one of the susceptible ones to whatever it is.
[1] https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2025...
No comments yet
⸻
2. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) •Purpose: Byproducts from extender oils and carbon black. •Danger: Known carcinogens, mutagens, and endocrine disruptors. Persist in the environment and can leach from tire wear particles. •Status: Regulated in the EU; linked to air and soil contamination.
⸻
3. Benzothiazoles (e.g., 2-mercaptobenzothiazole) •Purpose: Vulcanization accelerators. •Danger: Toxic to aquatic organisms, possibly carcinogenic, and bioaccumulative. •Status: Found in tire leachate and considered a contaminant of emerging concern.
⸻
Nothing definitive about harm to human welfare yet, as far as I know.
also, they would periodocially dump "more dirt" onto the field, once every year or so. Not sure if they vacuumed the old stuff up or just dumped more on top, but sometimes you would go out there and there would be a huge pile of rubber in the middle, which I guess got spread out later
A number of schools, and public facilities, near me have switched to plastic pitches for this reason. I'm not advocating for them but there is a rationale.
BTW it's not just that being very muddy makes it difficult to play on but that using the pitch in that state trashes the grass.
[1] https://www.hna.de/lokales/kreis-kassel/kreis-kassel-eu-verb...
[2] https://playground-landscape.com/de/article/2033-gesundheits...
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that inhaled microplastics were causing an increase in lung cancers. We know they end up deep in the lungs.
> Resuspension of dust already on the road’s surface is the most significant contributor to non-exhaust PM by far, however these particles are difficult to characterize and manage because they could come from anywhere before landing on the road. Brakes are the next most significant source, and may also be particularly hazardous because of their small size and high metal content. Tires contribute the least, but they release large amounts of particles which act as microplastics in ecosystems.
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/john-bailey/beyond-tailpipe
No comments yet
We can catch things early, it shouldn’t be limited to only for smokers.
In the countries the OP is talking about, people cook over literal fires and fire pits (sometimes enclosed). Even when that happens in the US, unless you are talking about camping, you are likely talking about something like a well vented wood stove or wood stove oven like my grandma had.
An example of what I'm talking about: https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/financ...
And here's what wood fired stoves look like in the US even 100 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XcuznPQjLs
I suspect certain perfumes may be causing it.
Another potential explanation is cleaning products.
I think these are both far more likely than perfume, as there is a much stronger link between AQI and lung cancer than perfume and lung cancer (if there is any at all).
Cleaning products is a possibility.
Incense is another one --- those who burn incense may not consider it smoking, but any burning plant matter is going to emit similar products of combustion.
When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work.
But, I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in cancers for people under 50.
This was the air you were breathing back then (1, 2, 3).
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://...
2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/SKYSCRAP...
3. https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satev...
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.
It's fuel efficient. It's not big. It's a decent people mover. It has more cargo space than many SUVs that are larger. Is low enough the roof racks are easily accessible. Added a hitch, mostly for more cargo space.
I'm starting to wonder if I've done more "truck things" than many of the people with trucks in the neighbourhood at this point. If I ever need to haul more, I'll just rent a truck/van for that moment in time. I'm not going to buy one to drive to the office.
You don't need a gigantic beast. A kei truck is more than adequate for the vast majority of what people use pickup trucks for.
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)
There are several ways to view the story.
Another commenter mentioned failing to design cars for women (totally fair! Volvo famously had a botched attempt at this)
What I have come to appreciate is how vulnerable women feel in the world. It is hard to appreciate how that plays into car choice if you are a man. Most men will never be able to understand, imo.
It may be small in the grand scheme of things but it is wrong to do this, in exactly the same way, but a much smaller degree, it is wrong to shove a child out of your way to escape a burning building.
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 front, she was barely able to drive the thing. The Mercedes Sprinter we rented for our last moves? Once she understood how the dimensions of that thing worked, absolutely easy going.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/nhtsa-female-crash-dummies-vehicl...
My mini-suv seems to be getting about double the gas milage my old normal car did.
We're talking like literal orders, plural, of magnitude when comparing between the generally no cats automotive fleet of the 70s with anything since the advent of both cats and computerized fuel injection. Any old timer can tell you of the smog that used to be frequent in urban areas. These days it's mostly gone, at least when California or Canada (depending on where you live) isn't on fire.
(INB4 people who are a net negative to public discourse construe this comment as some sort of endorsement for everyone driving everywhere all the time)
In more ways than one. A lot of "poor" countries have life expectancies comparable to the US. The big difference is they don't have a culture of every single person needing to own a car that spray carcinogens all over the place.
Obesity, which is its own massive wrecking ball, is also significantly lower in these "poor" countries.
The arrogance of laughing at poor people riding bikes to work when that would create a drastically healthier society.
Imagine if you had a 4km x 4km city with no consumer vehicles ( emergency and delivery exempt). Just walking paths and bike lanes. The people living there would be drastically healthier.
Or hell, it might just be luck. A lot of smokers live until there 80s enjoying a fat cigar once a day
To some extent heavy metals are being distributed in the air by the wheels in heavily populated areas.
This can be greatly improved by limiting traffic in heavily populated areas. Trump removed such a rule from New York City recently for reasons I can not comprehend.
Many european cities have improved air quality successfully and hence increased life expectancy by limiting car traffic.
The majority of air pollution of particles however, is caused by the industry (the companies making those cars, among others).
In fact, you are a worse polluter of the earth today if you buy a new Tesla than if you kept driving your 1980s gasoline car due to the amount of pollution created by producing a single vehicle.
Asian American women are getting lung cancer despite never smoking
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40161811
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever
https://pfasproject.com/2023/08/25/asian-americans-have-much...
(One of many cases mentioned in the article.)
Before you head for the lab, to start researching "why" - maybe you should tighten up the standards for diagnosis and testing? That could enormously improve the qualities & quantities of life for a huge number of patients.
Well, that tells a lot: overfocusing on a single cause because it is obvious and major. Well, let us hope the medical science learns this lesson.
ETA: not that I blame them, it is a reasonable attitude but not so good in science.
Site is flagged as it hosts pedop. material.
Because hypocrisy does not live long. They blamed cigarettes for lung cancer, ignoring all other causes. "Oh, you have cancer but didn't smoke ? You surely were inhaling cigarettes smoke from somebody else.". We can polute further with no repercursions.
But like half of smokers ultimately end up with COPD, which can be like taking years to drown to death.