Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Its not only lung cancer you can get, but others also have elevated risks. My uncle who smoked a pack a day never had any lung issues, but developed lymphatic node cancer in the groin area (and died from heart attack in his 50s, while both his parents lived till 80s in pretty good health but those never smoked).

Fairly typical fate for heavier smokers around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com