World Lung Cancer Expert Diagnosed with Advanced Lung Cancer
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
news.cuanschutz.eduResearchstory
calmmixed
Debate
20/100
Lung CancerCancer DiagnosisMedical Research
Key topics
Lung Cancer
Cancer Diagnosis
Medical Research
A renowned lung cancer expert was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer, prompting reflections on the randomness of cancer and the potential for medical advancements to help, as discussed by the HN community.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
11h
Peak period
3
9-12h
Avg / period
1.6
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 28, 2025 at 9:31 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 28, 2025 at 8:58 PM EDT
11h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 9-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 29, 2025 at 9:27 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45404216Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 3:50:08 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
This is the thing that would bother me the most, knowing that in all likelihood there was some innocuous thing I did or didn’t do that had such a huge butterfly effect. You can’t think that way very much or you’ll go crazy; you can’t walk through life trying to dodge invisible particles. Still a mind fuck.
Something that is quite unintuitive is that risk is remarkable fungible - one source of risk is very much like another. Once you properly internalize this you can treat risk literally like radiation. Keep a virtual dosimeter on you and adjust your lifetime exposure accordingly.
There are a couple of consequences for this. First is that you can replace a source of risk with another, to keep below your desired threshold. You start learning to fly, you stop riding motorcycles. Second is that every risk reduction you do is still valuable in itself. You wouldn't start getting monthly CT scans just because you visited Chernobyl - same with risk, wearing your seatbelt is independent of riding motorcycles.
Sounds obvious, but that's the reverse of what most people do. Instead of risk compensation they use certain behaviors as definitions for their risk tolerance. "I already smoke, why should I care about grilling indoors?" This is an incredibly common attitude, and it's the very opposite of what's rational.
Is this real? I know demolition people, carpenters, smokers, people who have survived fires and more, these people are in their 70s and 80s, how does one particle do this?