Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 259 posts

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#91

Post by twwl »

nthcolumn wrote: post #54
Gatsky wrote: post #27

This has some legal implications. You can now prove fairly conclusively that your lung cancer came from smoking. I wonder if it will lead to a new wave of tobacco litigation. I think even Fisher would be convinced [1]. [1] https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...

Hitting yourself repeatedly over the head with a hammer can give you a headache. Not sure DeWalt are worried from a litigious point of view. I doubt there is a smoker alive today who can reasonably claim to have been unaware of the risks when they started. Anal point - why the apostrophe? Should it be "Smoking becauses hundreds..."?

Is there anyone marketing cigaretts able to claim they're unaware? Aren't those also adults?

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#92

Post by nonbel »

>'Prof Stratton said in these organs smoking seemed to be accelerating a natural mutational process, but how it did this was "mysterious and complex".'

Wow, just wow. This is standard Armitage & Doll model that has been taught since the 1950s.

Every time a cell divides there is some chance of a genetic error occurring. The more generations away from the zygote a cell is, the more genetic errors it will have accumulated.

Activities that damage tissue, etc and necessitate cell division to replenish the cells will contain cells with more errors.

Now that is a vague sketch, but many people have implemented mathematical/computational models based on that idea, beginning with Armitage and Doll in 1954. Unless he is going to reject the model that has been driving cancer research for half a century (which should be noted in the interview), there really is no mystery at all.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#93

Post by vibrio »

adrianN wrote: post #33
tstactplsignore wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise is highly unsound. This study is talking about somatic mutations, which can only be harmful to an organism. Why? Because they can be beneficial to an individual selfish somatic cell, which is what we can cancer. In other words, when a somatic mutation is succesful, it spreads and becomes cancer. And of it doesn't spread, it can't have a serious impact on the phenotype of an entire organism. So, the mutati…

"Can only be harmful" is pretty strong. You could have a set of mutations in a T-Cell for example that makes it super good at killing all forms of cancer.

You could get a 'super T cell' that behaves just as you want, or as is empirically observed, mutations would more commonly lead to leukemia. There is a phenomenon call somatic hypermuatation, that as T-cell respond to antigens, they 'get sloppy' in coding their DNA to optimize the response. It' has also been linked to blood cancers, so it is a risky approach, like many aspects of immunity.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#94

Post by nonbel »

Gatsky wrote: post #27

This has some legal implications. You can now prove fairly conclusively that your lung cancer came from smoking. I wonder if it will lead to a new wave of tobacco litigation. I think even Fisher would be convinced [1]. [1] https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...

>"I think even Fisher would be convinced [1]."

I doubt it, he would probably say no progress has been made at all:

"Many would still fell, as I did about five years ago, that a good prima facie case had been made for further investigation. None think that the matter is already settled. The further investigation seems, however, to have degenerated into the making of more confident exclamations, with the studied avoidance of the discussion of those alternative explanations of the facts which still await exclusion.

[...]

the B.B.C. gave me the opportunity of putting forward examples of the two classes of alternative theories which any statistical association, observed without the predictions of a definite experiment, allows—namely, (1) that the supposed effect is really the cause, or in this case that incipient cancer, or a pre-cancerous condition with chronic inflammation, is a factor in inducing the smoking of cigarettes, or (2) that cigarette smoking and lung cancer, though not mutually causative, are both influenced by a common cause, in this case the individual genotype." https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher269.pdf

The current paper: "Although we cannot exclude roles for covariate behaviors of smokers or differences in the biology of cancers arising in smokers compared with nonsmokers, smoking itself is most plausibly the cause of these differences." http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0299

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#97

Post by mkagenius »

forgotpwagain wrote: post #12
trustfundbaby wrote: post #3

I wonder if drinking does the same?

I would expect so. Alcohol can cause inflammation, triggering various parts of the immune system to kick in. This could result in the release of free radicals from these immune cells, which promotes DNA mutations.

Whats an inflammation, does internal organs get burned like our skins?

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#100

Post by w8rbt »

CoryG89 wrote: post #30
Gatsky wrote: post #27

This has some legal implications. You can now prove fairly conclusively that your lung cancer came from smoking. I wonder if it will lead to a new wave of tobacco litigation. I think even Fisher would be convinced [1]. [1] https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...

I'm not sure that this could prove that. I believe that the mutation rate for non-smokers that develop lung cancer should be elevated as well. Perhaps there is a statistical difference, but it might not be easy to prove with certainty.

Would be interesting to see how many mutations people have who live in houses with a high level of radon.
Post reply on HN