111–120 of 259 posts
So, could we detect what properties of smoking map to which DNA changes, and design a cigarette that maximizes net-positive DNA changes while minimizing harmful/negative ones?
What are examples of net-positive DNA changes?
Though if you count only DNA changes in smokers' lungs, probably none. Or we would have found some superhuman abilities in smokers by now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be unfair to assume Prof Stratton is unaware of this model, rather than simply tailoring a technical finding to a non-technical audience.
It really is not a complex concept. If that is too "mysterious and complex" of a process for the audience to understand then I doubt there is much point attempting rational communication with them. Note: I think the vast majority of people could easily understand my sketch above.
What I cannot explain briefly to a general audience is how quantum field theory and the standard model of particle physics works and how we can compute the probabilities from that.
Just because you know that something is happening, doesn't mean you understand anything about the underlying processes involved.
Polonium-210 in tobacco contributes to many of the cases of lung cancer worldwide. Most of this polonium is derived from lead-210 deposited on tobacco leaves from the atmosphere; the lead-210 is a product of radon-222 gas, much of which appears to originate from the decay of radium-226 from fertilizers applied to the tobacco soils.
So, why do they sell cigarettes?
It is not your business to decide what other people should do with their lives. Go live in North Korea or Venezuela if you desire having a dear leader who tells you what you should do with your life and leave us alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smokers were already and for a long time aware of the risks. They choose to take them. What could they possibly claim? That a product known for causing lung cancer caused lung cancer?
That's a good point, I am not a lawyer so I can't really comment. But perhaps there is a material difference between saying you developed a disease that could have been caused by smoking (as lung cancer occurs in non-smokers), and saying you were definitely harmed by smoking. Other avenues could be: - Smoking is also associated with other cancers, such as esophageal cancer and bladder cancer. Generally the warnings d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is literally a 69 year old woman in the article who claims just that: > "Had I known as a teenager that smoking caused mutations which would stay with me for life then I would never had started" It agree with you that it's a little silly, especially for young people, but it wasn't that long ago they started forcing cancer warnings on tobacco.
I'm an ex-smoker and I had the same thought as I read the article: I wish I'd known this. But really, I know it wouldn't have made a difference. From an early age I was taught at school that smoking would kill me and I started anyway. The idea that detailed knowledge of one particular cause of death would have made a difference is laughable. It's just a way of deflecting blame from one's own responsibility.
It's fair to say that everyone know smoking is bad by now, but does everyone possess a correct and complete enough understanding of how and why to meaningfully consent to the risks? If you understand that smoking can cause cancer, but not that it can cause cancer even years after you stop smoking, is that good enough? If you think you can go on a cleanse and purge the toxins from your body, are you really competent to consent to the long-term risks? We don't let minors do nearly anything, from sex to signing contracts to receiving medical treatment, because we do not believe they are mature enough to properly weigh the consequences. If a minor decides to begin smoking, are they able to meaningfully consent to the risks, even if they have been adequately explained?
All medical interventions are weighing hopefully large benefits against hopefully small side effects, but even terrible side effects can be acceptable if the benefits are large enough and people receiving the treatments have been adequately informed and can meaningfully consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Nobody is getting tricked, here. People are selling a product that other people want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really is not a complex concept. If that is too "mysterious and complex" of a process for the audience to understand then I doubt there is much point attempting rational communication with them. Note: I think the vast majority of people could easily understand my sketch above.
There is a difference between using statistical models and understanding the underlying processes. I can tell someone that when we smash together Muons and nucleons that there is a certain chance that we will produce Kaons. That, I believe, many can understand. What I cannot explain briefly to a general audience is how quantum field theory and the standard model of particle physics works and how we can compute the pr…
I don't think that is a fair comparison. My description had much more content than this, it was a high level overview of the proposed process. In contrast, your example does not explain anything.
So, why do they sell cigarettes?