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

121–130 of 259 posts

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#121

Post by nonbel »

CoryG89 wrote: post #25
trustfundbaby wrote: post #3

I wonder if drinking does the same?

I wonder if there is just about anything (other than water) that you can put in your body that wouldn't have some effect on the mutation rate of some particular cells in your body.

Of course, that seems to be exactly what is going on:

>"These considerations of mechanism suggest that at chronic doses close to the toxic dose, any chemical, whether synthetic or natural, and whether genotoxic or nongenotoxic, is a likely rodent and human carcinogen. Not all chemicals would be expected to be carcinogens at high doses; the MTD may not be reached (101) or the chemical may be toxic without causing cell killing or mitogenesis."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#122

Post by JoeAltmaier »

School-Cotton wrote: post #120
fithisux wrote: post #48

So, why do they sell cigarettes?

Why do they sell richly marbled steak when we know it causes high cholesterol?

I don't think it actually does. That was just 'sympathetic magic' - you eat cholesterol, it doesn't really end up in your blood vessel lining?

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#123

Post by School-Cotton »

saalweachter wrote: post #116
brassic wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I dunno, there's a fun argument to be had about informed consent. 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 clean…

Not sure where you live but in my country we already don't let minors smoke.

In most parts you can legally have sex before you can legally smoke.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#124

Post by School-Cotton »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #122
School-Cotton wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they sell richly marbled steak when we know it causes high cholesterol?

I don't think it actually does. That was just 'sympathetic magic' - you eat cholesterol, it doesn't really end up in your blood vessel lining?

Red meat doesn't cause high cholesterol? Huh?

No offense, but unless you post some really reputable source, I'm gonna trust my cardiologist over some guy on the internet.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#125

Post by School-Cotton »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #114
DominikR wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess the difficulty with this is that we're faced with groups that are actively telling us what to do by ways of advertising. They ask more nicely, and are at times much less obvious, but it's still has a great influence.

I'm perfectly fine with cigarette advertising being illegal, mandatory blank packages, and so on. I'd be very angry if they completely banned cigarettes, though.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#126

Post by saalweachter »

School-Cotton wrote: post #123
saalweachter wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, there's a fun argument to be had about informed consent. 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 clean…

Not sure where you live but in my country we already don't let minors smoke. In most parts you can legally have sex before you can legally smoke.

In my country it is illegal for minors to smoke, and a majority of smokers start smoking as minors.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#127

Post by School-Cotton »

saalweachter wrote: post #126
School-Cotton wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure where you live but in my country we already don't let minors smoke. In most parts you can legally have sex before you can legally smoke.

In my country it is illegal for minors to smoke, and a majority of smokers start smoking as minors.

Well sure but I'm just pointing out that the analogy isn't great. There are already plenty of things minors can't legally do and we don't try to ban them for everyone.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#128

Post by payamb »

delegate wrote: post #72
ommunist wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kinds of cigarettes were you smoking exactly?

I started with Lucky Strike, then smoked Marlboro Lights for about 18 years, then the last two years or so I smoked organic rolling tobacco - Cross Road. I've stopped smoking 18 months ago, but even after 1.5 years, I still get the urge to smoke almost every day.

I've stopped smoking a week ago and brain fog is killing me, I'm not able to do my job any more, any advice ? I just sit and stare at monitor without my brain working :/

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#129

Post by QuantumRoar »

nonbel wrote: post #119
QuantumRoar wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"when we smash together Muons and nucleons that there is a certain chance that we will produce Kaons." 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.

> Every time a cell divides there is some chance of a genetic error occurring.

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

I don't see how your explanation could enable anything but a statistical model.

The underlying processes I'm talking about would be molecular interactions modeled through the domain of theoretical chemistry or even mechanical processes, probably involving the quantum mechanics of many particle systems. This is probably the mysterious and complex part that is not well understood. Your example does nothing to explain how that works.

Damage happens, yes, this much is clear, but how do the molecules of smoke interact with the cells in the lungs and other places in order to cause the mutations? Can we compute what happens when a nicotine molecule hits a lung cell? Probably not... because it is too complex and mysterious.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#130

Post by dionidium »

delegate wrote: post #42
sidcool wrote: post #9

How addictive is tobacco/smoking as compared to Opiates/Heroin?

I've once read somewhere that they polled heroin addicts, asking them what they'd rather do first time they wake up in the morning - shoot heroin or smoke a cigarette. Of course the vast majority said they'd smoke a cigarette. I've never been a heroin addict, but I've been a tobacco smoker for many years and I can confirm that smoking a cig was definitely the most important thing I had to do in the morning. Also if I…

I'll just note that these patterns aren't universal. I have been a smoker for almost 20 years (with some prolonged breaks along the way (one lasting around 3-4 years)). I almost never smoke in the morning (and never did). I currently smoke no more than a pack a week, easily skipping several days at a time.

I'd choose the food.

Post reply on HN