Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes” • Hacker News Board

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#141

Post by nonbel » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:18 PM UTC

QuantumRoar wrote: post #129

nonbel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

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

First, I wouldn't call Armitage and Doll a "statistical model", it is more a "rational model" derived from first principle considerations. "Statistical models" are stuff like linear regressions, at least to me.

Second, my explanation is useful in that if it is correct, we would need a certain combination of division and error rates to explain age-specific incidence curves. So, within the context of the model (which is commonly accepted), we can put upper lower bounds on these values from epidemiological data.

See for example my earlier discussion on this site[1]. Even if you disagree with my conclusions (somatic mutation can't do it... something is up and hundreds of billions to trillions of $ have been wasted barking up the somatic mutation tree), or find a mistake, that is still what it can be used for:

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12669110

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#142

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:22 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #124

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess the last few years of news contradicting that fat is bad for you, salt is bad for you and so on had made me believe the legend was long ago punctured.

Here's a bunch of references: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014...

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#143

Post by amelius » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:25 PM UTC

qb45 wrote: post #113

Trivia: 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium#Tobacco

So wouldn't other crops have this problem? I.e., the stuff we eat every day?

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#144

Post by qb45 » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:26 PM UTC

zymhan wrote: post #131

qb45 wrote: post #113

Trivia: 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium#Tobacco

Would organic tobacco avoid the issue of Polonium then?

That's an interesting question because it's the first time I hear about radium in artificial fertilizers. Will need to dig into these Wikipedia sources.

That tobacco contains lead and polonium had been known for decades, but I used to think that it originated from the decay of natural atmospheric radon and these plants just had some unusual tendency to accumulate heavy metals.

Maybe I should put my tinfoil hat on and run away from non-organic food too?

edit:

From the first source:

Tobacco farmers in developed countries primarily use manufactured fertilizer high in phosphates produced from apatite rock that contains radium-226 and descendant radioisotopes such as lead-210 and PO-210. Tobacco is a unique agricultural crop in that its flavor depends on nitrogen reduction, which occurs through the repeated application of high-phosphate fertilizers. The higher the phosphate level of the fertilizer, the higher the concentration of PO-210 in the tobacco plant. Tobacco grown in certain developing countries has approximately one third less radioactivity than tobacco grown in developed countries, and the radioactivity of tobacco grown in the United States has increased over time.

So maybe you are right.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#145

Post by Raphmedia » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:27 PM UTC

zymhan wrote: post #131

qb45 wrote: post #113

Trivia: 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium#Tobacco

Would organic tobacco avoid the issue of Polonium then?

The safest way possible to smoke tobacco is to grow it yourself.

The small yields will limit you to smoking only a few time a month.

You will want to taste that homegrown tobacco so you will most likely invest in a good old wooden pipe. This will make it so that you don't inhale the smoke into your lungs.

You will however still be at risk of mouth and throat cancer.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#146

Post by rhinoceraptor » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:28 PM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #124

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would look into Ancel Keys and the diet heart hypothesis.

This idea isn't, and never was grounded in evidence. It's based on very poor science done in the 20th century. The old guard of doctors and health officials will be looked at in the same way we look at geocentrists now. They hold a lot of the blame for the current obesity crisis we have.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#147

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:28 PM UTC

Raphmedia wrote: post #145

zymhan wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would organic tobacco avoid the issue of Polonium then?

The safest way possible to smoke tobacco is to grow it yourself. The small yields will limit you to smoking only a few time a month. You will want to taste that homegrown tobacco so you will most likely invest in a good old wooden pipe. This will make it so that you don't inhale the smoke into your lungs. You will however still be at risk of mouth and throat cancer.

There's a risk from radioactive elements in the tobacco, from the air which in turn is from the fertilizer used. Maybe growing it yourself doesn't change this risk?

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#148

Post by justinhj » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:30 PM UTC

nonbel wrote: post #105

scottishfiction wrote: post #101

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.

The first line of Wikipedia's entry states "The Armitage–Doll model is a statistical model of carcinogenesis, proposed in 1954 by Peter Armitage and Richard Doll, which suggested that a sequence of multiple distinct genetic events preceded the onset of cancer."

It's clearly a mathematical/statistical model of a phenomenon and not an explanation of the underlying processes.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#149

Post by Alex3917 » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #143

qb45 wrote: post #113

Trivia: 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium#Tobacco

So wouldn't other crops have this problem? I.e., the stuff we eat every day?

Because tobacco has sticky trichromes, whereas for every other crop the radioactivity just washes off after it rains.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#150

Post by Alex3917 » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

zymhan wrote: post #131

qb45 wrote: post #113

Trivia: 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium#Tobacco

Would organic tobacco avoid the issue of Polonium then?

Keep in mind that the majority of tobacco deaths aren't cancer related.