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

161–170 of 259 posts

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#161

Post by openasocket »

zeveb wrote: post #154
msimpson wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this argument before. The claim that "clean" tobacco smoke is not carcinogenic and only the additives are to blame. Well, hate to burst your bubble, but when you burn tobacco--additives or not--you are creating hydrocarbons like benzene, bezopyrene, and butane. All of which are carcinogenic and will cause mutation in human cells upon contact. You cannot remove these hydrocarbons from tobacco as they are on…

Of course, that's all also true of woodsmoke, and while some (IMNSHO, deluded) people are trying to ban fires, charcoal cooking &c., the societal consensus right now is that it's okay.

People aren't inhaling large amounts of woodsmoke on a regular basis for years.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#162

Post by new_hackers »

addicted wrote: post #138
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all other areas. Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want. Alcoholic beverages are unsafe, even lethal if you drink too much. They could be made safer by removing the alcohol, but that is not what most people want. The same applies to fast food and sugary drinks: could be made much safer, but people want a certain flavor at a certain price (and most know it's not healthy)…

Alcoholic beverages are not unsafe if consumed in the recommended amounts (which are fairly reasonable. 2 drinks on average, with a 3 drink max). What's the safe, reasonable, recommended smoking amount?

I would recommend puff, puff, pass. Otherwise you risk the chance of a bogart.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#163

Post by QuantumRoar »

nonbel wrote: post #141
QuantumRoar wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

First, from Wikipedia [1]: "The Armitage–Doll model is a statistical model of carcinogenesis [...]"

Second, the paper itself [2] talks about cancer rates and uses experimental data for it (I just glossed over it, so I can't give a decent summary). This is a statistical model.

I think we disagree since you misunderstand what the term statistical model means. Furthermore, you are misusing the term "first principles." First principles really means that you start from a well established theory that describes how something works. From there you predict mathematically, or with a computer simulation, what the reality is. Using experimental data is strictly forbidden.

From Wikipedia [3]: "In physics and other sciences, theoretical work is said to be from first principles, or ab initio, if it starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and fitting parameters."

I generally have no idea about cancer research, so I have to trust you and cannot comment on the usefulness of the approach.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armitage%E2%80%93Doll_multista...

[2] http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v91/n12/pdf/6602297a.pdf

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#164

Post by saalweachter »

School-Cotton wrote: post #127
saalweachter wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a question of illegal or not, it's a question of whether smokers are able consent to the risks of smoking, and therefore whether the companies are absolved of damages.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#165

Post by chrstphrhrt »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #135
andy_ppp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that in all other areas it's been on the manufacturer of products to make them safer over time (cars, children's toys, cosmetics etc.) so shouldn't the tobacco companies be trying to make their product safer?

Not all other areas. Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want. Alcoholic beverages are unsafe, even lethal if you drink too much. They could be made safer by removing the alcohol, but that is not what most people want. The same applies to fast food and sugary drinks: could be made much safer, but people want a certain flavor at a certain price (and most know it's not healthy)…

  "Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want."
Radioactive material in tobacco might be mutually exclusive from nicotine and MAOI content. My layperson guess is getting rid of the radioactivity would require prohibitively expensive hydroponic growing. It's the drug part that consumers want, and I'm pretty sure if given the knowledge and option they'd go for non-radioactive cigarettes.

Swedish snus is made to minimize tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), but seems to not address Polonium-210 on account of the radioactive stuff being "comparable to that from the natural background radiation sources or dental x-rays": https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1...

That excuse doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny. Who really wants to have 10-20 chest x-rays done per day? Are "dental" x-rays really as weak as "background" radiation?

Alcohol seems to be in a similar position - see the popularity of nice wine and beer over e.g. guzzling cheap spirits.

I think people want health AND pleasure, and are willing to do their own hedonic calculus.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#166

Post by nonbel »

justinhj wrote: post #148
nonbel wrote: post #105

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.

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.

>"the observed relationship would be explained if a cancer cell was the end-result of seven successive mutations."

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v91/n12/pdf/6602297a.pdf

That is clearly a process, not like the example of Muons and Kaons proposed to be similar (ie "A is correlated with B").

Of course, the next step is to figure out htf this process works.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#167

Post by phonon »

payamb wrote: post #128
delegate wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :/

Nicotine gum? The danger is in the smoking, not the addictive substance.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#168

Post by TelmoMenezes »

addicted wrote: post #138
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all other areas. Some products are inherently unsafe, and that is precisely what the costumers want. Alcoholic beverages are unsafe, even lethal if you drink too much. They could be made safer by removing the alcohol, but that is not what most people want. The same applies to fast food and sugary drinks: could be made much safer, but people want a certain flavor at a certain price (and most know it's not healthy)…

Alcoholic beverages are not unsafe if consumed in the recommended amounts (which are fairly reasonable. 2 drinks on average, with a 3 drink max). What's the safe, reasonable, recommended smoking amount?

Zero (cigarettes are highly addictive).

My point is that reality limits how much safer you could make a product. Would it be nice for cigarette or alcoholic beverages to be safer? Yes. Is it possible? Apparently not.

Either tobacco becomes a controlled substance (I am deeply opposed to this given the catastrophic social consequences of prohibition in general), or adults behave like adults, understand the risks, decide for themselves and accept the consequences. Maybe it's because I'm European, but anything else sounds like insanity to me.

By the way, I am not being judgemental in any way. I am an ex-smoker and I drink socially. If people want to smoke (without polluting the environment of others who don't) it's their right, and I completely understand. I used to love it too.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#169

Post by 7Z7 »

nonbel wrote: post #92

>'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 accumulat…

You mistake the doctor's statement to the BBC with what the BBC chose to extract from it, to publish in their single sentence precis.
Post reply on HN