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

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#241

Post by pavanred »

DominikR wrote: post #238
pavanred wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if they don't tell you what you should do with your life in the US.

Tell you or order you? I wrote "nobody gets the right to decide for someone else".

Well, here's how I see it. I understand what you are trying to say, it is not your (or anyone's) business to decide what other people should do with their lives, specially if it doesn't affect others. And, so no one (or governments) should intervene and regulate/ban sale of cigarettes. Would you feel absolutely the same way about all banned substances? If not, well you should agree that different people would draw the line differently.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#242

Post by msimpson »

ommunist wrote: post #206
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…

As a smoker I have special interest. There is no archaeological evidence of cancer among aboriginal nations of Americas which cultures had a lasting tradition of smoking tobacco. Cancer became plague with development of industry, and proliferation of lazy lifestyle.

"As a smoker I have special interest. There is no archaeological evidence of cancer among aboriginal nations of Americas which cultures had a lasting tradition of smoking tobacco."

Well, as a past smoker I too have special interest. But also, as a logical person, I'd expect all you'd find of cancer in "archaeological evidence" of human remains are those which afflict bones. So you're not really making a case. Also:

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/14/claims-th...

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#243

Post by msimpson »

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.

Yep. Also, I'm completely in favor of smoking, or chewing, or whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone else.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#244

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

I suspect there are multiple reasons for the DNA changes. One that comes to mind is the number of times the lungs have to repair themselves due to the tar and other contaminants. The hot smoke might even contribute to the tissue damage. Cancer is uncontrollable cell growth. The cell/body's ability to control a certain type of cell division has been lost.

So, my thinking is, in the same way that you lose quality as you make a copy of a copy in a copy machine the same happens to the cell's DNA. The more a cell has to divide the less the DNA can remain without errors. DNA can tolerate a number of errors but it can eventually lead to cancer. My guess is that not one issues causes the DNA changes but and array of them given the number of substances a cigarette has.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#245

Post by groovy2shoes »

bbarn wrote: post #133
School-Cotton wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I smoke (trying to quit) and I don't think cigarette manufacturers are doing anything immoral. I enjoy smoking! Why else would I have ever tried it when I knew all the risks? Nobody is getting tricked, here. People are selling a product that other people want.

Have you read "the easy way to stop smoking"? He makes a great point about the claim that smokers don't actually enjoy it. It's addiction, thinking you enjoy it is a mechanism of avoiding the guilt of the addiction. Or something like that, his argument was much more convincing.

That's akin to saying "you don't actually enjoy eating food, you're just hungry". Addiction and enjoyment are not mutually exclusive.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#246

Post by Gatsky »

gozur88 wrote: post #234
Gatsky wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see how you can prove particular mutations are tobacco related. DNA can be damaged by viruses, solar radiation, various industrial chemicals, and naturally occurring replication errors. How would you prove this particular mutation was the result of smoking? I don't see how this research changes anything from a legal perspective. We already knew smoking causes genetic mutations, but we also know people who've…

The aim is to prove that the pattern of mutations in the tumour (which typically contains several hundred mutations in coding regions, more in the whole genome) are caused by smoking.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#247

Post by zymhan »

Obi_Juan_Kenobi wrote: post #232
ghurtado wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heart disease?

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal... There's a good table of this about halfway down the page. Looks like cancer is the single largest cause, accounting for about 2/5ths of the deaths.

So a plurality. GP is splitting hairs then.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#248

Post by gozur88 »

pjc50 wrote: post #65
nthcolumn wrote: post #54

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..."?

There are plenty of people alive today who were unaware of the risks because until about the mid-80s the cigarette companies could actively deny them. You can only argue ignorance from when the mandatory product warnings were introduced.

In the US warnings were introduced in 1966.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#249

Post by gozur88 »

rubicon33 wrote: post #183
CoryG89 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely there are plenty of plants containing chemicals which if injested in some way could cause a change in cell mutations.

To confirm your point, last time I checked, vegans were still dying from cancer too.

You get DNA damage from a lot of different sources, from food to viruses to radiation to industrial chemicals to just plain replication errors.

I agree vegans probably still get cell damage from the food they eat, but that's not proof positive because they would still die from cancer even if they didn't.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#250

Post by gozur88 »

ommunist wrote: post #203
tluyben2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe a lot of people die before they get cancer from it? Like organ failure (liver, kidney, heart) way before they develop cancer (symptoms)? Or get into accidents (car, freezing to death) etc. It is like people saying smoking can prevent Alzheimer as statistically people who smoke a lot have less instances of it. Because they die from that habit before the Alzheimer shows up.

Well, if they die close to their 90-ies, and with no cancer, its a decent lifespan. This is what I learned from my granddad, who was great chess player, famous school teacher, and volcanic smoker.

Your grandad got lucky. Getting lucky is nice, but it's probably not something you should count on.
Post reply on HN