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

191–200 of 259 posts

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#191

Post by ghurtado »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #51
Gatsky wrote: post #27

This has some legal implications. You can now prove fairly conclusively that your lung cancer came from smoking. I wonder if it will lead to a new wave of tobacco litigation. I think even Fisher would be convinced [1]. [1] https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...

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?

They could easily claim that a product which would otherwise would not have these risks was made into a risky product by the use of certain carcinogens present in the pesticides. The choice of pesticide is made by the tobacco company, so it is their actions that introduce the carcinogen into the product.

Seems pretty standard to me, and I would have to guess that this is the kind of lawsuit that you would probably support if the product in question was, say, red meat instead of tobacco.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#192

Post by Raphmedia »

mkagenius wrote: post #97
forgotpwagain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect so. Alcohol can cause inflammation, triggering various parts of the immune system to kick in. This could result in the release of free radicals from these immune cells, which promotes DNA mutations.

Whats an inflammation, does internal organs get burned like our skins?

It causes swelling which cause more blood to be in that area which make the organs hotter. But I really doubt you could get any real burns from an inflammation.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#193

Post by ghurtado »

School-Cotton wrote: post #115
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…

Lung cancer is caused by smoking 85-90% of the time. Probably more if you add in secondhand smoke. I think it already meets any sort of "preponderance of evidence" sort of bar to just assume anyone with lung cancer got it from smoking.

Citation / reference needed.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#194

Post by ghurtado »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #168
addicted wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, decid…

> Either tobacco becomes a controlled substance

What on earth are you talking about? Tobacco is already a controlled substance in more ways than nearly anything that you can buy at a store (including guns).

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#195

Post by tluyben2 »

a_plastic_bag wrote: post #132
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.

Alcohol isn't very carcinogenic, but I think it's been estimated that it's the cause in a few percent of cancer cases.

At least here in the EU and especially this year for some reason, a lot of news has been doing the rounds that push research like [0] to the public. My parents doctor, since only a few months, now calls alcohol dangerous poison and something you should never use, like smoking. Although it's not new research, it seems more people are listening recently.

[0] http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cance...

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#196

Post by nonbel »

nonbel wrote: post #172
QuantumRoar wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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." F…

1) The original implementation of the Armitage-Doll model contains simplifications made for computational reasons that mess it up. You can easily see this by checking that the probability of a mutation per cell goes over one (see eq 1 in the appendix of Armitage and Doll 1954). Check the link to my earlier discussion on this site for the corrected version. BTW, I also see some discussion of Armitage & Doll in the app…

>"The original implementation of the Armitage-Doll model contains simplifications made for computational reasons"

Quoting myself rather than editing...Actually, I forgot they come right out and say it:

"This result will be valid for large values of t (of the order of a human lifetime) provided that p1t, p2t, y, prt are all sufficiently small (as could be assumed in an application of this theory to human cancer)." http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v91/n12/pdf/6602297a.pdf

But with low probability of mutation at a given site p, how can you get their model to turnover (as is seen in the age specific incidence data)? I don't think you can, however the turnovers easily appear if you allow high mutation rates along with high clearance rates. But those high mutation rates are inconsistent with the estimated mutation rates in human cells.

Anyway, I hope someone checks into it because something is wrong with the mainstream model of carcinogenesis.

Edit:

It is also possible the data used to give the age-specific incidence (ie SEER) is fatally flawed and those turnovers are artefacts.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#197

Post by agumonkey »

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

And we only hear about partial combustion harmful byproducts..

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#198

Post by Alex3917 »

hbosch wrote: post #189
Alex3917 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is this, then, also true for marijuana?

It would be if marijuana were grown in open fields and fertized by crop dusters. As of right now most weed is fertilized by hand so the fertilizer doesn't get on the flowers.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#199

Post by ommunist »

mountaineer22 wrote: post #77
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.

How old were you when you first smoked? I have anecdotally heard that if one had not smoked by adulthood, chances of addiction are fairly low.

My own experience confirms this. I am not addicted, I started well after thirty and I only smoke real tobacco. Instead of mental fog on a month without tobacco I am getting the previous default state of mind, and after a pipe, I am getting very cool focus.

Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”

#200

Post by ommunist »

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.

Cigarettes except your last one roll it yourself real tobacco contained additives that made you neural system very succeptible to nicotine, there is biochemical evidence for your case. Were you using plasters like Nicotinelle to quit, or just took off on a bare will?
Post reply on HN