Anything similar about vaping/e-cigs?
"E-cigarette vapour does not induce DNA mutations commonly observed with tobacco smoke exposures in lab-based tests."
Yes.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/raba-evd1104...
Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
211–220 of 259 posts
Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would using a pipe prevent you from inhaling the smoke? I have never used one (but I was always curious when I smoked) so maybe it's a silly question.
When smoking a pipe or cigar the way to do it is to fill your mouth with smoke and then blow it out. You don't inhale it.
Unless you are also a cigarette smoker as well, and many of them do inhale cigars and pipes.
Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It might be that anything consumed in excess, over long periods of time, causes mutations in your body. Just a theory.
For that to be the case it should be accumulated in the body in the form of toxins or similar molecules, there's no other 'memory'.
So no, it does not work exactly like that. Some chemical compounds trigger mutations at a higher rate than others.
Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
#214So, why do they sell cigarettes?
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.
As If in other countries they don't tell you what you should do with your life.
Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
When smoking a pipe or cigar the way to do it is to fill your mouth with smoke and then blow it out. You don't inhale it.
Unless you are also a cigarette smoker as well, and many of them do inhale cigars and pipes.
No need. Nicotine is absorbed by the soft tissues of the mouth. Inhaling prevents you from "correctly" smoking a pipe.
Take a look at this (formatting mine):
"The Breath Smoking Technique
It requires a relaxed setting, preferably sedentary and a very slow and calm breathing pattern.
The pipe bit is held to the lips continuously and all breathing is through the nose.
Every 2nd or 3rd slow breath through the nose, a tiny puff is taken through the stem, held in the mouth and slowly, very slowly, discharged back through the stem, raising but the faintest wisp of smoke from the top of the tobacco bowl, and then re-drawn back through the stem.
One does NOT inhale the smoke, but if one gets very good at it, one does not even have to puff: the slight vacuum created in the mouth by nose breathing will draw the finest of puffs through the stem.
The blowing back through the stem is alternated with regular, but very slight puffs so that the whole process of smoking seems as natural, regular and effortless as breathing.
I'm sure many smokers have discovered this technique, or variations of it, on their own.
The advantages are that mastering it will produce the coolest and most flavorful smoke possible, and the slow regular breathing will invoke the calmness and clarity of mind to perceive the results at their fullest."
- http://www.glpease.com/Articles/BreathSmoking.html
That being said, it's all a matter of preference. You can smoke a pipe like a cigarette if it makes you happy. There is no pipe police.
Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downvoted because you provided zero evidence and pure conjecture arguing against a by now well established fact - smoking causes cancer.
Eat this http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm No evidence that tobacco cause cancer.
* this is not a scientific paper, it an editorial
* it was published in 1999
* in a very sketchy journal
* did you even read what you linked ? it is arguing semantics:
>If they would say that smoking increases the incidence of
>lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor in the
>development of lung cancer, then I would agree. The
>purpose of this article is to emphasize the need to use
>language appropriately in both the medical and scientific
>literature (the media, as a whole, may be a lost cause).Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
#217Earlier 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 is literally a 69 year old woman in the article who claims just that: > "Had I known as a teenager that smoking caused mutations which would stay with me for life then I would never had started" It agree with you that it's a little silly, especially for young people, but it wasn't that long ago they started forcing cancer warnings on tobacco.
This is just an old woman being dishonest with herself. The US was the 1st to put warnings on tobacco packaging in 1966. This was about the time this woman started smoking. Is it really believable that an additional scientific data point about the harm would've swayed her decision? Especially one she wouldn't have even understood at the time? It's always been abundantly clear that inhaling smoke into your lungs is not a good idea - the scientific details aren't really necessary in making the decision not to smoke. What was necessary was a shift in the culture and advances in general healthcare which made the trade-offs worth the delayed gratification
Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Then move to North Korea, I already wrote this before. If you want to live here you either accept that you are in a society of free people who actually have a free will or you move somewhere else where you'll find like minded drones serving their dear leader who in turn takes care of them like a father figure. We are not going to give up our freedom and turn into weak minded persons just to accommodate you.
I'm not even in your country, and honestly, I don't want to live there. Where you see people shouting "freedom" the loudest, I see fear, distrust, and anger. I'm just pointing out that no one is as free as you think you are because you always have influences. But I appreciate your willingness for open thought and reflection.
Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would organic tobacco avoid the issue of Polonium then?
Only if organic fertilizer is immune to that.
Yeah, I suppose a better question is what fertilizer is used on organic tobacco.
But u/searine mentioned that mined phosphate can be used on organic crops so maybe organic tobacco won't avoid the problem.
Re: Smoking “causes hundreds of DNA changes”
#220Is there anything you can do to help your odds of not dying from lung cancer once you have stopped smoking?
Any yearly tests to perform?
I was a 10cigs a day smoker for 15 years(quit some years ago) and it really weights heavy on my mind that there is nothing I can do about my past mistakes.