Slashdot Mirror

Look how well that worked out for drugs.

After prohibition of alcohol ended it took decades for per capita consumption of alcohol to reach previous levels. Public health improved in several respects.

Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation

Locking people up for small amounts of marijuana sure destroyed demand for marijuana oh wait...

"Oh wait" indeed .....

Who’s Really in Prison for Marijuana?

The idea that our nation’s prisons are overflowing with otherwise lawabiding people convicted for nothing more than simple possession of marijuana is treated by many as conventional wisdom.

But this, in fact, is a myth—an illusion conjured and aggressively perpetuated by drug advocacy groups seeking to relax or abolish America’s marijuana laws. In reality, the vast majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana have been found guilty of much more than simple possession. Some were convicted for drug trafficking, some for marijuana possession along with one or more other offenses. And many of those serving time for marijuana pled down to possession in order to avoid prosecution on much more serious charges.

In 1997, the year for which the most recent data are available, just 1.6 percent of the state inmate population were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and less than one percent of all state prisoners (0.7 percent) were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). An even smaller fraction of state prisoners in 1997 who were convicted just for marijuana possession were first time offenders (0.3 percent).

The numbers on the federal level tell a similar story. Out of all drug defendants sentenced in federal court for marijuana crimes in 2001, the overwhelming majority were convicted for trafficking, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Only 2.3 percent—186 people—received sentences for simple possession, and of the 174 for whom sentencing information is known, just 63 actually served time behind bars.

The idea is that the patents are medicated at a therapeutic level, not at a recreational level.

Even LSD and psylocybin, the stereotypical delusion-inducing drugs, have medical uses. They are essentially the only treatments for cluster headaches.

Some fool wrote:

A diabetic usually knows if he has diabetic retinopathy. Needing to go to an ophthalmologist is usually the second or third clue. Just like neuropathy, retinopathy is a complication that's fairly easy to self diagnose.

No, diabetics don't know they have diabetic retinopathy in the early stages

. WTF did you get that idea from?

What are the symptoms of diabetic retinopathy and DME?

The early stages of diabetic retinopathy usually have no symptoms. The disease often progresses unnoticed until it affects vision. Bleeding from abnormal retinal blood vessels can cause the appearance of “floating” spots. These spots sometimes clear on their own. But without prompt treatment, bleeding often recurs, increasing the risk of permanent vision loss. If DME occurs, it can cause blurred vision.

Because the disease progresses slowly, you most likely won't notice until stage 4 - when blood vessels in your retina cause floaters that block your vision. You'll probably assume that any temporary blurriness (which doesn't always happen) is caused by fatigue or eye strain, and since you don't really notice it after a while, and adapt to it, you don't realize what happens.

Diabetic retinopathy may progress through four stages:

1. Mild nonproliferative retinopathy. Small areas of balloon-like swelling in the retina’s tiny blood vessels, called microaneurysms, occur at this earliest stage of the disease. These microaneurysms may leak fluid into the retina.

2. Moderate nonproliferative retinopathy. As the disease progresses, blood vessels that nourish the retina may swell and distort. They may also lose their ability to transport blood. Both conditions cause characteristic changes to the appearance of the retina and may contribute to DME.

3. Severe nonproliferative retinopathy. Many more blood vessels are blocked, depriving blood supply to areas of the retina. These areas secrete growth factors that signal the retina to grow new blood vessels.

4. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). At this advanced stage, growth factors secreted by the retina trigger the proliferation of new blood vessels, which grow along the inside surface of the retina and into the vitreous gel, the fluid that fills the eye. The new blood vessels are fragile, which makes them more likely to leak and bleed. Accompanying scar tissue can contract and cause retinal detachment—the pulling away of the retina from underlying tissue, like wallpaper peeling away from a wall. Retinal detachment can lead to permanent vision loss.

overview. Also here and here.

Finally, here.

Please be a bit more careful where you throw that bullcrap. And WASH YOUR HANDS!

overview. Also here and here.

Finally, here.

Please be a bit more careful where you throw that bullcrap. And WASH YOUR HANDS!

overview. Also here and here.

Finally, here.

Please be a bit more careful where you throw that bullcrap. And WASH YOUR HANDS!

Fair points, and thanks for them.

Sounds to me that part of the solution would entail making Social Security and Medicare taxes progressive, which they are not, as you point out. Also, raise or eliminate the Social Security wage base limit. There is a slightly progressive adjustment to Medicare taxes for those who make over $200K, but it's only 0.9%.

You do have a point. (I found your numbers here.)

However, I would like to see whether the rich recoup their contributions to the program in time-adjusted dollars, even allowing for their longer lifespan. I would guess the answer is no, and I'm fine with that BTW.

Also, the tax is progressive not regressive, because those with larger incomes pay more. And while Social Security benefits are based on contribution amounts, Medicare is not.

But the most important thing to address is why poor black males have such a shorter life expectancy than other groups. I suspect it's because of a disproportionate exposure to societal risks (violence, etc.) and that's disturbing.

The total amount of fossil fuels needed to produce one gallon of ethanol is (counting everything, like fertiliser, cultivation, water provision, ...) is quite close indeed to one gallon. Increasing the amount of renewables without specifying total efficiency is simply and purely a subsidy giveaway to farmers and with only negative consequences to the environment.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... - chinese paper.

Hate to be that guy, but:

[citation needed]

Here is a sample calculation done by the various people who make that claim:

typical study of reduction in lifespan due to smoking:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The average geezer on SSA gets 15K a year.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/doc...

The average medicare per-person yearly cost for the over 65 people is $19K.
https://www.cms.gov/research-s...

cigarettes killing the old folks 7 years early save $238K from SSA and Medicare

Lung cancer is an expensive way to go. typical last-year costs are 95K.
cigarettes death include heart failure and strokes. quick deaths are cheap.

How about a cite for them so we can check it?

Smoking in late pregnancy is linked to lower IQ in offspring.

False.

From a study dated 2015 Feb 25:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359576/

"Zinc acetate lozenges shortened the duration of nasal discharge by 34% (95% CI: 17% to 51%), nasal congestion by 37% (15% to 58%), sneezing by 22% (1% to 45%), scratchy throat by 33% (8% to 59%), sore throat by 18% (10% to 46%), hoarseness by 43% (3% to 83%), and cough by 46% (28% to 64%). Zinc lozenges shortened the duration of muscle ache by 54% (18% to 89%), but there was no difference in the duration of headache and fever."

"Given that the adverse effects of zinc in the three trials were minor, zinc acetate lozenges releasing zinc ions at doses of about 80mg/day may be a useful treatment for the common cold, started within 24hours, for a time period of less than two weeks."

"We previously showed [this enzyme] can prevent obesity, diabetes and metabolic syndrome [a disease characterized by a combination of obesity, high blood pressure, a metabolic disorder and insulin resistance]. So, we think that aspartame might not work because, even as it is substituting for sugar, it blocks the beneficial aspects of IAP...."

So when looking for the mechanism that causes weight gain with all low calorie sweeteners[1], we found that aspartame reduces the effect of IAP in mice. IAP, in turn, reduces metabolic syndrome in mice who are force fed high fat diets.

This may or may not mean something with human beings. Sugar, however, is strongly correlated with obesity, diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimers. [2]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I looked and didn't find any. Mucosis (the Dutch company) says SynGEM is a vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus. When I did a quick search for whether something that treats RSV might also treat rhinovirus, I didn't find any such indication, but I did find this study on coinfections which certainly suggests so me that a successful vaccine for RSV would be of significant benefit to children under 2 years old.

Diatoms aren't the only life-forms that use silica; ordinary grass does it, too.

Positive correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7561562
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10808702

Negative correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2047051

Review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17499928

Positive correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7561562
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10808702

Negative correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2047051

Review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17499928

Positive correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7561562
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10808702

Negative correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2047051

Review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17499928

Positive correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7561562
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10808702

Negative correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2047051

Review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17499928

A good chunk of the exclusion zone is to the southeast of the reactor. The winds on the day of the accident were primarily to the northwest. Radiation levels in the southern portion of the zone are only slightly higher than natural background, and about the same as some of the more naturally radioactive cities on Earth. Most people don't realize that Ukraine's capitol of Kiev is only about 100 km southeast of Chernobyl.

Some elderly people have been allowed to move back into this portion of the zone, but it's still kept part of the exclusion zone out of an abundance of caution. I think it should be kept undeveloped because this is a great experiment on the long-term effects of a nuclear accident on wildlife (both flora and fauna), and the results could be very insightful for determining the effects of radiation on humans. There's very little data on long-term exposure to low levels of radiation. Right now we simply take the effects of high doses of radiation on people, and extrapolate it as a straight line down to zero assuming that if a lot is bad, then a little is also bad. The early research coming out of the Chernobyl exclusion zone seems to contradict this. Slightly elevated levels of radiation actually seem to make animals healthier than normal background radiation (though it could just be that they're not bothered by people). (source)

Thanks for posting these studies. I hadn't seen them before. Also keep in mind that not everything is about CO2. Particulate matter also has disastrous effects on cognitive function.

There are not many studies yet, and a lot of health professionals seem to be unaware of this fact. Here is a quote from a recent publication by UK's National Health Service: "Air pollution particles linked to Alzheimer's found in human brain. [...] new research found tiny particles of magnetite – a potentially toxic by-product of traffic pollution – in samples of brain tissue. [...]" (September 2016).

Another quote from a study published in Am J Epidemiol, 2014: "[...] report analyses of data from 14,000 older adults living across the United States, indicating an inverse association between exposure to PM and cognitive function, an outcome related to AD [Alzheimer's disease] by virtue of the long period of cognitive decline that precedes clinical disease."

I'll be darned if I can reliably tell whether that hot chick I see on the street is 24 or 14.

It's not just you. They sure don't look like they did when I was younger.

I see young women in stores and yeah, they could be 15 or they could be in their 20s. And they're a lot more curvy or buxom or whatever than I remember them being when I was in high school or junior high. Some scientific studies are claiming that the age of puberty is dropping, so maybe that's it.

https://www.theguardian.com/so...
http://sph.unc.edu/age-of-pube...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/0...

"At the turn of the 20th century, the average age for an American girl to get her period was 16 to 17. Today, that number has plummeted to less than 13, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey."

So yeah, there's something going on.

The chart is about incidence of cancers, not mutations.

Cancer is the result of exposition to inducer factors (that cause mutations), and promoter factors (that help tumor growth). This means you can find two groups where one will have more mutations, but less cancers.

The chart was taken from the link I posted first, and it's all about the environment and mutations it can cause. Very interesting read, I came across it many years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b... (the chart is listed in first paragraph as Table 23-1)

Indian food is well known to be an effective tumor growth inhibitor, hence I am not surprised to see low cancer levels for India.

Nagasaki Japan with a high incidence of stomach cancer - go figure.

This only affects taste though, not sugar cravings or your metabolism. Is insuling production affected only by actual sugar ingestion, or by the taste of sweetness?

Well, from what I can find and what I know, yes. Tasting sweetness alone triggers insulin, at least according to this research report, and a forum for diabetics agrees with this also. So, while artificial sweetener probably has less impact than consuming the real deal, it's obviously not a way to enjoy ridiculously sweet foods without any repercussions since you'll still have a blood sugar level crash afterwards, and this taste machine wouldn't provide much over artificial sweetener in terms of diabetes prevention or guilt-free sugar surges.

If you live long enough you will get cancer, no matter your habits

Sure, we know death is a protection against cancer, but that does not answer the question. We are told smokers get 150 mutation a year, but how much does a non smoker get?

Guess you didn't see it, I sure can't. I followed up my post with a chart mentioning India wouldn't be a bad place to live.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...
The date of the chart, 1993 from works done in 1987 (how I read it - bottom of chart).

The chart doesn't break it into smoking and non-smoking, but I'd use the general population as reading above replies many don't smoke anymore. Even the article can't give you the question you desire as FTA "which contribute to different extents in different cancers".

While DNA research has reached amazing levels, to contribute to many different cancers; one really can't do that much with, other than saying smoking is bad for you.

I wonder how cannabis compares. There is no way smoking small particulate matter of any kind is healthy, and while it isn't as carcinogenic as tobacco, I would be extremely surprised to see if it didn't have long term health effects on the lungs. Only time will tell.

Curiously enough, the non-biased studies seem to show that cannabis does NOT seem to contribute significantly to COPD, and may even be ANTI-carcinogenic. I know it seems impossible, but them's the facts.

Even the Canadian Medial Association Journal stated in 2009, Article "Does smoking marijuana increase the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?" that "Given the consistently reported absence of an association between use of marijuana and abnormal diffusing capacity or signs of macroscopic emphysema, we can be close to concluding that smoking marijuana by itself does not lead to COPD."

And, as far as Marijuana smoking causing Cancer, even the most pedestrian of Medical Resources, WebMD, are saying publicly there is no causal link between Pot smoking and increased Cancer risk, even for the heaviest of smokers. "The heaviest marijuana users in the study had smoked more than 22,000 joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 and 22,000 joints.

While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers."

And yet, Marijuana is STILL listed as a Schedule 1 NARCOTIC in the U.S....

THIS...there was a british longitudinal study showing heavy pot smokers had little, if any increase in pulmonary fibrosis and the protective effect from lung cancer was shown. it wasn't huge but anything is surprising and worth following up on. it was a pretty big surprise that smoking non-filtered blunts didn't damage the lungs overall.

I wonder how cannabis compares. There is no way smoking small particulate matter of any kind is healthy, and while it isn't as carcinogenic as tobacco, I would be extremely surprised to see if it didn't have long term health effects on the lungs. Only time will tell.

Curiously enough, the non-biased studies seem to show that cannabis does NOT seem to contribute significantly to COPD, and may even be ANTI-carcinogenic. I know it seems impossible, but them's the facts.

Even the Canadian Medial Association Journal stated in 2009, Article "Does smoking marijuana increase the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease?" that "Given the consistently reported absence of an association between use of marijuana and abnormal diffusing capacity or signs of macroscopic emphysema, we can be close to concluding that smoking marijuana by itself does not lead to COPD."

And, as far as Marijuana smoking causing Cancer, even the most pedestrian of Medical Resources, WebMD, are saying publicly there is no causal link between Pot smoking and increased Cancer risk, even for the heaviest of smokers. "The heaviest marijuana users in the study had smoked more than 22,000 joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 and 22,000 joints.

While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers."

And yet, Marijuana is STILL listed as a Schedule 1 NARCOTIC in the U.S....

If you live long enough you will get cancer

On the flip side it sure doesn't hurt to live in Poona/Nagpur India.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b...

How many mutation does a non smoker get during a year? The comparison would be interesting.

If you live long enough you will get cancer, no matter your habits.

A certain irreducible background incidence of cancer is to be expected regardless of circumstances: mutations can never be absolutely avoided, because they are an inescapable consequence of fundamental limitations on the accuracy of DNA replication, as discussed in Chapter 5. If a human could live long enough, it is inevitable that at least one of his or her cells would eventually accumulate a set of mutations sufficient for cancer to develop.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...

the main difference is that the contents of tobacco are far more carcinogenic. Also, the quantity smoked in terms of cannabis is waaaay lower than that of a habitual tobacco smoker. Moderate to heavy cigarette smokers are smoking a cigarette every hour or more all day.

THC and Cannabidiols are not carcinogenic in and of themselves, it's only ingestion by smoking that can risk DNA damage. Luckily there are other options with cannabis like edibles.

And why do you assume that massive numbers of people are so helplessly incompetent that they'll allow themselves to starve to death? If you thought you might be in danger of starving someday, would you do something to prevent that? Do you think you'd succeed? If so, why do you want to imagine so many people are so inferior to you that they'll actually starve to death?

Most of the people that currently starve to death are children (3.1 million children in 2013, according to this study). Yeah, they're pretty incompetent. Most of them don't even have jobs! The problem is that they haven't received their initial pair of bootstraps so they have no way to pull themselves up yet.

No - the increase in trust is a symptom of aging. Longer ago, there were snake oil salesmen and no FDA. There have always been scammers around.

*Posting AC for reasons I don't desire to get into.*

Oopsies - Hi dahat.

I'm sad to channel my abstinence only parents (who were right), but the only effective way of preventing pregnancy is abstinence.

Nope. The problem with abstinance only is that nature hates it, and it tends to fail quickly. If males and females could simply be told "Don't bump uglies!" and they just said "No problem!" and that was it, sure.

Abstinence only works only if the couple doesn't engage in sex. But they do:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

http://www.siecus.org/index.cf...

tl;dr version the US has spent 1 and a half billion dollars on abstinence only education, and we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate among developed nations - yay! we're number one!

Abstinence only's failure is based of course on it being in complete opposition to nature, and the reproductive drive. No matter how we try, we don't remain abstinent unless sex wasn't a big deal in the first place, or we are socially inept. Most people love to engage in sex.

As well, it warps young people, as they try to find ways around it, with crazy stuff like technical virgins, who've had about every kind of sex but traditional intercourse. I wouldn't be too surprised if a lot of homosexual experimentation has ocurred in otherwise hetero people. If sex was easy to control, religions would be 100 percent successful, which they obviously are not.

There is a lot of strong evidence for this, mostly the fact there is NO genetic correlation as homosexuality is obviously an evolutionary dead end.

WTF HOW?

People with high-meat-intake diets can, but rarely do, get deficiencies; people on vegan diets have to jump through hoops not to. That was the point: fruits and vegetables aren't the primary source of all nutrients, and aren't holding up your critically-deficient, mainly-meat diet; a cursory preponderance of evidence suggests the eggs consumed by ovolacto vegetarians are holding up their critically-deficient, mainly-vegetable diet. I've seen statistics stating between 75%-95% of vegetarians and vegans bail on the diet because of adverse health effects; and vegans themselves always have something to say about how you have to make sure you're eating the right vegan diet or else of course it will make you sick, which simply isn't a concern with modern incidental-vegetable-intake diets that get their main source of greens and yellows and reds from hamburger toppings and tacos.

As for fiber, Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms.

For no fiber, reduced fiber and high fiber groups, respectively, symptoms of bloating were present in 0%, 31.3% and 100% (P

CONCLUSION: Idiopathic constipation and its associated symptoms can be effectively reduced by stopping or even lowering the intake of dietary fiber.

The medical term "idiopathic" means "we don't know why," as opposed to being caused by an observed deficiency, disease, genetic condition, stress, or anything else. It's a placeholder for "healthy adults" when the adults are experiencing a symptom making them not healthy.

The benefits of a high-fiber diet have been repeated again and again, but rarely actually researched. Don't look too closely, or you'll find out you're wrong.

even if the catalyst wasn't poisoned, a biofilm would clog those activity sites in an open body of water.

Intuition tells me that ethanol should destroy the biofilm. Research tells me otherwise. It actually seems to encourage it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

However, as hankwang mentioned, bacteria doesn't do so well in elecrolyzed water.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Algae might not be safe either:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

even if the catalyst wasn't poisoned, a biofilm would clog those activity sites in an open body of water.

Intuition tells me that ethanol should destroy the biofilm. Research tells me otherwise. It actually seems to encourage it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

However, as hankwang mentioned, bacteria doesn't do so well in elecrolyzed water.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

Algae might not be safe either:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

https://www.scientificamerican...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
http://naturalsociety.com/huma...

https://www.scientificamerican...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
http://naturalsociety.com/huma...

I think he's referring to the isoflavones in soybeans which mimic estrogen and are possibly linked to multiple hormone-related health issues.

While everything you eat affects your body in some way or another, consuming isoflavones in sufficient quantities which convert into phytoestrogensis a bad idea as hormone balance is especially sensitive to such consumption... well... for men anyway. For post-menopausal women, there have been beneficial effects in studies that show it's similar to taking low-dose hormone-replacement therapies -- ie estrogen pills. There's also a theory that increased soy products have aided in increased breast sizes, early puberty, and low sperm counts... though it's far from proven.

The National Institute of Health states results from various studies are mixed and that it supports further study, yet cautions women who are at high risk of breast or cervical cancer from eating lots of soy.

https://nccih.nih.gov/health/s...

This link? Works for me:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...

Your response doesn't exactly address the concern: are these changes heritable?

There is evidence to suggest that they are transmitted to offspring, maternally and possibly paternally:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"These data suggest that prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with reproducible epigenetic changes that persist well into childhood."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
"Here we assessed whether these infant [DNA methylation (DNAm)] patterns are detectable in early childhood, whether they are specific to smoking, and whether childhood DNAm can classify prenatal smoke exposure status. ... Striking concordance was found between the pattern of prenatal smoking associated DNAm among preschool aged children... These DNAm changes appear to be tobacco-specific."

Pay-walled review of the literature from Feb 2016:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"Paternal smoking and germ cell death: a mechanistic link to the effects of cigarette smoke on spermatogenesis and possible long-term sequelae in offspring"

It's not clear at this time whether they are transmitted to the third generation.

Your response doesn't exactly address the concern: are these changes heritable?

There is evidence to suggest that they are transmitted to offspring, maternally and possibly paternally:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"These data suggest that prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with reproducible epigenetic changes that persist well into childhood."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
"Here we assessed whether these infant [DNA methylation (DNAm)] patterns are detectable in early childhood, whether they are specific to smoking, and whether childhood DNAm can classify prenatal smoke exposure status. ... Striking concordance was found between the pattern of prenatal smoking associated DNAm among preschool aged children... These DNAm changes appear to be tobacco-specific."

Pay-walled review of the literature from Feb 2016:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"Paternal smoking and germ cell death: a mechanistic link to the effects of cigarette smoke on spermatogenesis and possible long-term sequelae in offspring"

It's not clear at this time whether they are transmitted to the third generation.

Your response doesn't exactly address the concern: are these changes heritable?

There is evidence to suggest that they are transmitted to offspring, maternally and possibly paternally:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"These data suggest that prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with reproducible epigenetic changes that persist well into childhood."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
"Here we assessed whether these infant [DNA methylation (DNAm)] patterns are detectable in early childhood, whether they are specific to smoking, and whether childhood DNAm can classify prenatal smoke exposure status. ... Striking concordance was found between the pattern of prenatal smoking associated DNAm among preschool aged children... These DNAm changes appear to be tobacco-specific."

Pay-walled review of the literature from Feb 2016:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"Paternal smoking and germ cell death: a mechanistic link to the effects of cigarette smoke on spermatogenesis and possible long-term sequelae in offspring"

It's not clear at this time whether they are transmitted to the third generation.

Your response doesn't exactly address the concern: are these changes heritable?

There is evidence to suggest that they are transmitted to offspring, maternally and possibly paternally:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"These data suggest that prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with reproducible epigenetic changes that persist well into childhood."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
"Here we assessed whether these infant [DNA methylation (DNAm)] patterns are detectable in early childhood, whether they are specific to smoking, and whether childhood DNAm can classify prenatal smoke exposure status. ... Striking concordance was found between the pattern of prenatal smoking associated DNAm among preschool aged children... These DNAm changes appear to be tobacco-specific."

Pay-walled review of the literature from Feb 2016:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
"Paternal smoking and germ cell death: a mechanistic link to the effects of cigarette smoke on spermatogenesis and possible long-term sequelae in offspring"

It's not clear at this time whether they are transmitted to the third generation.

My apologies. I failed to interpret your note about the lack of 'an actual controlled study' as referring to 'an actual controlled study about X'.

If you really want to learn about the dangers of second-hand smoke, you could try reference #3 from the fact sheet, entitled 'The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke'. There you will find executive summaries and overviews of the report, as well as links to the complete report. You can even get everything in a convenient pdf format.

Technically, this publication is not 'an actual controlled study'; instead it is built on a large number of controlled studies. I would suggest that it meets any reasonable criteria for your controlled study requirement.

"pollute the human genome" Nice one, Hitler!

We already prohibit general use of a number of medical interventions based on transplanting porcine cells into humans.

For example, it's possible to exploit the immune privilege of the brain in order to transplant fetal pig brain cells into humans to treat conditions such as Parkinson's, Huntington's and islet cells into the pancreas of people with Type I diabetes.

The big risk is Porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV -- yes, it's actually called that), being transmitted, and becoming part of the human genome. Thus, people who have received these xenografts are prohibited from sexual reproduction post-graft (although it's possible to save germ cells prior, to permit in vitro fertilization techniques).

See also:

Porcine xenografts in Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease patients: preliminary results.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

So yes, numb-nuts: "pollute the human genome".

It's not Hitlerian, or in any way related to eugenics to prevent introduction of DNA errors or endogenous viruses into the general genome in a heritable way.

You raise an interesting point. Most drugs used to treat psychiatric conditions have a narrow therapeutic window: if the dose is too low the treatment is not effective; if the dose is too high then adverse events result. That's why many psychiatric drugs come in a variety of doses and physicians titrate the dose for new patients. On the other hand, most drugs to treat other medical conditions have a wider therapeutic window: it's OK if the dose isn't perfectly accurate.

Interestingly, it appears that epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis has a narrow therapeutic window, and too little, too much, or injecting improperly can result in death:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

As it relates to your question ("can a suicidal person administer the proper dose?"), can a person dying of anaphylaxis measure an accurate dose and properly inject?

You raise an interesting point. Most drugs used to treat psychiatric conditions have a narrow therapeutic window: if the dose is too low the treatment is not effective; if the dose is too high then adverse events result. That's why many psychiatric drugs come in a variety of doses and physicians titrate the dose for new patients. On the other hand, most drugs to treat other medical conditions have a wider therapeutic window: it's OK if the dose isn't perfectly accurate.

Interestingly, it appears that epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis has a narrow therapeutic window, and too little, too much, or injecting improperly can result in death:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

As it relates to your question ("can a suicidal person administer the proper dose?"), can a person dying of anaphylaxis measure an accurate dose and properly inject?

So you'd have no problems citing a source for that, then? A photo of an epipen showing an expiry date of 2021 or something?

Epinephrine degrades steadily with time and expired doses are not as effective as fresh ones. I've not been able to find anything to suggest a 5-year shelf life for an epipen anywhere, so if you'd be so kind...
=Smidge=