Slashdot Mirror
Smoking Permanently Damages Your DNA, Study Finds (nbcnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: Smoking scars DNA in clear patterns, researchers reported Tuesday. Most of the damage fades over time, they found -- but not all of it. Their study of 16,000 people found that while most of the disease-causing genetic footprints left by smoking fade after five years if people quit, some appear to stay there forever. The marks are made in a process called methylation, which is an alteration of DNA that can inactivate a gene or change how it functions -- often causing cancer and other diseases. The team examined blood samples given by 16,000 people taking part in various studies going back to 1971. In all the studies, people have given blood samples and filled out questionnaires about smoking, diet, lifestyle and their health histories. They found smokers had a pattern of methylation changes affecting more than 7,000 genes, or one-third of known human genes. Many of the genes had known links to heart disease and cancers known to be caused by smoking. Among quitters, most of these changes reverted to the patterns seen in people who never smoked after about five years, the team reported in the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics. But smoking-related changes in 19 genes, including the TIAM2 gene linked to lymphoma, lasted 30 years, the team found.
Would the same be true of people who were exposed to coal smoke for long periods?
Yes, life cut short by wine drinking, that's why the country with the highest per capita consumption of wine, Andorra, has the shortest life....oh wait they have the highest don't they. And Vatican City and France and Slovenia ....all consume more wine than Americans and live longer too
They don't answer the only question we care about.
Heritability.
If it doesn't damage your kids genes ...and by extension, pollute the human genome ...then I don't care if you are dumb enough to damage your own health.
Unless you are a close relative, or smoke around me, it's no skin off my nose, if you want to commit suicide by cigarette or a Kevorkian death machine.
Yes, there is. Work two jobs, then three jobs. Pretend you're doing great on Facebook, twitter, tumblr, post sad bears on imgur and FMLs on fmylife, imagine you're going to Mars with Elon Musk.
Amurrikah, ist wunderbar.
How much and for how long .
.. I've tried several times.
__________________________
Its easy to quit smoking
People in Vatican City don't marry, that's why they live longer.
This study might explain the explosion of peanut allergies, adhd, and many other disorders.
Smoking was really popular during the baby boom.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
Man, you reek of smuggery. Hopefully that's not heritable, because future generations will be fucked.
Yeah, you might as well get peer-pressured into killing yourself in some way or another.
The cytosine methylation signal along a strand of DNA is theoretically heritable, even though it has nothing to do with the actual sequence of bases.
There are vast stretches of junk DNA in the genome, some with old genes for ancient viruses or parasitic sequences like transposons, and the way the cell keeps those parts of DNA away from cell machinery is by methylating the cytosine residues. The methyl groups prevent RNA polymerase from transcribing the DNA and therefore it gets silenced.
When a cell divides, the methyl groups are only on the original strand; the new complimentary strand doesn't have any. The methylation signal has to be actively transcribed from one strand to another; an enzyme runs up the DNA feeling for methylated cytosine residues. When it finds some, it starts methylating any cytosine residues that might be nearby on the opposite strand, to make sure the troublesome regions all stay commented out. That's why it's heritable.
Big question probably is: but does it affect gamets?
What is it about "tobacco" smoke that causes this change in DNA, but maybe not caused by marijuana smoke? Or smog? Or eating sugar? Or getting vaccines?
Could it be caused by the additives? The pesticides? The rolling paper? Is it the carbon monoxide? The nicotine? Or does the tobacco plant simply contain the perfect storm of noxious compounds?
Ok, so what? Another article that says "smoking is bad." Not constructive-- it's just another excuse for people to dogpile onto the boogey man that is tobacco without actually finding the facts, curing addiction, or improving smoking products.
People do not smoke because they think it's smart and healthy. Some people do it because it's social. Others do it because they've been affected by clever marketing as youngsters and have gone years without realizing their Marlboro Man self-image is actually just nicotine addiction. One thing is for sure: being a smug asshole and being rude to people who smoke for one reason or another does not deter them at all-- it reinforces the desire to smoke because the cigarette makes them feel better than anti-smokers' negativity. A cigarette merely offends the smoker's physiology, while smug assholes offend the smoker's very soul.
People have been imbibing tobacco products for hundreds of years. It is obvious the vast majority of us have adapted to its use.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
There's more to life than smoking or excessive eating/drinking.
That may be true update to a point. I would argue that vices are also a part of life, and one's inevitable demise.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Yeah, because all those 'YOLO' drunkards are going to be individually remembered like Jim Morrison was.
No sig today...
I've climbed some of the highest mountains on earth (extremely physically demanding). my first time upon reaching the summit of one of these, the local guides pulled out some cigarettes and started smoking
I'd say the opposite. The people who drink themselves into a stupor every day are... spending a large part of their life in a stupor.
And very few of them manage to die famous in their 20s like they claim to want.
Most of them will live a long time and could have spent all that beer/cigarette money on a decent size house, faster car, etc. That would be a better 'life' than just being drunk all the time and smelling bad.
No sig today...
I've climbed some of the highest mountains on earth (extremely physically demanding). my first time upon reaching the summit of one of these, the local guides pulled out some cigarettes and started smoking
Yep. Vices should be a reward, not a constant all-day, every day habit.
No sig today...
You mean they're going to rediscover the health benefits a few years from now?
No sig today...
The only thing that I agree to is that if someone finds smoke in their vicinity objectionable, smokers should go and smoke elsewhere.
Exactly this, everyone should be free to do whatever they want to themselves, but should not be free to do something that adversely affects an unwilling party.
I always thought smoking to be a horribly inefficient and offensive method of consuming a drug, since the majority of it goes into the air and affects those nearby. Not only is it inhaled by others, but the residue also settles on objects and the smell lingers.
Why not find a more sensible method that doesn't result in most of your drug spreading into the surrounding area?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
because it's obviously heritable
Far from it. Unless it is the sperm or the eggs that are affected, DNA changes won't propagate. TFA mentions 7k genes can be affected, but doesn't elaborate the genes of which cells. Even supposing smoke hits you straight in the sack or the ovaries (which it doesn't), that still means that less than a quarter of all DNA in some of the cells will be affected. Hardly a certainty, even under the largest possible exaggeration of the risk.
Maybe you should take that Genetics 101 instead of talking about it.
Here you go, a whole bunch of citations on second-hand smoke, all in one spot and very easy-to-read:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/dat...
From the abstract of one of the linked papers: No risk-free level of SHS exposure exists.
So? What does that have to do with all the stupid YOLO drunkards?
If you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are you'd open a bar for the idiots to try to drink themselves to death in. Those guys get rich.
(And mostly don't drink. Plus they tend to live on small islands, drive jetskis to the 'office' and have their pick of the YOLO girls. How does your drunken life measure up to that?)
No sig today...
Still not as big as "being permanently drunk is best", though, eh?
No sig today...
The point you missed was: "Moderation".
Thanks for playing.
No sig today...
"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.
French here, one of the main difference with the US is that our standard diet is not complete shit.
When a cell divides, the methyl groups are only on the original strand; the new complimentary strand doesn't have any. The methylation signal has to be actively transcribed from one strand to another; an enzyme runs up the DNA feeling for methylated cytosine residues. When it finds some, it starts methylating any cytosine residues that might be nearby on the opposite strand, to make sure the troublesome regions all stay commented out. That's why it's heritable.
The methylation inactivation is heritable. The issue, in this case, was erroneous activation or switching of cells to modify protein production.
I suspect that the mechanism involved (they don't say) in the repair of the genes which end up going back to normal is related to the production of O6-methyl-transferase via the MGMT complex sites on the long arm of c21 -- the same thing that results in chemo-resistance to cancers, such as pancreatic cancer or glioblastoma, when combined with the appropriate mutation of the p53 gene on c17.
I think as long as it doesn't involve a long term mutation of a cancer related gene, such that it effect the germ cells, it's not a problem. Since you tend to come pre-packed with all the germ cells you are ever going to have in your lifetime, then the issue will be smoking by pregnant women, and all other damage that results in disease will only be self-inflicted diseases, rather than heritable.
Which still means they've failed to answer the question of whether or not it's heritable, because they've failed to discuss whether or not it impacts germ cells (arguably unlikely, but it'd be nice to have an answer, particularly when making decisions on how and when to regulate smoking, or minimally, smoking in public).
Apparently it's perfectly safe...so vaping companies say AND there's been some studies to say that vaping is so much better for you than smoking...
You should believe vaping is safe...except if you suspect that the lack of decades of data makes it difficult to determine AND if you suspect studies are influenced, falsified, wrong or completely malicious.
Because respectable bodies of research were never going to lie for money and they never do:
This -> https://www.statnews.com/2016/...
The eagle-eyed reader will notice this is a research about sugar. Nothing to do with smoking or vaping...after all another supposedly respectable body already said vaping is 95% healthier. Public Health England, a government affiliated body no less. -> https://www.theguardian.com/so...
Some searching leads to this 113 page piece of "research" that was no carried out by the UK government of course but rather an "independent researcher" which actually are:
McNeill A, Brose LS, Calder R, Hitchman SC
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology &
Neuroscience,
National Addiction Centre,
Hajek P, McRobbie H (Chapters 9 and 10)
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine
A link deeper and you find the actual full paper -> https://www.gov.uk/government/...
This is some people's minds cements the belief that vaping is 95% safer than smoking cigarettes. the author of that "study" which is more like a search on Pubmed gave two key factors for this 95% figure:
That there is less than 5% known carcinogens in vaping (assuming your sucking on the same "juice" and that there is currently no associated health risk.
Read it if you like -> https://www.gov.uk/government/...
So really this thought that vaping is so much healthier has some good concepts behind it what it lacks is proof and data. All we found is that we have no data to say it's unhealthy. If it causes genetic damage or increased mutation that is only apparent many years later we have no clue.
Just think what the tobacco industry is worth. What the vaping industry will be worth...can you honestly beliee they will not pub their weight into anything much like the sugar lobby once did? -in fact we already know the tobacco industry has covered up decades of research and used their expertise to counter anything that made them look bad.
95% healthier...once this flawed concept is in the public's mind it takes another fucking decade to tell them otherwise. Once upon a time Kent cigarettes had asbestos filters that increased cancer rates many times over compared to regular smoking. They were the product of "research" and were thought to be "healthy"...remember that.
Just continue vaping. It's safe. Anything coming out of a miniaturized "fog machine" is so much better for you. Honest.
As an added bonus it's cheaper than your previous addiction platform too!
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
You just gave a page full of conclusions and summaries. If there's a link to an actual controlled study anywhere in there, I can't find it. Brought to you by the same people who recommended transfat laden margarine for your health.
I say that as someone who switched to vaping and hopes to stay switched through DIY and the black market after the FDA's regs go into full effect.
I opened the first one, a General Surgeon's report, to amuse myself. No surprise, the first sentence with numbers was already propaganda, quoting itself:
In 2005, it was estimated that exposure to second-hand smoke kills
This funny sentence is followed by this gem:
More than 80% of the respondents aged 18 years or older believed that second-hand smoke is harmful.
That about sums it up: the gubbermint pushes some estimates aka the scariest numbers they can pull out of their arses that support a certain "desirable" policy, and "the people" believe it, because it is the gubbermint that says so.
As for the "no risk-free level exists", the models say so in exactly the same words for radiation exposure as well. In fact, this is a major argument against nuclear power used by the liberal-arts green shills.
Yet, radiation exposure data and models (with which I'm quite familiar because I'm in this line of business), if applied with good understanding of the underlying assumptions, imply with a lot of confidence that the risk below certain exposure is so insignificant that it is impossible to measure. That is why they must be applied and the risks assessed by people who are qualified.
I'm guessing with significant confidence and without the need to shuffle through hundreds of pages that the conclusion a scientist familiar with the models will draw from the SHS exposure data would be the same. I am quite confident that you're not a scientist, that you don't know or understand the models and that you are incapable of applying them correctly to assess risks.
It is, actually, really simple. As the unknown chemist from Dupont put it, the solution of pollution is dilution. Unless someone is exhaling smoke in your face 24x7, you have little to worry about, just as you'd be stupid to hope that homeopathic "medicine" can help you.
What you should worry about are your paranoia and ignorance. These you should take care of, because, unlike SHS, they will harm you.
It is what you DO with your life that matters, not how long it lasts. Who's heard of you? Who'll remember you 10 years after you die?
Who gives a shit? If fame is how you measure the worth of a life, then you are a very superficial and sad individual.
If I'm going to die of something, I'd rather it not be a long excruciating death with many years of poor health like smoking frequently is.
This space intentionally left blank
So, you *don't* eat snails and frogs legs in real life?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
And what if the switch is "make cancer go now!"?
Then it would be the most interesting discovery in the history of evolution.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Indeed. My post was not well-considered.
If there's a link to an actual controlled study anywhere in there, I can't find it.
What was wrong with the link I used in my comment? That study, which was reference #8 in the fact sheet, describes its methodology, shows its data, and has a couple dozen more references if you want to get further into it.
Brought to you by the same people who recommended transfat laden margarine for your health.
And? What does that ad hominem have to do with the work of a completely different group of scientists?
It's the way of science - when we learn more, we sometimes find that we made mistakes before. If you're only going to accept information from people who have never been wrong, you're not going to learn much.
PS - I can't find where the CDC itself recommended margarine. Have a link?
What causes the DNA damage,
The tobacco,
or
The compounds added to the tobacco to bind the user to a brand?
When I bought smokes I thought I was buying tobacco, but it seems there was a little more.....
Rick B.
How about; If I'm altering my DNA, what superpowers am I likely to develop?
No that's an important question.
... estimated ...
And then they supplied a number of references and data to describe how they came to that estimate. It's a carefully chosen term; if they'd used something more absolute you'd be whining about that too. But it doesn't mean they just made a number up, despite your claim to the contrary.
I can't find the section you're referring to, but a report like that is going to include reports on the efficacy of consumer information campaigns. Its existence in the report is not proof they used this belief as data for the estimate, even though that's what you are implying.
What you should worry about are your paranoia and ignorance.
So you're not trying to have an adult conversation, are you.
imply with a lot of confidence that the risk below certain exposure is so insignificant that it is impossible to measure.
That's actually a legitimate point; if you weren't so busy being an ass, I might consider discussing it with you.
I think perhaps you're assuming that 'estimated' is directly replaceable by 'guessed.'
And yes, the solution to pollution may very well be dilution, but that doesn't help the kids that live in a house full of smokers.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
There are many pleasures that don't involve dangerous substances. If your only pleasures in life are smoking or alcohol, then yes, you might as well die early.
consume more wine than Americans and live longer too
You don't live longer from consuming wine friend, you live longer from enjoying it.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It is not for anyone else to judge the worth of what I do, that is my choice and values and mine alone. If no one remembers me but I judge my life fulfilling that is right. If I choose to do something that others will remember gladly that is another matter
If you read the original article, the simply state that they can document methlyation changes to DNA. For all we know, the body may be doing this methylation to help repair damage or neutralize toxins. The conclusion that "smoking damages DNA" is unfounded.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Did you read it? It isn't a study showing HARM from second hand smoke. It's a survey of how much exposure there is to second hand smoke.It (like the other links on that page) presupposes the harm.
You've been papered! It's the same dirty trick lawyers sometimes use to "comply" with discovery while making sure nothing is discovered.
Maybe not to you, but from my perspective listening to people hork up a lung and then light up, rinse and repeat, doesn't seem like much of a life.
You know the end is near when they say "Why should I quit smoking? It's the only thing left that I enjoy!"
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Do you really belief that those filters remove the more than 4,000 byproducts of incomplete combustion? They obviously don't remove the nicotine. My solution was to randomly stick mini fire crackers in cigarettes at the factory. This way nobody would be able to say that it calms their nerves, not when they're wondering if it's going to blow up in their face any moment.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well said!! This is where so many make the wrong turn...
Actually, it's so 50's. By the 90's nobody could claim ignorance.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You'd die of thirst if all you drank was heavy water. The body can't use it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The problem with ovaries is that women are born with all the eggs they're ever going to have, so you can rack up years or decades of exposure.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
There are plenty of teratogenic drugs that cause cancer. Unfortunately, cancer treatment drugs are a good place to start
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Are such DNA changes hereditary? i.e. does a smoker pass damaged DNA on to their kids (at conception)?
Sorry top douible reply, but here goes.
I made not a single ad-hominem. An ad hominem would be a claim such as they have bad haircuts and smell funny so they are wrong. It is an attack on an un-related and non-relevant personal trait. All I did was suggest that there's been a history of poor reasoning leading to bad advice, which I would hope you would agree calls for a close examination of the current advice.
During my obligatory service in the army I've spent a half the time working in the office with chain smokers.
It took me months to stop wheezing and coughing when I came out of the uniform.
Basically, I was smoking a pack or two a day just sitting there.
A close neighbor (as in close family friends) died from cancer recently. Never quit smoking though.
He'd call me up often to do tech support and being eager to know but lacking tech skills (or knowledge of English) he'd have a lot of questions.
So I'd often spend hours explaining stuff.
Meanwhile, he and his wife would go through a pack or two. I'd literally have to take a shower after coming home cause I was reeking of tobacco.
At his wake, sitting in the same small room with friends and relatives, most of them smoking, at one moment I literally felt getting dizzy from all the smoke.
Second hand smoking is not passing by someone for "brief few seconds" on a crowded street" who just happens to exhale smoke.
It's sitting there and inhaling smoke for hours cause other people can't handle their addiction.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
From Wikipedia: ... in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Ad hominem
You could dispute whether your statement was a fallacious argument or not, but it was indeed an ad hominem attack.
I would note that it was a pointless argument, since it is unlikely any of the same individuals were involved (if the CDC was involved at all), and one issue of this nature does not point to 'a history of poor reasoning'. It just points to the fact that science is never finished.
BTW, the 'current advice' on second-hand smoke dates to at least 1986. There's been quite a bit of time for someone to find issue with the conclusions; I'm not aware of that happening in any legitimate context.
Repeat after me: correlation doesn't imply causation. Otherwise we'd have to conclude that water is poison, considering 99% of all people who died drank water shortly before they died. Just because a country has both high consumption of wine and longer than average lifespan, does not mean one causes the other.
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... ... Striking concordance was found between the pattern of prenatal smoking associated DNAm among preschool aged children... These DNAm changes appear to be tobacco-specific."
"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.
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.
Where legitimate context simply means the study wasn't found defective. Of course, a leading sign of defects is failing to find the harm we "all know" must exist. I actually have never seen a study that found actual harm from second hand smoke, particularly from incidental exposure. If you have, post a link to that.
Essentially, it is political suicide these days to publish a study that finds no harm from second hand smoke. Even the very few that dare report any negative finding very anxiously include a few paragraphs dedicated to claiming without proof that while it doesn't cause X, we just know it causes every other letter of the alphabet.
Itâ(TM)s easy to quit drinking. Iâ(TM)ve done it a thousand times.
-- W.C. Fields
So perhaps you would care to ferret out one of those controlled studies. I looked at the complete report and found only references to other reports that reference more reports. There doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence to be found there.
I think, given the initial request for scientific evidence that second hand smoke causes harm that it was pretty clear that the request was for a controlled study and that X would not be the mating rituals of the Tufted Titmouse.
And now we've come full circle. Let me see if I can recap this conversation.
anon: There's no data
me: here's data
you: but not controlled studies
me: here are controlled studies
you: but not the right kind of controlled studies
me: here's a report with descriptions and references to controlled studies about harms (surgeon general's report, I linked it above).
you: I haven't seen a positive study(*1). And it's all political(*2).
(*1) Yet later you talk about the 'the very few that dare report any negative finding', implying you think that most have a positive finding.
(*2) You should look at the sources in that report - many come from places like Japan, Switzerland, China, and a number of other countries. I really doubt the political constraints that you think exist are going to apply everywhere on the planet.
If you're just going to hand-wave away the huge amount of evidence that's out there, then continuing this part of the conversation is kinda pointless. So, I'm going to move on to speculating about your motives and politics. Some possibilities on your agenda here:
- You work for a tobacco firm in some capacity, and have let your paycheck skew your reasoning.
- You have been exposing family and friends to second-hand smoke, and are trying to find a rationalization for your behavior.
- You like arguing.
- You like being the special guy who can see though the vast conspiracies in this world, and next you'll want to move on to discussing WTC7 and thermite.
Any other explanations you want to offer?
I looked at the complete report
Try the PDF.
But you have never actually presented scientific evidence or anything that pointed to scientific evidence even vaguely relevant to the request. If you have something to contribute to the conversation, please do so. Preferably a link to actual scientific evidence (that second hand smoke causes measurable harm, not on the mating practices of the Tufted Titmouse) rather than a report about reports. Otherwise, admit you've been bamboozled and move on.
Have a reference
I did: ERROR 403: Forbidden.
This link? Works for me:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...
But you have never actually presented scientific evidence
My phrasing was deliberate - you are hand-waving away the vast amount of evidence that's out there, not just what I'm presenting. I'm pretty sure you know how to use Google too, and don't need to rely on me to lead you to it.
This isn't even new stuff - I'm mainly working off the memory of a deep dive I did into this topic about ten years ago; not much has changed since then.
Also, please see note (*1) above.
Apparently, there was a transient problem. That is much closer, but has a number of troubling signs such as condensing large amounts of the smoke and implanting the resulting crud under the skin of mice or placing them in what would be an extreme example of a smoke filled room 24/7 for 5 months. Of course, in the latter study, 60% of the CONTROLS (breathing only filtered air) also developed lung tumors.
In many other studies in the report, particularly the human studies, the "positive" wasn't harm that occurred, but the ability to measure that substance in their urine (generally with no data provided on the concentration or source of the second hand smoke).
In other words, pretty weak stuff, but I'll grant you, they are actually relevant studies.
So the main effect of the smoking-related-methylation is to stop those genes getting replicated? I presume missing genes means missing proteins... but if neighbouring cells produce them, it won't cause much of a problem? What else can go wrong from missing genes in an individual cell?
Also, what is transcribed instead of the methylated group, out of interest?
Sorry, my biology education sucked.
I was being very specific to what you presented because that was what I was calling out. OP asked for citations and got papered instead.
What I do know is ever since the craze over second hand smoke started in the '80s, I have never seen (pardon the pun) a smoking gun. I must say I was a bit soured on the subject after seeing someone quacking about 4th hand smoke (coming into contact with someone who was in a room someone once smoked in).
Probably formaldehyde, ammonia, arsenic and DDT
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yeah, but McDonald's in France isn't anything like it is in the US. I'll bet in France, they even use actual meat instead of a soy patty.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
But, are the ovaries exposed to the carcinogens that are found in smoke? As far as I understood, the lungs are mostly what is affected, not the ovaries. How would the carcinogens even get to the ovaries?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You'd be wrong. If you thought about it, even nicotine manages to get into the bloodstream and through the blood-brain barrier. If the various toxins didn't get elsewhere in the body, it would be kind of hard for them to cause pancreas, bladder, kidney, cervix, and stomach cancer, and acute myeloid leukemia (bone marrow cancer), or to show up in the urine.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Now they can tell if you are a tobacco virgin!
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
And I said that you'll never be Jim Morrison no matter how much you drink.
And neither will they.
PS: If you think I'll ever set foot in a gym you're deluded.
No sig today...
I guess we will find out soon enough...