Slashdot Mirror
Every Year of Smoking Causes About 150 New DNA Mutations That Can Make Cancer More Likely, Says Study (latimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Los Angeles Times: For every year that you continue your pack-a-day habit, the DNA in every cell in your lungs acquires about 150 new mutations. Some of those mutations may be harmless, but the more there are, the greater the risk that one or more of them will wind up causing cancer. The threat doesn't stop there, according to a study in Friday's edition of the journal Science. After a year of smoking a pack of cigarettes each day, the cells in the larynx pick up roughly 97 new mutations, those in the pharynx accumulate 39 new mutations, and cells in the oral cavity gain 23 new mutations. Even organs with no direct exposure to tobacco smoke appear to be affected. The researchers counted about 18 new mutations in every bladder cell and six new mutations in every liver cell for each "pack-year" that smokers smoked. The findings are based on a genetic analysis of 5,243 cancers, including 2,490 from smokers and 1,063 from patients who said they had never smoked tobacco cigarettes. The researchers used powerful supercomputers to compare thousands of cancer genome sequences. The computers grouped the sequences into about 20 distinct categories, or "mutational signatures." Mutations tied to five of these signatures were more common in tumors from smokers than in tumors from nonsmokers. One of the signatures involves a specific DNA nucleobase change -- instead of a C for cytosine, there was an A for adenine -- that "is very similar" to the change that occurs in the lab when cells are exposed to benzo[a]pyrene, a compound that the International Agency for Research on Cancer says is carcinogenic to humans. Most of the lung and larynx cancers obtained from smokers had this type of mutation, the researchers reported. They also found that the signature was more common among smokers than nonsmokers. Another mutational signature was characterized by Cs that should have been Ts (thymine) and vice versa. Although these changes can be found in all kinds of cancers, the signature was 1.3 to 5.1 times more common in tumors from smokers than in tumors from nonsmokers, according to the study.
anything
Now clearly im not saying smoking is healthy. But a pack a day is what most people around here would call extremely excessive
Smoke if you want to be a super hero.
There have been studies for years that have proven that smoking kills. They have been called "cancer sticks" for decades. But regardless of the fact that people know that smoking kills people just keep on smoking and burning their money away.
You can't cure stupid.
"The public health authorities never mention the main reason many Americans have for smoking heavily, which is that smoking is a fairly sure, fairly honorable form of suicide." - Kurt Vonnegut
"Here's the news: I am going to sue the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, manufacturers of Pall Mall cigarettes, for a billion bucks! Starting when I was only twelve years old, I have never chain-smoked anything but unfiltered Pall Malls. And for many years now, right on the package, Brown & Williamson have promised to kill me. But I am eighty-two. Thanks a lot, you dirty rats. The last thing I ever wanted was to be alive when the three most powerful people on the whole planet would be named Bush, Dick and Colon." - Kurt Vonnegut
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
Remember that mutations aren't all bad mutations. A minority of mutations are beneficial. Evolution keeps score.
Is the risk of losing a lot greater than the chance of winning? Hell, yes, but we don't ban lottery tickets for that reason either.
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.
You're right, but with any kind of decent pot, how much do you have to smoke? With any of the high test shit from California or Colorado, one hit and you're seriously high.
Even as a carefree college student, I maybe peaked out at 8-10 one hits per day on a really carefree day, like some weird Saturday when there was no homework and a serious party atmosphere. Your typical responsible person with a job or even me in college most days? 1 to 3 one hits in the evening after work? That should have most people plenty stoned.
Now compare that to a serious smoker pulling down an entire pack (or more) of cigarettes per day. By about the third or forth cigarette, you're way past whatever pot could do.
Now of course, there are compulsive pot smokers who smoke much more, but I figure a compulsive pot smoker would have to be smoking 5 or more joints a day to compare to a pack a day smoker. I just don't see how you could do that with most of the pot in circulation these days, especially in places where its legal or nearly so and is really strong.
I quit smoking by using a vape and gradually toning down the nicotine levels in the fluid from 18mg to 0mg. After that I found myself using the vape less and less until finally I quit that too.
For anyone who doesn't smoke, don't start smoking OR vaping. If you are already a smoker, I wholeheartedly recommend giving vaping a try.
by switching to Oxycontin.
According to this study, smoking enhances evolution by increasing random mutation!
According to this study, smoking enhances evolution by increasing random mutation!
It also helps to combat climate-change.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Cuz she's a non-smoker but a blister on the butt of society, and the sooner she's gone the better off the world is.
You're likely trolling, but there are probably some people whose cognitive dissonance is going to actually take that as a reason to continue smoking.
Mutations are random changes. Connect some random wires to your motherboard. Not all new circuits are going to be bad, some can be beneficial!
Evolution has been undergoing trial and error for billions of years. You're at peak fitness. Er... from a genetics perspective. Messing with stuff at random at this point is going to, in the vast majority of cases, do nothing. Of the remainder, the vast majority is going to be bad.
Finally, this is mutations at a cellular level, not system wide. If you changed some genes at random prior to birth, there would be an extremely small number that would help you out a little, though probably with side effects like +1 malaria resistance but -30 health in the form of sickle cell anemia. However, mutations in individual cells will at best kill that individual cell. At worst, it will evolve the cell. Evolution at the cellular level within a massively multicellular organism like yourself turns out to be cancer. Those individual cells are very strong compared to the others. Strong enough to rebel and kill you.
TLDR: No, there is no "minority" of beneficial mutations here. None. Zero.
Somebody please re-run these experiments specifically for marijuana. Somehow, pot-smokers have universally come to the conclusion that smoking burning cannabis leaves (without a filter) is not at all dangerous to them in any of the ways that smoking burning tobacco leaves (through a filter) is. I guarantee that the free radicals in cannabis smoke are every bit as dangerous as the free radicals in tobacco smoke.
How many mutation does a non smoker get during a year? The comparison would be interesting.
"This is why smoking should be illegal..."
Social opprobrium is what kills off usage of a drug, not the law. Tobacco is less popular today than every drug on the DEA schedule, including heroin. If we put tobacco on the schedule, it would probably become more popular.
That's only because the "middle Americans" (read, "white folks") are skewing the heroin statistics into the stratosphere. I just moved out of New England, and the heroin epidemic there in white areas is booming. Nice quiet suburban towns are all getting methadone clinics because it's so out-of-control. Heroin use in black and Hispanic areas is down.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nicotine is a really good recreational drug. Nothing wrong with vaping.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Just as you shouldn't be able to drive around others without direct consent. I don't want to die from breathing in the tons of noxious fumes that your car pumps out.
Or you know, you could just move to a state where its already illegal to do it in public establishments. A curious thing happens then; people automatically know to ask for permission. Weird huh? And you didn't even have to shoot anyone.
Remember that mutations aren't all bad mutations. A minority of mutations are beneficial. Evolution keeps score.
You really need to play a few hours of a certain video game called "Left 4 Dead 2" then re-evaluate this position.
and smoke the good stuff we do here: http://natsherman.com/
Tad spendy if they don't list prices and have an FAQ answering "'WHY DO I PAY MORE FOR YOUR CIGARETTES?"
http://www.az-smokes.com/ for those of us that don't need the glamour.
Gosh, yes. R.I.P. Carl Sagan.
That's complete BS. First, there is no oil whatsoever in eliquids. Second, vaporisers work by heating a coil which heats cotton wicked with eliquid. If it were burning, you would certainly know it because you would be getting dry hits.
Perhaps you shouldn't talk about things that you don't understand.
Nothing good ever comes out of outright banning things. Didn't we learn anything from the prohibition era?
If people want to smoke you should let them. People should be allowed to take responsibility for themselves and make up their own decisions.
Any smoker who lights up around non-smokers without consent should be shot on the spot.
And concerning this, when walking on the street, such as on my way to and from work, I am more disturbed by breathing in exhaust from cars than from the occasional smoker who happens to walk in front of me.
Lets ban cars and shoot all drivers on the spot, yes?
Every time I read an article like this I think we are oversimplifying things. How can it be that there are chain smokers that live well into old age, and light or non-smokers that die of lung and other cancers? Yes, there is some chance involved, but if you're a hard smoker, smoking a pack a day since you were 16, and every year you get so many mutations, shouldn't it hit you at some point? Yet there are people like This Guy who are heavy smokers and die at age 96.
I think it also comes down to two different factors that are rarely mentioned, for some reason: the intensity of smoking and your personal immune system.
Some people take the smoke deep in their lungs and keep it there for a while before exhaling, and some people don't let the smoke reach their lungs at all. It has to make a huge difference if you smoke a pack a day this or the other way.
And also so many things come down to your personal immune system? Are you a sickly person? Pale and not feeling very well on most days? Perhaps you should better not take up smoking if your immune system is struggling even without the cell defects. On the other hand, if you have a strong immune system of a healthy individual, your body might be able to cope with the damages of smoking very well and perhaps even make up for most of it.
These two factors must be critically important in relation to smoking disease, yet I rarely find them even mentioned.
Speaking as someone with around 3,000 new mutations (I quit a few months ago), I can tell you I've paid in tax on cigarettes about 2 x the cost of any treatment I'll get for the problems it'll cause and of course I'll take out a lot less in pension assuming I make it to 68, which is quite unlikely. So you know, these "massive" costs are actually net benefits if you're going to start accounting.
Yes, I vape now too.
Sure you can - keep letting them do it.
That doesn't work. By the time the cigarettes kill them, they have already reproduced.
Breathing in radioactive polonium containing smoke can do nice things for you.
This is why smoking should be illegal. It has no legitimate redeeming value, while causing massive costs due to health care, human losses, reduced quality of life, and a multitude of other problems. Furthermore, smokers should never be allowed to smoke around non-smokers without clear and direct consent. You don't have the right to cause me to develop cancer just because you have a disgusting habit. Any smoker who lights up around non-smokers without consent should be shot on the spot.
How about fuck off. There is one place you have control over the environment and other people and that's your home. If you don't like perfectly legal actions others are taking in public then you are totally free to fuck off back there and never come back out. You won't be missed and the rest of the grown ups can get on with their lives.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
There have been studies for years that have proven that smoking kills. They have been called "cancer sticks" for decades. But regardless of the fact that people know that smoking kills people just keep on smoking and burning their money away. You can't cure stupid.
You can say the same about alcohol.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Hell yeah, I want to mutate me some fire breath!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Nobody should vape either. Quit polluting my air, faggot.
So you don't drive then?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
There was a recent study that showed MOST models of vaporizers still burn the nicotine oil to "vaporize" it. So you're still releasing most the same exact carcinogens, plus you're inhaling burning baby oil. Maybe this is not so safe after all. (Don't ask for a citation. It was posted here on /., find it yourself.)
You do realise alot of the bad stuff is added to the tobacco or is in the paper for various reason. It's not just the nicotine which is relatively harmless on its own.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Vaping != burning. Vaping = boiling. When vaping = burning, your device is dry and the user definitely can tell.
Karnal
You can't cure stupid.
There have been studies for years that have proven that unhappy people are more likely to succumb to addiction. Smokers are depressed. Film at eleven... if anyone can be bothered to make it
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Now of course, there are compulsive pot smokers who smoke much more, but I figure a compulsive pot smoker would have to be smoking 5 or more joints a day to compare to a pack a day smoker. I just don't see how you could do that with most of the pot in circulation these days, especially in places where its legal or nearly so and is really strong.
What? That's easy. The only way it's difficult is that it's expensive, if you don't know the right people.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's only because the "middle Americans" (read, "white folks") are skewing the heroin statistics into the stratosphere.
Well, they're still fairly statistically significant... We the mezcla will overtake them any day now, but not yet
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And concerning this, when walking on the street, such as on my way to and from work, I am more disturbed by breathing in exhaust from cars than from the occasional smoker who happens to walk in front of me.
This is the same dipshit argument as when someone wants to compare guns to cars. Cars are a necessity for modern society. Cigarettes are not. They are designed to do harm, literally; mainstream tobacco is coated with additives, some of which are specifically intended to make it more addictive. In addition, cars keep getting cleaner and cleaner; a fairly typical commuter car will now leave the air in a big city cleaner than before it passed, albeit with higher CO2 concentrations.
Cars are crap in many ways, but their primary purpose is to enable transportation. Cigarettes are crap in all ways, and their primary purpose is to be addictive and sell more cigarettes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Remember that mutations aren't all bad mutations. A minority of mutations are beneficial. Evolution keeps score.
Is the risk of losing a lot greater than the chance of winning? Hell, yes, but we don't ban lottery tickets for that reason either.
If you're hoping that smoking a cigarette will turn you into spider man you're out of luck. You need a radioactive spider for that.
If a mutation occurred in a cell in a lung that had some benefit, it would just be in that one cell, it wouldn't spread to your body. There is no tangible benefit from a positively mutated single cell in your lung. So no benefit from lung cell mutation. However, we already know the bad that can happen, I won't even describe that.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
We need some national "Save the whitey" day.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
There was a recent study that showed MOST models of vaporizers still burn the nicotine oil to "vaporize" it. So you're still releasing most the same exact carcinogens, plus you're inhaling burning baby oil. Maybe this is not so safe after all. (Don't ask for a citation. It was posted here on /., find it yourself.)
Even if this is true, it still doesn't discount that some people use vaping to get off smoking and eventually quit altogether. Inhaling carcinogens for a few more months instead of for life, is a positive step.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Definitely carcinogens in cannabis too. I think I read once that there are more than a regular cigarette.
Regardless, you get some people smoking multiple packs of cigarettes a day. You don't have that problem with cannabis. Does anyone (besides serious pot heads) smoke more than one in a day?
Still bad for you, but as a numbers game, it's not AS bad.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Cancer has been cured, many times.
Just not reliably in humans.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
You sleep 14 hours a day?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Cars are a necessity for modern society
This is debatable. You have grown so accustomed to our ultra-mobility culture, that cars seem like an essential object to exist, when in fact, they are not a necessity. Mobility can be achieved by means of mass-transit as well. Everybody needing to own a car is a luxury that has transformed our society, in many ways for the worst.
And if you look at the big picture, what do you think has made the larger impact on smog in towns and the general environment? Cars or cigarettes? If what scientists say is true and the probability that we will heat our civilization to death due to CO2 emissions, one of the larger culprits has been our oil dependent car society.
You have grown so accustomed to our ultra-mobility culture, that cars seem like an essential object to exist,
No, son. Our culture has been led to the car so thoroughly and so much of our economy now depends on it that you could not shift overnight. While we could make them non-essential objects, they are now essential to our lifestyles.
Mobility can be achieved by means of mass-transit as well.
Yes, and I've argued as such repeatedly, and that's why I'm not going to suffer your bullshit superior tone. I have championed PRT and rail at every turn here on Slashdot, and you are the new guy who wants to tell me that I should be doing that without being familiar with my history. Why don't you figure out what I already do before telling me what I need to be doing?
The fact is that our society has deliberately been built around the car, and the vast majority of people's needs would not be solved by public transportation today even if there were no logistics issues caused by all of them trying to use it at once. Buses are garbage.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Reservations is the answer. Put them where they can't do too much damage.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The problem is criminalizing drugs, is you make a lot of people criminals, because of its addictive nature a lot of people will turn to the black market to get it.
We really as a culture need to un-cool drugs. It is less about legalization and more about getting people to not want to take it.
Back in the 1920's we had violent gangs pushing alcoholic beverages because it was made illegal. And now we have gangs pushing pot (in some states) and harder drugs who are just as violent if not more.
When you make a product that is in demand illegal. People will go to the black market to buy it. This black market bypasses all the legal safety measures.
You as the consumer who missed a payment, could get your legs broken, and you cannot go to the authorities for protection because you will get arrested for buying the illegal substance.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Wow. What class of asshole are you? I was just stating my opinions
If you aren't even aware of what a superior dick you were being, you're a fucking moron on top of it.
Are belittling me with every post. Now you will not suffer my "bullshit superior tone"? LoL
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I love how the anti-smoking crowd is so black and white.
If you smoke you're an addict.
If you smoke you'll get cancer and die
If you smoke you'll give cancer to everyone around you
If you vape, you'll also get cancer and die, and give it to everyone around you.
If you smoke you'll be come more addicted than a crack addict.
Second hand smoke has never been thoroughly proven, when given the levels of tobacco smoke a person can reasonably expect to encounter. I enjoy a pipe or a cigar no more than once a month, but my doctor and insurance company treat it like I'm a two packs a day guy. I've been smoking an occasional cigar for years, never once have I ever run into some sort of addictive quality.
I have vaped in the past. All indication from serious studies on the matter are that nicotine by itself is a relatively harmless stimulant, with some actual positive benefits. It's bad for pregnancy, and some of the glycol solutions and heating elements may be bad for you, but again, we're talking extremely small doses, even if you regularly vape.
I love getting lectured about how I a terrible human being for occasionally enjoying tobacco and nicotine by a bunch hippies telling me about the miracles of pot, that will cure everything that ales you, and has no bad long term effects...
I quit smoking by using a vape and gradually toning down the nicotine levels in the fluid from 18mg to 0mg. After that I found myself using the vape less and less until finally I quit that too.
For anyone who doesn't smoke, don't start smoking OR vaping. If you are already a smoker, I wholeheartedly recommend giving vaping a try.
What was your "ramp" like? IOW, how long did the entire process take from 18 mg to 0 mg? How long at 0 mg before you were able to set the vape down, too? How long had you been smoking, and how many cigs/packs a day before you started vaping? How long did you continue to smoke cigs while vaping?
Genuinely curious here.
I'm waiting for a study that says the same thing about pot (soooo disgusting...way more than tobacco) and vaping.
It's not the cost I would find the obstacle, it's the strength.
If there's 16 waking hours in a day, that's an entire joint of premium marijuana about every 3 hours. I just don't think that's sustainable, unless being really stoned is all you need to do for your entire life.
Maybe if you really worked at it, you could build up enough tolerance to make it work, but not in my experience.
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....
Thank you FUD monkey. You are doing your job perfectly. With your help big tobacco and big pharma will successfully kill people in numbers beyond Godwin levels.
You see when it was posted https://science.slashdot.org/s... people immediately explained why it was a totally bogus study. It is a paid for hit piece used to terrify and get people to ban the greatest threat to cancer we have seen.
The researcher who got scammed into doing the study (or at least would like it if we thought they have some credibility left) http://www.ahlusion.us/blog/le...
But the formaldehyde!
Nope: http://www.ahlusion.us/blog/st...
There is not enough research!
Umm this stuff has been researched for decades. 0 problems from it if you are not asthmatic. You see no one wants rich important performers dying from weird chemicals. Yes, this it your dance floor, Hollywood, theater smoke.
Adding nicotine to the vape fluid adds a heart attack/stroke risk but reduces your Alzheimer risk.
Seriously, burning baby oil? Man the crazy stuff that is getting put out there to scare.
"There have been studies for years that have proven that eating/swimming/walking/driving/skydiving/(anything you do in life) kills. They have been called 'death" for decades. But regardless of the fact that people know that eating/swimming/walking/driving/skydiving/ kills people just keep on eating/swimming/walking/driving/skydiving/ and burning their money away".
I got points to waste so I fixed it for you! It's been proven that life kills. Details at 11'. From a lot of research out there there are 3 things that determine whether you get cancer or not: Lifestyle, Environment, Genetics. Anything outside of those 3 don't even fall outside the margin of error in most studies. Problem is, most studies don't account for these things. Tobacco being one of many influencing factors that is given a lot more credit than it is due and lull's a lot of people into thinking they are doing the right things. Until they get cancer.
I've lost roughly 20 males in my family in my lifetime. All but 3 died of cancer. Of those that died of cancer only 2 smoked. Nobody made it to 80. One of the smokers made it to 77. Of those that didn't die of cancer, one made it to 92 and he smoked 2 packs a day. Of the other 2, one died in a motorcycle accident and the other died from bruising of the heart after being kicked in the chest by a cow at 76.
I know my family history has no real bearing on this discussion, just food for thought.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-c...
I was averaging up the "lung impact" of pot smoking with the idea that a joint would be smoked with deeper inhalation and longer hold times than a typical cigarette smoker.
That being said, I've known at least one heavy pot smoker who was a former cigarette smoker who smoked his joints more like a cigarette smoker smokes cigarettes, but even he didn't manage 5 a day.
There have been studies for years that have proven that smoking kills. They have been called "cancer sticks" for decades. But regardless of the fact that people know that smoking kills people just keep on smoking and burning their money away.
You can't cure stupid.
Yep, seems to run species wide too. Smog produced by gasoline powered automobiles, microwave radiation on the rise since the 80's via satellite, radio, cell communications and not to mention high tension power lines cause cancer too, mind you all these are known to cause birth defects too. None of those idiots building, perpetuating, supporting these types of technologies are quitters either. Meanwhile folks are running around blaming it all on smoking cigarettes because it is "PC". Go back to Berkeley genius. By the way, the saying is "You can't fix stupid", by Ron White.
so, how many mutations per day/year does the average non smoker accumulate in the same tissues?
aka How far is this from the baseline ?
Increased risk would after all be a function of the difference between the baseline mutations and the change caused by the factor being studied. I suspect the assumption that NO mutation occurs without tobacco would be a serious error, or at least require some serious proof.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
If a mutation occurred in a cell in a lung that had some benefit, it would just be in that one cell, it wouldn't spread to your body. There is no tangible benefit from a positively mutated single cell in your lung. So no benefit from lung cell mutation. However, we already know the bad that can happen, I won't even describe that.
You're thinking short-term, single-organism.
A beneficial mutation can occur in your sperm or ovaries, which gives your offspring (or their offspring) an edge.
It doesn't have to be a big mutation for it to have a huge impact down the generations. Your little toes are small because some ancestor of yours had a beneficial mutation, and it made a tiny difference to how easy it is to walk or run, giving your ancestors an edge over those without that mutation, and those distant relatives without it are now extinct.
It's quite possible, if not even probable, that some beneficial mutations that changes humanity many many generations down the line is due to some guy taking a puff of a fag today.
There will be orders of magnitude more bad mutations, but those get weeded out. As long as our reproductive rate is high enough to compensate, mutations is a good thing for humanity, even though it tends to be a bad thing for individuals.
Speaking as someone with around 3,000 new mutations (I quit a few months ago), I can tell you I've paid in tax on cigarettes about 2 x the cost of any treatment I'll get for the problems it'll cause and of course I'll take out a lot less in pension assuming I make it to 68, which is quite unlikely. So you know, these "massive" costs are actually net benefits if you're going to start accounting.
O RLY? Have you done the math? In the USA, it's taxed federally and locally but that turns out to currently be about $2 per pack (used to be much lower). If you smoke one pack a day for 20 years, that's $14,600 in tax.
I looked up the cost and the typical cost to be an inpatient at a hospital is $1,600 per day. If you are in the hospital, you have eight days to die before you start taking up resources. Now, let's just say you start smoking at age 20 and get cancer after 15 years, so at age 35, you will begin your cancer treatment. You will likely survive a couple years and then die. The cost of the medication to fight cancer is $100,000 per year alone. Your two month decline to dying is going to rack up $96,000. You will expended more than $300,000 after paying $10,950 in cigarette excise tax.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
$2 per pack? Are you kidding me? It's £9.50 in the UK. Then there's the problem of the US healthcare system which is twice as expensive as any European healthcare system for no discernible reason (certainly not outcomes) and which in any case is optional - that is to say, if you can't afford the medication you don't get it. $300,000? How quickly will you burn through that with a pension + 2 years of nursing home care? 5 years? 3? Get out of here will you.
$2 per pack? Are you kidding me? It's £9.50 in the UK.
Well that's almost £70K (assuming the tax never changed) if you smoke a full pack a day for 20 years. However, that is more of a more recent development and probably why you quit smoking, because you literally couldn't afford to continue. You've probably paid £35K in total taxes, assuming you smoked a full pack a day. That said, the price of the cancer medicine is the same but in the UK, your health care system is eating the cost. This means that overall you are costing society more than you are paying back.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Obviously, you can cure stupid... it's called education. Regardless, not everyone is getting one, let alone an equal one.
What about studies that show air pollution is as bad or worse than smoking three packs of cigarettes a day (select cities in China and India, of course)? Or that roadside exposure to diesel fumes can cause near-spontaneous, gene expression changes?
Is air pollution part of 'being stupid' ? How do you cure that?
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Your family history does add to the discussion. Those people in your family were probably smoking tobacco that was less-adulterated for a majority of their life.
What this study didn't mention were the hundreds of chemicals added to tobacco. I heard that Marlboro Reds have ~500 additives. Also, there's no mention of the impact of carbon monoxide to the body. There's no mention about chewing tobacco and it's ability to wreak havoc on the body's immune system, either.
Perhaps the additives are what's making tobacco more addictive and deadly. I'm not advocating for tobacco consumption, but I'm thinking that we're not seeing the entire picture.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Go back to Berkeley genius. By the way, the saying is "You can't fix stupid", by Ron White.
Wow.. you're so hip on denigrating people that are only trying to add a positive comment. And you started out so well with some good reasoning... Best to watch your punctuation when you're getting snippy and pedantic.
Go back to Berkeley, genius. By the way, the saying is, "You can't fix stupid," by Ron White.
FTFY
I'm probably gonna get down-voted for saying that, but I just had to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No sig for you! Come back one year!
What our healthcare system in the US is being eaten up with is fake foods and obese people. The costs of diabetes far outweigh the cost of anything else. I don't see a big push to tax the crap out of sugar except in NYC. Don't forget the other costs of obesity: Larger doors, larger chairs, larger everything. We all pay for this in addition to the health consequences and costs. Let's not forget heart disease, increased heart attacks, cholesterol issues, increased risk of stroke: the list goes on forever. We keep focusing on one lifestyle issue that has dubious support while ignoring all the really expensive issues is disingenious: Food, lifestyle, exercise, etc.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-c...
Maybe if you really worked at it, you could build up enough tolerance to make it work, but not in my experience.
You haven't been anywhere near the emerald triangle, eh?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Additionally, most of them worked in manufacturing plants and were exposed to any number of industrial solvents and particulate matter. With the exception of the 3 that didn't die from cancer.
I agree. I smoke and I know it's bad for me. I deal with the minor effects and the hacking. I know the larger ones are looming. I know I need to quit for health reasons. I also know I smoke to self medicate. My big question is, is it better to go with the evil you know or the one you don't? Every medication that I would take for my issues that nicotine mostly deals with comes with ridiculous health warnings that make smoking look tame. I'm not sure "Guaranteed liver failure" wins over "increasing my risk of cancer a few percentage points". Especially given my family history. My doctors are understanding of my concerns.
We are just being told this is evil and not looking at the full picture. I had a friend that was smoking in the mall one day (back when you could do that). A lady came up to him griping about his smoking near her kids. He just looked at her and said, "I bet you drove here in an SUV today." Yes was the response. "I bet you drove more than 15 minutes to get here." yes. "You do know, that in the 15 minute drive, you created more pollution than I'll create in a year of smoking a pack a day." She just walked off.
I'll stop ranting now.
What our healthcare system in the US is being eaten up with is fake foods and obese people.
Well, this issue is specifically fructose and addictive foods. A big issue is that corn is subsidized which means that stuff like HFCS is subsidized. The result is that processed foods is less expensive than many of crops. However, taxing sugars themselves is not the answer because you can have a healthy food with lots of sugar: e.g. apples. If you are going to tax something directly, we should be taxing based on glycemic load and fructose content. However, this brings up complicated issues like how much the tax should be, how it should adjust with time, how much it should cover, etcetera. The alternative is to tax indirectly which would be tracking what people buy and taxing companies based on their medical expenses based on correlations found. This is a massive feedback loop mechanism which is not limited by the date of the purchase and follows people throughout their lives. It's big, complicated and scary but it would force companies to think of what their product does to people versus how to make a quick buck. I also think we need to reform how companies/executives are held responsible for their actions but that's another discussion.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Please quote me where I have "dished it out"... dumbass.
And just for the record, I am in my mid 30's, I have no drivers license, I have never owned a car. But yes, I live in Europe, not in the USA. In European culture, you don't need a car, especially not in the cities. So much for cars being essential.
They don't pay the crazy sums for health care that we do (single payer's a _lot_ less costly). Their gov't doesn't allow their drug companies to gouge their population. He's probably paying about $2800/yr in taxes if he's a pack a day guy and health care costs (per citizen) about $1800 (pounds, not dollars, but I'm a yank so I don't have a pound key :P).
Now, there's the little matter of ignoring all the incidental costs to smoking. The big one that I see is that tobacco _destroys_ land. It's a very water, labor and resource intensive crop and the nicotine poisons the soil. Not sure about the UK but in the states we heavily subsidize it, basically negating the taxes. Basically, food costs more (because land and water goes to tobacco) and subsidies negate the value of the taxes. None of this might be true in the UK though.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I understand the natural sugars. I should have been more specific.
Nifty approach on the tax/incentive. And yes, corporate governance has probably deteriorate so much that the rules should be rewritten.
Did I compare the amount I paid in tax to the total cost of cancer medication? No. I compared the tax I paid to the total cost of cancer medicine minus the total cost of the extra years of life I would gain, mostly drawing pension payments. This is not including my biggest monthly bill which believe it or not isn't cigarette taxes but income and employment taxes. Tax on cigarettes is additional tax I pay.
I'm very good at watching the pea under the thimble, so don't try that one on me again.
Did I compare the amount I paid in tax to the total cost of cancer medication? No. I compared the tax I paid to the total cost of cancer medicine minus the total cost of the extra years of life I would gain, mostly drawing pension payments.
The problem is that this isn't about you but rather about smokers in general.
This is not including my biggest monthly bill which believe it or not isn't cigarette taxes but income and employment taxes.
And those taxes are allocated to many different things.
Tax on cigarettes is additional tax I pay.
Absolutely and that tax is not going to cover the cost of the medical bills when/if it gives you cancer.
I'm very good at watching the pea under the thimble, so don't try that one on me again.
The only thing I'm trying is to point out that smokers are a costly bunch of people to take care of when they get sick from smoking and that the cigarette tax isn't enough to make up for the amount you are taking out of the medical system. If everyone was a smoker and the resulting ill people were treated for cancer, it would bankrupt the medical system.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Smoking costs the NHS approximately £2 billion a year to treat. The tax raised on cigarettes is approximately £12.3 billion. That includes both excise and VAT. So even though I'm not counting the number of years lost in pension and care costs, smokers fund around 10% of the NHS budget spent treating illnesses other than those smoking related.
I'm glad this whole thing has been cleared up.
Smoking costs the NHS approximately £2 billion a year to treat. The tax raised on cigarettes is approximately £12.3 billion.
Ha! It's cute that you think this problem is limited to your country and that you act like it's always been like this.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Stop moving the pea under the thimble. The solution to the problem for countries where it is a problem, is to increase excise on cigarettes until income approximately matches expense. That would probably be, I don't know, zero % if you take into account the approximately 5-6 years of extra pension someone who doesn't smoke will draw over someone who does. It just so happens that in the UK taxes are used to socially engineer the desirable outcome of nobody smoking. Personally I'm not a huge fan of health fascism but whatever - I'm in the minority (these days).
The solution to the problem for countries where it is a problem, is to increase excise on cigarettes until income approximately matches expense.
i don't dispute this, i do dispute that it's already been adequately implemented.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
lol
it doesnt really seem to impede the species as a whole to take over more than its share of the ecosystem anyway so whatever helps, helps, hm ?
in as strange -only me- way i read into this article that the more people smoke the more chance we get at an actual beneficial evolution at the same time since it says nowhere that every mutation is harmful ?
So, i would like to elaborate on or extend your proposition there. Me ive been off the damn things for over a year now. Pure happenstance. I woke up one day and i realized i hadnt smoked one in like two weeks so i said to myself "hell, why not keep that up, it sure as hell saves money, thats scientifically proven". So i did.
Now, me, i've been a weird freak since i spent all the playtime in kindergarten back against the wall obseriving all those humans kicking plastic balls around and showing them theirs and imitating sirens and gunshots and whatnot, so as far as mutating goes i think i'm good.
However , it looks like its finally proven there might be a cure for normality here so id tell the masses : SMOKE ON , as long as the manufacturers of anything addictive are required to invest x%
you are boosting the world economy
YAY!
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?