Smoking Permanently Damages Your DNA, Study Finds (nbcnews.com) 177
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.
Pollution? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would the same be true of people who were exposed to coal smoke for long periods?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
people who were exposed to coal smoke for long periods
Or, better yet, second-hand smoking?
There are several locations (my office building entrance, and in couple of corners around my location) where you cannot pass by without getting a nice dose of second-hand smoke.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And people's breathes after they smoke. Argh!!!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>" Or, better yet, second-hand smoking? There are several locations (my office building entrance, and in couple of corners around my location) where you cannot pass by without getting a nice dose of second-hand smoke."
That is just called annoyance, not health risk. The brief few seconds outdoor smell exposure you are talking about is probably something unmeasurably small, like 0.00000000001% the exposure of actual smoking. Once you walk into the building, you probably are breathing a zillion times more
Re:Pollution? (Score:4, Insightful)
That is just called annoyance, not health risk.
Right, those people are not risking your life, they're just stinking on you (and activating any applicable allergies.) They're just fuckheads, not murderers.
Re:Pollution? (Score:5, Informative)
That is just called annoyance, not health risk. The brief few seconds outdoor smell exposure you are talking about is probably something unmeasurably small, like 0.00000000001% the exposure of actual smoking. Once you walk into the building, you probably are breathing a zillion times more contaminates from paints, perfumes, plastics, carpets, wood preservatives, cleaning products, etc., continuously for many hours, day after day.
It's just an annoyance to you, perhaps, but a life-threatening health issue to me and a subset of people with serious respiratory illnesses like athsma and COPD. My airways constrict when exposed to smoke. Paints, perfumes, plastics, etc. are just fine - I have no problem with them. Smoke for some reason is a trigger and people like me are the reason smokers are exiled to the great outdoors. You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's quite a measurable health risk. (Score:2)
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 spen
Re: (Score:2)
>"During my obligatory service in the army I've spent a half the time working in the office with chain smokers."
We were talking about OUTDOORS walking past smokers for a few seconds. That is a NOT a measurable health risk. We were not talking about working inside a confined space for hours with smokers. That is a different story.
Your subject title sounds like it is arguing with me... yet your last two sentences agree with me. Just pointing that out.
My posting was in reaction to whiny people who want
Re: (Score:2)
My posting was in reaction to whiny people who want to try to get us believe there is any health risk to people smoking outdoors.
No. Your post was about representing "office building entrance, and in couple of corners around my location" as "outside".
Which may very well be so - or it may be the only place one is allowed to step out to in order to get a breath of if not fresh than at least not stale air.
Or to reset one's focus from half a meter in front of one's face onto something a bit more distant.
A place where one can see a sky without looking at a pane of glass.
If one goes there to catch some air and everyone else goes there
Re: (Score:1)
die in a fire.
That's what yo'all gets for smoking in bed. That'll learn ya not to do it ag'in :-)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes.
Secondhand smoke contains the same stuff as firsthand smoke, just in lower quantity.
You mean that first-hand smoke is of better quality? (Wouldn't know myself. Never tried it, but the second-hand stuff is disgusting and does kill people who have never smoked [theglobeandmail.com]..
On the one hand, she was awarded workmen's compensation for the cancer that eventually killed her, but on the other hand, it doesn't really compensate for being dead.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Likely yes.
Smoke is basically bad for you.
Re: (Score:1)
Would the same be true of people who were exposed to coal smoke for long periods?
No. Coal is good for you. Almost as good as diesel and oil. mmmm naptha fresh with the fragrant tang of powdered tire rubber - it's Good!
not worried (Score:1)
Tobacco can't be any worse for my DNA than the 1970s were.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean they're going to rediscover the health benefits a few years from now?
They don't answer the only question we care about. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, you reek of smuggery. Hopefully that's not heritable, because future generations will be fucked.
Re:They don't answer the only question we care abo (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Big question probably is: but does it affect gamets?
Re:They don't answer the only question we care abo (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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... [nih.gov]
"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... [nih.gov]
"Here we assessed whether these infant [DNA methylation (DNAm)] patterns are detectable in early childhood, whether th
This is why I still read Slashdot (Score:2)
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.
Re: They don't answer the only question we care ab (Score:1)
They probably didn't address it because it's obviously heritable. Genetics 101. There's no mechanism by which those genetic changes could be prevented from potentially passing to offspring, except not having offspring (or making a custom gene drive to reverse the changes before spawning).
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. My post was not well-considered.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about; If I'm altering my DNA, what superpowers am I likely to develop?
No that's an important question.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Change == damage (Score:1)
Everyone knows that toggling a switch is damage.
Re: (Score:2)
And what if the switch is "make cancer go now!"?
Then it would be the most interesting discovery in the history of evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Hrm (Score:1)
This study might explain the explosion of peanut allergies, adhd, and many other disorders.
Smoking was really popular during the baby boom.
Re: (Score:1)
Erm... There are better explanations.
1. There's no such thing as ADHD, it is a made-up "disorder" to dispense expensive medicine. Go look it up, it is really called "being a spoiled brat". Nothing cures it better than a good beating or two.
2. Allergies, and many other auto-immune diseases are better explained with a too clean environment. Your immune system doesn't have much to do, so it attacks you instead.
3. Many other disorders can be explained with too much industrial chemicals in your food, which bring
Re: (Score:2)
Many things cause Methylation (Score:2, Interesting)
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 wi
Re: (Score:2)
What is it about "tobacco" smoke that causes this change in DNA, but maybe not caused by marijuana smoke? Or smog?
Probably nothing?
But lots of people smoke cigarettes, and, well, I've never known anyone with a 20 a day weed habit or worse), unlike cigarettes.
And smog does kill people, which is why the UK for example has had numerous clean air acts over the years. Though smog had some different properties with continuous but less concentrated exposure.
Basically smoke is bad for your lungs.
Re:Many things cause Methylation (Score:5, Interesting)
What is it about "tobacco" smoke that causes this change in DNA,
Even breaking down nicotine produces free radicals. Almost everything about typical tobacco is carcinogenic.
but maybe not caused by marijuana smoke?
See ye olde UCLA study. Marijuana not only doesn't increase your cancer risk, it actually reduces it. That's probably both because it's less carcinogenic to begin with and because it contains cancer-fighting compounds like CBD.
Re: (Score:2)
Or permanantly improves DNA. (Score:2)
People have been imbibing tobacco products for hundreds of years. It is obvious the vast majority of us have adapted to its use.
Re: (Score:2)
People have been imbibing tobacco products for hundreds of years. It is obvious the vast majority of us have adapted to its use.
No, it's not obvious, and [citation needed].
Tobacco still raises your cancer risk, so obviously we're not that adapted.
Re: (Score:2)
It is obvious the vast majority of us have adapted to dying young and in agony.
FTFY.
What about more obscure ways to damage your DNA (Score:1)
And vaping? (Score:2)
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/... [statnews.com]
The eagle-eyed
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Obviously it's too early to say exactly how safe vaping is, however we know smoking tobacco is incredibly bad for you and we know most of the ingredients in e-liquids are (relatively) safe on their own.
While there have been studies showing negative effects they tend to be rife with methodological flaws (running the e-cigs while dry, not replacing coils at the point they're burnt out, or using unrealistic dosages). I expect these studies get away with questionable methodology because we know how bad cigarett
One question. (Score:2)
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.....
Re: (Score:2)
What causes the DNA damage, The tobacco, or The compounds added to the tobacco to bind the user to a brand?
The polluted air that enters the cigarette?
Bogus Conclusion "Damage" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Question for DNA experts (Score:2)
Are such DNA changes hereditary? i.e. does a smoker pass damaged DNA on to their kids (at conception)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:1)
People in Vatican City don't marry, that's why they live longer.
Re: (Score:1)
French here, one of the main difference with the US is that our standard diet is not complete shit.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you *don't* eat snails and frogs legs in real life?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
consume more wine than Americans and live longer too
You don't live longer from consuming wine friend, you live longer from enjoying it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because all those 'YOLO' drunkards are going to be individually remembered like Jim Morrison was.
Re: (Score:2)
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?)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you might as well get peer-pressured into killing yourself in some way or another.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Still not as big as "being permanently drunk is best", though, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Well said!! This is where so many make the wrong turn...
Re: (Score:2)
The point you missed was: "Moderation".
Thanks for playing.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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... [cdc.gov]
From the abstract of one of the linked papers [cdc.gov]: No risk-free level of SHS exposure exists.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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 [cdc.gov]? 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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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 [cdc.gov]'. 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 [nih.gov].
Technica
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I did: ERROR 403: Forbidden.
Re: (Score:2)
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 occur
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 [supertart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is , (Score:2)
__________________________
Its easy to quit smoking
Re: (Score:2)
-- W.C. Fields
Re: (Score:2)
Probably formaldehyde, ammonia, arsenic and DDT
Re: (Score:2)