Smoking causes gene damage in minutes

[xg4bx]

Those first few puffs on a cigarette can within minutes cause genetic damage linked to cancer, US scientists said in a study released Saturday.

In fact, researchers said the "effect is so fast that it's equivalent to injecting the substance directly into the bloodstream," in findings described as a "stark warning" to those who smoke.

"These results are significant because PAH diol epoxides react readily with dna, induce mutations, and are considered to be ultimate carcinogens of multiple PAH in cigarette smoke," the study said.

Smoking causes gene damage in minutes - Yahoo! News

but keep those filthy e-cigs out of peoples hands....

my comment:

"but whatever you do, keep people from getting their hands on e-cigarettes which have been proven time and time again to be safer and have 1000s less carcinogens and poisonous ingredients..../s

its either quit or die with these people. the fact is that safer alternatives for cigarette smokers exist but groups like the national cancer institute are dead set on keeping them out of smokers hands."

 

[spirits3250]

Really? So all of us who were born to parents who smoked (and I believe there are quite a few of us) are genetically damaged? And our children are genetically damaged as well? Did the research say anything about the genetic effects on people whose parents drank while pregnant? Research can be conducted to prove just about anything someone wants to prove if they manipulate the data. I find this very hard to believe. ( I actually don't care what these researchers say anyway because I think many of them have an agenda and I am sick to death of being treated as a social misfit because I smoke/vape.) Anyway, I am so very glad I have discovered ecigs. Thank you very much for the information. It's good to know what propaganda smokers and vapers are up against.

 

[t9c]

We are all (humans) genetically damaged, and for good reason. If we weren't, we'd all look the same.

 

[Ardeagold]

Really? So all of us who were born to parents who smoked (and I believe there are quite a few of us) are genetically damaged? And our children are genetically damaged as well? Did the research say anything about the genetic effects on people whose parents drank while pregnant? Research can be conducted to prove just about anything someone wants to prove if they manipulate the data. I find this very hard to believe. ( I actually don't care what these researchers say anyway because I think many of them have an agenda and I am sick to death of being treated as a social misfit because I smoke/vape.) Anyway, I am so very glad I have discovered ecigs. Thank you very much for the information. It's good to know what propaganda smokers and vapers are up against.

I don't think the study was about genetic damage to the children. It was about changing the smoker's DNA, by introducing immediate cancer-causing substances directly into the system. This would cause that person (the smoker) to be at a much higher risk for cancer. Some smokers don't get cancer, of course, but that's all dependent on the individuals' immune system and it's ability to fight off the mutated pre cancerous cancer cells, OR killing them off at the cellular level before there is any indicator that the person has cancer. But they're saying that from their study, the genes are immediately affected by the inhalation of the toxic combo of carcinogens.

 

[spirits3250]

My question is: If nicotine changes/damages your genetic material/DNA wouldn't that genetic damage be passed on to children conceived after the genetic damage has been done? Thank you.

 

[Thulium]

My question is: If nicotine changes/damages your genetic material/DNA wouldn't that genetic damage be passed on to children conceived after the genetic damage has been done? Thank you.

Only if the DNA in the particular egg and/or sperm cell is damaged by smoking--but I would guess that it would be more likely for that damage to render the cell infertile. This report doesn't say that smoking damages the DNA in every cell in the body, just in the effected cells--which I would guess are mostly in the mouth, throat and lungs since those are the most common types of cancer associated with smoking.

Note the following:

...scientists tracked pollutants called PAHs, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, that are carried in tobacco smoke and can also be found in coal-burning plants and in charred barbecue food.

In other words, the link to cancer from smoking is linked here specifically to byproducts of combustion, and not just tobacco. This is further evidence that it is neither nicotine in particular nor tobacco in general that causes smoking-related disease but (as we've been saying over and over) the smoke itself.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

This is the best story i've read so far, ever, on smoking. Smoke two cigarettes and you could become a mutant.
What a bunch of insane cobblers. I wonder if breathing in environmental smog causes the same genetic damage?

 

[CJsKee]

What the helll?????

To study the damage that smoke creates, Hecht's team added a labeled PAH — phenanthrene — to cigarettes and tracked it in 12 volunteers who smoked them. They found that phenanthrene quickly forms a toxic substance in the blood known to trash DNA, causing mutations that can cause cancer.

Smoking study: Researchers find that smoke causes DNA damage in minutes - OrlandoSentinel.com


They intentionally put this stuff in cigarettes and then had people smoke it???? And they got approval for this so-called study how? Oh, I guess it's ok since they are only "smokers", right??? No need to intentionally try to harm dogs or mice since we have smokers...

 

[Petrodus]

Oh, I guess it's ok since they are only "smokers", right??? No need to intentionally try to harm dogs or mice since we have smokers...

Yep!
You can just imagine the animal rights activists protests
and probably lawsuits... It would make the Evening News

 

[Ardeagold]

This is the best story i've read so far, ever, on smoking. Smoke two cigarettes and you could become a mutant.
What a bunch of insane cobblers. I wonder if breathing in environmental smog causes the same genetic damage?

I'm sure it does, and that's one reason (only one...there are a zillion others), that cancer is so prevalent. Even if you live in an urban area, if the jet stream (air mass) passes over your area from a large city...you're exposed to those carcinogens.

I used to live in a rural area outside of Baltimore...hills, pastures, horses, small towns, etc. However, the carcinogens carried in the "smog" (which couldn't be seen or smelled BTW) was measured - and living there was equivalent to smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes a day. Oh...and the jet stream wasn't carrying the pollutants from Baltimore...they were coming from Chicago - just being carried along on the wind!

Of course that amount would rise and fall over the year, depending on the jet stream. But the whole mid-Atlantic (central east coast of the US) is heavily impacted (weather wise and air wise) by that particular air flow pattern.

 

[Ardeagold]

What the helll?????



Smoking study: Researchers find that smoke causes DNA damage in minutes - OrlandoSentinel.com


They intentionally put this stuff in cigarettes and then had people smoke it???? And they got approval for this so-called study how? Oh, I guess it's ok since they are only "smokers", right??? No need to intentionally try to harm dogs or mice since we have smokers...

They started with mice and dogs, no doubt (or someone did). Then moved on to humans. That's how medical research works, unless something happens accidentally ... an unexpected "side result" of an experiment ... giving them results that they want to explore further.

Remember Minoxidil, known as Rogaine? It wasn't originally supposed to be for that purpose. In fact, it was originally supposed to be a blood pressue medication. But they discovered that it grows hair, so that spun off to a whole separate type of research on that particular drug. And now it's used for both.

Minoxidil for High Blood Pressure Treatment - Vasodilators and Hypertension Medicine

The point is that since they were already testing (or using) that drug for one thing...first in mice, then in dogs? monkeys?....then in humans, and they found that it stimulates hair growth...they could test for hair growth on humans because they had already been thorough the other testing prior to branching out into multi-purpose use. They didn't have to start over with mice, dogs, chimps for just the hair growth stimulation studies.

 

[flea77]

the fact is that safer alternatives for cigarette smokers exist but groups like the national cancer institute are dead set on keeping them out of smokers hands."

But what are the people who work for the National Cancer Institute supposed to do if we actually get rid of cancer?

Allan