The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Are some individuals genetically predisposed to nicotine dependence?  (Read 26000 times)

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
I think you'll struggle to have Noah, a fictional character, accepted in this discussion. To many people on this forum, it's a bit like me saying 'but Legolas in the Lord of the Rings was over 2000 years old...'
« Last Edit: 27/10/2008 15:54:30 by BenV »
 

Offline that mad man

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
    • My music
blaze.

I have been reading what you have said and can only come to the conclusion that God is to blame.

EMF has been around since the beginning of the planet and gets created by the atmosphere and called lightning. To use your reasoning and your God theory the lightning and any EMF or EMP pulse must have been caused by God. Therefore the genes you have that were made by God are also affected or destroyed by the same God whether the Genes were perfect or not to start with.

Now think logically about Noah and the few others that had a 900 years plus life.
 
If their lifespan WAS that long how come the average amount of children born during that time was only 3? As God commanded "be fruitful and multiply," you would expect someone who attained that age and not in need of Viagra to have sired many many more children.

Perhaps the rain and lightning EMF/EMP affected their ability to reproduce which again would be Gods fault.

Unfortunately the one who supposedly wrote this down much later was a liar and cheat and also wanted for murder.

 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Quote
And you show me any zero areas of EMF/RF in this world where humans exist, and I'll pack my bags. They don't exist. And again 'little EMF' does not necessarily mean no effects or lesser effects. Sometimes these lower levels are even more destructive, simply because they are closer to the biological frequencies humans depend on.

I hadn't realised that "little" meant the same as "lower". I have been living under a misapprehension all my life!

I spent a lot of time on the Serengeti. There were vast areas where you couldn't get anything on the car radio except static. It's different now with mobile phone & SatNav coverage. I met a Maasai child who had lived on the Serengeti all his life and he presented with ASD. Maybe the giraffes were beaming signals into his mother during pregnancy.

Quote
Autism is caused by an accumulation of heavy metals and other toxins in the brain, provoked by exposure to EMF/RF

So exposure to EMF/RF causes heavy metals to accumulate in the brain? That's as believeable as Jonah staying alive inside a whale's belly!

Quote
It says he described Down - did he prove that what he was describing was a true case of Down without modern methods of testing? Or is he off the hook because he comes from another century?

Oh come on. Down describes the syndrome that is named after him and you ask if what he was describing was truly Down's? That's as absurd as saying that mutineers from the Bounty landed on an island and called it Norfolk Island, but then asking how we know it really was Norfolk Island they landed on.

In any case, can you name any other syndrome or disease that presents in the same way as Down's?

Quote
Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950 , the last of the immensely long-lived antediluvian Patriarchs. The maximum human lifespan, as depicted by the Bible, diminishes rapidly thereafter, from as much as 900 years to the 120 years of Moses within just a few generations. Another few generations later, lifespans were reported to be less than 100 years on average.

It is now generally accepted among theologians that in the earlier parts of the Old Testament, years were actually months. That would still have made Noah, Methuselah etc very old for that era when they died (in their 80s), but it is much more feasible. Plus, of course, if you take the lifespans and genealogy from the OT literally, the Earth is only 5000 years old (or thereabouts). Are you arguing also that 5000 years is the true age of the Earth? If not, then you are cherry-picking those parts you wish to believe.

That is something that really pisses me off about some Christians. You tell people that such-and-such must be true because it says so in the Bible, but then say that another part is allegorical.
« Last Edit: 27/10/2008 17:39:51 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8676
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
"It says he described Down - did he prove that what he was describing was a true case of Down without modern methods of testing? Or is he off the hook because he comes from another century?"
When I was at primary school there was a class of kids there with learning difficulties. Even as kids we realised that 2 of them seemed similar. As it happens their names were Dianne and Anthony. Both of them had flat faces, were overweight and had "something odd about their eyes". At the time we refered to these two (and only those two) as the "mongs". Back then I would have had no understanding of the racial overtones of that name. I also would have had no more idea about chromosomal abnormailities than Dr Down; but I, like the rest of  my schoolmates, could identify the symptoms. A bunch of 200th century primary schoolkids could identify this condition.
It would be ridiculous to think that Dr Down couldn't.

Anyway, since we have no contemporary record of Noah's life there is no evidence for his age at death.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Either way - shall we get back to topic?  No more about Down, god or EM fields, and no more being facetious...

Is there an genetic component that makes one more prone to nicotine addiction?  Parents that smoke often have children that smoke, but I expect it's impossible to tease nature from nurture in those cases.
 

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
If their lifespan WAS that long how come the average amount of children born during that time was only 3? As God commanded "be fruitful and multiply," you would expect someone who attained that age and not in need of Viagra to have sired many many more children.

Would you have time for lots of kids if you were busy building an ark and taking care of all those animals? Maybe he hurt his back or just plain smelled bad?

(Sorry Ben, I couldn't resist;)
 


Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
What's wrong with the Daily Mail? I read this story elsewhere, too, but this was the link I pulled up in my search.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Either way - shall we get back to topic?  No more about Down, god or EM fields, and no more being facetious...

Is there an genetic component that makes one more prone to nicotine addiction?  Parents that smoke often have children that smoke, but I expect it's impossible to tease nature from nurture in those cases.

I already answered the question.
 

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
My mom smoked and I smoke, but neither of my sisters smoke.

Actually, if I didn't smoke in the presence of all this electrosmog, I'd never have a bowel movement.


 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8676
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
We really need a quote of the week thread somewhere in chatting.
"Actually, if I didn't smoke in the presence of all this electrosmog, I'd never have a bowel movement." is priceless.
 

Offline Pseudogene

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
My mom smoked and I smoke, but neither of my sisters smoke.


Your sisters lack of smoking does not discount a genetic predeliction to nicotine addiction.  The gold standard for testing a genetic association would be a twin study, whereby monozygotic twins are enrolled with one as a smoker and the other not.  You then need sufficient pairs to be able to detect a genetic influence with sufficient statistical power to be able to confidently state there is a genetic association to nicotine addiction. 

Following that you can then start to conduct candidate-gene approaches whereby polymorphic sites within genes (including the requisite regulatory elements) are genotyped and analysed in more cohorts of smokers (cases) and non-smokers (controls).  Further to this it would require additional stratification of non-smokers and ex-smokers to determine a more robust answer.

I'd be pretty confident in stating that there is a genetic predisposition for nicotine addiction on the grounds that our entire biology is underpinned by our genetics.  Before anyone jumps the gun, that is NOT genetic determinism, its a patent fact.  The complex interplay of biological and environmental factors is what leads to nicotine addiction, but those biological processes are ultimately the product of our genes and their complex interactions. 

If I recall there were a few articles a couple of months back published in Nature and Nature Genetics that discussed lung cancer, but was also to do with nicotinic receptors.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Pseudogene - is this something like that Nature article you mentioned?

Lung cancers exhibit multiple genetic lesions including mutations activating the dominant cellular proto-oncogenes as well as those inactivating the recessive or "tumor suppressor" genes. Candidate tumor suppressor genes include those on chromosomes 1p, 1q, 3p14, 3p21.3, 3p25 (VHL gene), 5q21 (APC/MCC gene cluster), 9p21-22 (interferon gene cluster), 11p, 13q (rb gene), 16p24, and 17p (p53 gene). Mutations in p53 inactivate its transcriptional activity, while replacement of a wild-type p53 in lung cancer cells inhibits growth and tumorigenicity suggesting that p53 acts as a master growth regulatory switch. Lung cancer cells exhibit several positive autocrine growth factor loops and express nicotine receptors which could function as tumor promoting systems. In addition, they express a negative autocrine loop involving opioids and their receptors which is reversed by nicotine acting through nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. The presence of nicotine receptors suggests nicotine or its metabolites may play a direct role in lung cancer pathogenesis.

from http://www.ionchannels.org/showabstract.php?pmid=8462339&redirect=yes&terms=%22nicotine+receptors%22+%22lung+cancer%22
 

Offline Pseudogene

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
That's what I was thinking of Doc, I obviously didn't read the abstract properly.  Interesting set of articles nonetheless.
 

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Somebody on one of these threads told me I couldn't compare twins - even identical twins.

And surprise surprise - exposure to EMF does have an effect on acetylcholine.

EMF and Acetylcholine:

http://csifcem.free.fr/ach.html
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
That article is concerned with transmission of signals across synapses, not mutation of DNA.

What I said about twins is that you can't compare them as they will not be subjected to the same environmental factors. That article says nothing to contradict my statement, so why the "Surprise, surprise"? Are you practising to be a Cilla Black impersonator?
« Last Edit: 30/10/2008 14:08:03 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Okay, then surprise surprise - here's your DNA damage...Section 6...

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

So the environmental factors involved in nicotine addiction are likely these exposures (and parasites) that are shared within the same households growing up.
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
I think the main contributing environmental factor is parents who smoke.

If EM radiation was as responsible for everything as you feel it is, why do so few people claim to be electro-sensitive?  If, as you claim, exposure to radiation is more important than genetic factors, why hasn't it been picked up in epidemiological studies?  It certainly would have, if it were true.  I'm not saying that radiation has zero effect on the body, just that you are over-stating it's effects, and it will be minor compared to the influence of genetics.
 

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
I love how all the non-smoker's have all the answers about what causes nicotine addiction. Does it really matter anyway? Smokers pay extra high taxes on every pack they smoke, whereas those who choose to kill themselves with booz or wireless technology get to do so rather cheaply. In fact, if you have a few neighbors who use wireless, they're not bothered by your smoke, but they still can share their radiation with you through the walls, ceilings, etc...

And half the earth is electrosensitive - most just don't realize it. And more women are sensitive than men, probably because women metabolize iron differently than men do. Only these people are diagnosed as suffering from depression or anxiety or panic attacks - or that they have ADHD or fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue - and then they accept a drug that might correct a few chemical imbalances, eventually cause others, and the radiation continues unabated.

I spent several years running around like a nut trying to figure out what was causing my symptoms. You don't just wake up one day and realize your cell phone is zapping you or that the tower up the road is zapping you - you don't feel the same sensation as what you'd feel if you stuck your finger in an electrical outlet. So when the symptoms of electrosensitivity begin, you are likely to overlook them or explain them away since you can't see these fields!

I had my plasma metanephrines tested because this radiation is supposed to be especially hard on the adrenals. Mine was high, as expected. Now if I end up with an adrenal tumor down the road here, are you going to blame it on the tumor and discount all this radiation that I'm telling you is making me ill?


 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
I love how all the non-smoker's have all the answers about what causes nicotine addiction. Does it really matter anyway?

It's the only reason this thread exists.  Someone asked if there is a genetic component to nicotine addiction.

Quote

And half the earth is electrosensitive - most just don't realize it. And more women are sensitive than men, probably because women metabolize iron differently than men do. Only these people are diagnosed as suffering from depression or anxiety or panic attacks - or that they have ADHD or fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue - and then they accept a drug that might correct a few chemical imbalances, eventually cause others, and the radiation continues unabated.
I don't believe you.  I am healthier now than I was prior to the wireless boom.  Neither my wife nor I have suffered as a result of installing a wireless router.  I did not feel any healthier when living in an area of Indonesia with no electricity, and certainly no wifi or mobile phone reception.  I know several people who have suffered depression, and as a result of anti-depressants and therapy, have beaten it.

Quote
I spent several years running around like a nut trying to figure out what was causing my symptoms. You don't just wake up one day and realize your cell phone is zapping you or that the tower up the road is zapping you - you don't feel the same sensation as what you'd feel if you stuck your finger in an electrical outlet. So when the symptoms of electrosensitivity begin, you are likely to overlook them or explain them away since you can't see these fields!

I had my plasma metanephrines tested because this radiation is supposed to be especially hard on the adrenals. Mine was high, as expected. Now if I end up with an adrenal tumor down the road here, are you going to blame it on the tumor and discount all this radiation that I'm telling you is making me ill?

Clearly, your experience is different to mine.  I'm afraid that, as a smoker, should you ever be unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with cancer, it will be the cigarettes that people blame.

You must bear in mind that there is no reason that anyone here should agree with you.  The scientific evidence thus far shows no physical basis to electrosensitivity, and there is nothing in my anecdotal experience that would suggest to me that it exists.  You should be expending your energy trying to convince other 'electrosensitives' to get involved with research, rather than telling us that EM fields will give you cancer.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Okay, then surprise surprise - here's your DNA damage...Section 6...

http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

So the environmental factors involved in nicotine addiction are likely these exposures (and parasites) that are shared within the same households growing up.

It doesn't explain why some babies are born with a heroin addiction, though, does it. Face it, genetic damage happens that is nothing whatsoever to do with EMF. There are quite a few reports from centuries ago that, in hindsight, we can recognise as Down's Syndrome, ASD, or other genetic disorders. There was no EMF (apart from cosmic rays) centuries ago so it cannot have been EMF that caused it.
 

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
If the 2000+ studies in the Bioinitiative Report aren't enough 'scientific evidence' to convince you that these fields do have biological effects (which would explain every one of my symptoms, by the way), then you are not scientists.

For one thing, you're asking me to prove something personally that I'm not in a position to prove financially - I don't have money to do my own experiments on myself and prove that I'm not psycho and that I really can feel these fields, and that they really are affecting the various organ systems in my body, etc..., killed my pets, etc...

So then you say it hasn't been proven. Well, duh.

I was reading a thread about how people in the UK view Americans though (and I actually agree with much of what was said). But then I realized that you are probably being exposed to less EMF/RF there than we are here because your government at least cares about you a little. The American government isn't doing anything to protect us - so how will I ever prove anything to you or anybody? - I'll be dead before that happens, so heck, I sure hope cigarettes do cause lung cancer.

At least you have Mast Sanity over there, don't you?
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
blaze - please stop trying to twist people's words in an attempt to belittle their opinions. I have not said that EMF does not cause genetic problems. You have consistently in this thread refused to accept the fact that not all diseases and genetic disorders are caused by EMF radiation.

I have tried to point out that there are records of symptoms from before radio was invented that with modern knowledge we can identify as being due to genetic disorders. I have personal experience of a sufferer of a genetic disorder living in the r-send of the Serengeti where, at the time, there was little or no EMF radiation. I opinted out that Down's Syndrome was identified before radio was invented - you questioned whether it was, in fact, Down's Syndrome that Down recorded (as I stated earlier, that last was an absolutely absurd argument on your part).

It is not we who refuse to accept that EMF radiation can cause genetic damage. It is you who is refusing to accept that there are other causes. It is you who is being unscientific, not us.
 

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Little EMF does not equal zero EMF.

And if you believe the accounts of Down Syndrome described prior to the invention of radio, I'm assuming these were written accounts?

Then why don't you believe the Bible? Were the prophets less believable than an account of Down Syndrome described in great detail prior to radio?
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
What on Earth is wrong with you? Down's Syndrome was Down's Syndrome before and after the invention of radio. It is the same syndrome. It has not changed. Down saw that some people had certain specific facial features, a particular body shape and reduced mental functioning that were not described in any previous medical literature. What he observed and recorded is unique to the syndrome that he described and which bears his name.

How can you compare what prophets allegedly said to a scientific description of something? The first are probably little more than the rantings of drug-crazed loonies whereas the second is the result of careful study of something tangible.
To be honest, I think you are deliberately trying to wind us up. No-one could really believe the kind of rubbish you come out with.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2008 17:10:03 by DoctorBeaver »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums