[Dr. House (OP)]

I have heard that there is a gene that makes people more likely to be affected by Nicotine. Is this true? If so what is the frequency of this gene? Is it also related to Alcoholism?

[Don_1]

I doubt this very much. These are addictions, therefore I cannot see any link would arise to genetics.

I t may be possible that a gene could make you more susceptible to the weakness of addiction, but not, I think, to a particular addiction.

[RD]

Gene Linked To Alcoholism

ScienceDaily (May 26, 2004) — Alcoholism tends to run in families, suggesting that addiction, at least in part, has an underlying genetic cause. Now, researchers at the University of Illinois at Chicago have discovered a gene linked to alcohol dependency.

Laboratory mice deficient in the gene were found to consume excessive amounts of alcohol, preferring ethanol to water and evincing highly anxious behavior in a maze test.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040526063645.htm

[Make it Lady]

Addictive behaviour is a genetic trait but it is also learnt behaviour. Sometimes it is difficult to know where to lay the blame without genetic testing. My Grandad was an alcoholic but none of his children were as they all saw what a fool he was and vowed not to be the same. However my brother drinks every evening and although he is functioning I know he couldn't go without his alcohol. He also smokes. I am addicted to shopping and crisps. Lots of people laugh when I tell them but it is true. I get a high from buying things. I've tried to give up crisps for years but get tetchy if I haven't had a packet.

[Carolyn]

Both of my parents smoked, as well as all of my grandparents.   I was a smoker for many years, but my brother was not. I beat that addiction and am working on overcoming the other things that I'm addicted to such as shopping and junk food.

My husbands parents are both alcoholics, and he too became one, though he stopped drinking 3 years ago.  Fortunately both of my kids abhor drinking and smoking, so hopefully I don't have to worry about that.  Unfortunately my daughter has developed the same love of shopping and junk food that I have.

I have no doubt that addiction or addictive tendancies are genetic, but I think most of us have the ability to recognize it and stop it before it starts.

[DoctorBeaver]

Ah, a subject I know a little bit about (ahem - PhD - ahem   [^] )

My research showed that there is a genetic component that pre-disposes people to addiction. However, more often than not, it requires an environmental stimulus to activate it. Once it is activated, it can manifest in a variety of ways. I found no pattern to show that person A would become addicted to alcohol, person B to heroin, etc. The actual object of the addiction seemed to be random but with a bias with regard to availibility and psychological aversion to certain substances.

[blaze]

I don't believe it is a gene, and I don't it when they tell us that we are at the mercy of our genes at all. Why don't identical twins develop the same diseases and habits?

I believe what you share with your parents is an exposure to a specific parasite or other pathogen and a specific dose of radiation at key growth periods during your life. That is what you share with your parents and siblings - germs and radiation. It has nothing at all to do with bad genes.

Nicotine is said to help with irritable bowel syndrome, so what some may call an 'addiction' may just be your inherent desire to survive your parasites by smoking - parasites that may only be responding to the power lines and cell phone towers surrounding your home. If you don't think other life forms respond to such frequencies, read this...

Mobile Phone Emissions Increase Worm Fertility:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1889-mobile-phone-emissions-increase-worm-fertility.html

[BenV]

That is what you share with your parents and siblings - germs and radiation. It has nothing at all to do with bad genes.

A sweeping, and incorrect comment.  There may be some truth to what you say, but denying the existence of genetic factors is just daft.

[blaze]

I don't know about you, but God didn't create me with screwed up genes that will eventually kill me.

Humans will kill me. Man-generated frequencies (cell phone towers, power lines, wifi, HAARP) will kill me.

The genes that God gave me will not be what kills me, and neither will one of his plants.

[BenV]

I'm afraid that there's no evidence that god exists, and so I'm forced to conclude that god didn't create me at all.  Also, in my opinion it's not a valid view point to assume creation on a scientific forum.  It's also an ill informed perspective from which to live your life - if you refuse to accept that you may have a genetic pre-disposition to something, you wouldn't take that into account.  If all your grandparents died from cancer, you would want to avoid other risk factors, suspecting that you may have inherited a pre-disposition to cancer.

Also, there are lots and lots of plants that will kill you, some of which are probably in your garden right now.

[DoctorBeaver]

Two sets of genes suspected of being involved in addiction are located on chromosome 17 in humans, according to Yale University researchers.

MedPage Today reported April 12 that researcher Joel Gelernter, M.D., and colleagues identified groups of opioid and non-opioid drug addicts and obtained DNA samples.

A genetic-linkage analysis found common genetic markers on the 17th chromosome among addicts of European descent. Previous studies also have found that chromosome 6 may be involved in opioid addiction.

from http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=17813.0;num_replies=9

As I was saying...  [^]

[blaze]

BenV, I can believe whatever I want, science forum or not, just as you can believe whatever you want as to whether God does or does not exist. I didn't realize only non-believers were invited on this forum? Where does it say that? - I must have missed that part.

'No evidence that God exists' does not mean that He doesn't, as time continues onward, and one day there may in fact be indisputable evidence that a God exists. The problem with some people who believe exclusively in 'science' is that once some scientific 'fact' is learned, scientists write it down in their little black book of 'facts' and move on - not realizing that that scientific 'fact' might actually one day prove quite wrong.

For example, read this story...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-510128/Miracle-girl-liver-transplant-changed-blood-type.html

Have scientists explained this? No. But are they going to deny this happened because they can't yet prove why it did? Of course not.

So I think you ought to open up your mind a little bit rather than equating scientists to all-knowing gods themselves. Trust me - they are far from it.

And as far as genetics being responsible for addiction, again, I'll say it is EMF that is the root cause. Read Sections 5,6, and 8.

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

[Bored chemist]

"But are they going to deny this happened because they can't yet prove why it did? Of course not."
No, they won't because there is evidence about it.
There is also evidence anout the genetic predisposition towards nicotine addiction.
The scientists accept it but, for some unexplained reason, you don't.

Also the idea that "And as far as genetics being responsible for addiction, again, I'll say it is EMF that is the root cause. Read Sections 5,6, and 8." is nonsense, the addictions that were well doccumented before the discovery of electricity cannot have been caused by it. The idea is just plain silly.

[BenV]

The problem with some people who believe exclusively in 'science' is that once some scientific 'fact' is learned, scientists write it down in their little black book of 'facts' and move on - not realizing that that scientific 'fact' might actually one day prove quite wrong.

That's precisely the opposite of how scientists think.  In fact, that's how religious people think, or fundamentalists at least.  Science is progressive, and scientists acknowledge that.  In fact, almost all science is viewed from the point of proving things wrong - here's my hypothesis, how can I show that it's wrong?  When you find you can't, and all of the research leads to you accepting your hypothesis over the null hypothesis, you start to accept it as a theory.  Future scientists will find new ways to test if you were wrong.

I didn't realize only non-believers were invited on this forum? Where does it say that? - I must have missed that part.

I'm certainly not saying that believers are not welcome, and yes, you're entitled to believe what you wish - but in a scientific discussion, the basic assumption that god made you and wouldn't do so with bad genes is not, in my opinion, valid.

I can assure you I am very open minded, and wouldn't equate anyone to an all-knowing deity.  As a believer in the christian god, do you also believe in the Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Greek and Roman gods?

[DoctorBeaver]

God wouldn't give us faulty genes? Really?

It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Down's Syndrome is caused by trisonomy of gene 21. The sufferer has 47 genes instead of 46. How do you explain the extra genetic material? Did the midwife perhaps add it at birth?

And before you blame EMF:-

Statues made by the Olmec may well be the earliest evidence of Down's Syndrome. The Olmecs were a tribe who lived in Central America between 1500 BC and 300 AD. Are you suggesting the Olmecs were capable of generating EMF? If you are, then you are re-writing history, archaeology and physics. Pretty damned clever of you!

John Down first described Down's Syndrome in 1866. Hmmm, still not much EMF around, eh? Incidentally, he was the superintendant of the Earlswood Asylum for Idiots. Have you ever been there?

[blaze]

I believe in an all-knowing, intelligent, loving designer and creator, and that we are not just eating, sleeping, and reproducing pieces of flesh – that is my religion.

But back to the topic here - bored chemist here said that addictions were well-documented before the discovery of electricity. Where are these documents? And if they even exist, did these addictions meet all of the criteria they would need to meet today to be classified as ‘addictions’?

More likely people enjoyed a smoking ‘habit’ before the invention of electricity, not any addiction.

Also, I lived next-door to a couple whose child was born with Down Syndrome and who later went on to develop childhood leukemia. The evidence has been there for ages that childhood leukemia has been linked to exposure to electromagnetic fields, and I believe I had read that a father's exposure to excessive levels of electromagnetic fields can damage DNA and cause him to produce children with Down Syndrome.

But if this is the case, can you really blame genetics?

I'm not arguing that the genes are faulty.

I'm not arguing that some people have fewer genes or more genes thus equaling disease.

I'm arguing how these genes got to be this way, and saying that we have caused this disruption in genes ourselves - with man-generated electromagnetic/microwave/radiowave fields.

Did you even bother to read those sections of the Bioiniative Report? I'll be the first to tell you I am not a researcher - I can't reach in my pocket and produce my own studies to prove what I'm saying. But if I do present what I feel is proof done by those who are involved in research, you can at least read whatever it is before you tell me I'm nuts, and then go on to explain why you think these researchers are wrong, yet the researchers who claim no bioeffects are right.

[DoctorBeaver]

Evidence of addiction before EMF? How about addiction to Laudanum for a start? Africans have been getting addicted to muti for centuries. Opium addicts recorded in China 3000 years ago. Shall I go on?

Can you point me at the evidence for leukaemia being caused by EMF?

[blaze]

This is why the 'science' of genetics isn't scientifically sound to me...

http://sageke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/2005/28/nf56

Older identical twins acquire different chromosome marks

Abstract: Hang around with identical twins long enough, and you'll spot nuances that distinguish them. The same holds true for their DNA, according to a new study. Researchers have found that as identical twins age, the patterns of chemical changes to their chromosomes grow increasingly dissimilar. The findings might explain why one twin doesn't always get the same diseases as her sibling.

My question - why do their DNA and chromosomes become more dissimilar as they age so that identical twins don't always share identical diseases?

Man-generated electromagnetic/microwave/radiowave fields!

I'd like to see if identical twins would share the same diseases if they both received identical exposures to electromagnetic radiation throughout their lives.

Regarding childhood leukemia being linked to EMF exposure...

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20050602/child-leukemia-again-linked-to-power-lines

And this is where the flaw is in their thinking (I pulled this from the article)...

"What is puzzling is that the magnetic field from power lines is only 1% of the earth's magnetic field, which surrounds us all," Dickinson tells WebMD. "Your fridge or vacuum generates a magnetic field of about the same strength. In England and Wales, only 5% of the exposure to magnetic fields comes from high voltage pylons. So if this is a hazard, people with appliances should be just as concerned."

The assumption researchers are making is that since the power generated by these power lines is only 1% of the earth's magnetic field then, because it is much less, it is therefore 'safe'. Researchers are finding that there appear to be 'windows' of effects, and that lower frequencies are not always safer. Each of the cells in our body operate on the basis of tiny pulses of current. If you alter one of these pulses, a domino effect occurs, which eventually leads to other disrupted pulses, then aging, then death. The cure for ALL disease is right under their noses, if they'd just open their eyes.

Also, though a vacuum cleaner and refrigerator generate a field of the same strength, they do not run constantly, so it takes longer for these appliances to cause disease.

[Bored chemist]

OK, let's start with the real killer in your post

"The cure for ALL disease is right under their noses, if they'd just open their eyes."
If the cure is to avoid artificial electromagnetic fields then nobody can have  died from disease befoer the invention of electricity.
Probably the single dumbest idea I have ever heard.


"My question - why do their DNA and chromosomes become more dissimilar as they age so that identical twins don't always share identical diseases?" The answer's simple- copying errors. It's as a result of errors like these that you can get evolution to work.
For this idea "I'd like to see if identical twins would share the same diseases if they both received identical exposures to electromagnetic radiation throughout their lives.
" to have any meaning you would need to ensure that they were exposed to exactly the same risks like food, sunlight etc. That's impossible anyway but the real problem would be tha you cannot make the exposuer to things like cosmic rays identical.
The proposed experiment is impossible.


All the studies of EM fields and leukemia show that there isn't a statistically significant effect.

[DoctorBeaver]

Blaze - you are demonstrating a profound ignorance of genetics. Please learn a bit about the subject before expounding your absurd ideas contradicting it.

Identical (monozygotic) twins are produced when a single ovum divides in 2 within the first 13 days of pregnancy. Although at the time of the split (and probably right through until birth) they will have identical DNA, there are factors that can cause differences even in the womb.

A division within the first four days results in the zygotes sharing only the outer layer of the amniotic sac and they have separate placentas. There is no guarantee that both placentas will work identically, and that allows for differences between the twins to develop. Certain defects in 1 of the the placentas could allow through agents that can disrupt mitosis (cell division). That, in turn, can result in defective, or at least a difference in, their DNA.

What you have to understand is that identical twins may only be identical insofar as appearance is concerned. Even from birth, they can display different behavioural characteristics. There have even been instances of 1 of a pair of monozygotic twins being born with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder). OK, there have been challenges to the belief that ASD is a genetic disorder but the overwhelming bulk of research shows it to be caused by genetic defects. For instance, research by Dr Ege Kavalali at the University of Texas indicates that there is a link between ASD and mutations in 2 proteins - neuroligin-1 and neuroligin-2. These proteins are coded by DNA although researchers have not yet identified the coding sequence.

ASD occurs in remote areas of the world where there is little, or zero, EMF. I would be interested (or substitute "amused" for "interested" if you so wish) to hear your "theories" as to how that could be.