Are some individuals genetically predisposed to nicotine dependence?

  • 49 Replies
  • 26383 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Dr. House

  • First timers
  • *
  • 1
    • View Profile
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?
« Last Edit: 26/10/2008 22:24:07 by chris »

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
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.
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Quote
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

*

Offline Make it Lady

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4050
  • Hands-on fun for everyone!
    • View Profile
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.
Give a man a fire and he is warm for a day, set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.

*

Offline Carolyn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3761
    • View Profile
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.
Carolyn

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
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

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
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.
« Last Edit: 25/10/2008 12:59:12 by BenV »

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
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...  [^]
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
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

« Last Edit: 25/10/2008 16:42:19 by blaze »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
"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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Quote
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.

Quote
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?

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
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?
« Last Edit: 25/10/2008 19:29:47 by DoctorBeaver »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
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?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
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.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
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.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
"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.

Allow me to correct myself - the cure for all MODERN diseases.  I must not have made myself clear. The cause of all disease prior to the invention of electricity was caused by parasitic infections and infectious disease, perhaps from eating PORK and SHELLFISH, or even meats in general. And if you won't buy that one, I'm just going to tell you it is SIN.

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.

Autism is caused by an accumulation of heavy metals and other toxins in the brain, provoked by exposure to EMF/RF. In fact, the exposure in many cases may even begin prenatally. There is also likely an infectious disease or parasitic component to autism that works together with EMF/RF exposure to cause autism, maybe even Lyme...

http://www.publichealthalert.org/Articles/marybudinger/liaf.htm

I keep directing people on here to the Bioinitiative Report though when I find them reducing an illness down to its genes.

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

SECTION 5: Evidence for Effects on Gene and Protein Expression (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research)
Dr. Xu and Dr. Chen

SECTION 6: Evidence for Genotoxic Effects – RFR and ELF DNA Damage
Dr. Lai

SECTION 8: Evidence for Effects on Immune Function
Dr. Johansson

Is there something you don't like about the Bioiniative Report? Are the doctors who produced this report inferior in some way? Please see Sections 5, 6, and 8 - every one of these begins with the word 'evidence'.

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.

By the way, my understanding was that the twins' chromosomes grow more and more dissimilar as the years progress. Am I understanding that incorrectly?...

"Researchers have found that as identical twins age, the patterns of chemical changes to their chromosomes grow increasingly dissimilar."

*

paul.fr

  • Guest

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?

I wonder if you should open this question up to a vote from the forum members?

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • 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?

By the way, the process of the discovery of electricity (or any of these advancements, such as radio, etc...) is a process. These discoverers didn't just wake up one day and invent a light bulb one afternoon. They spent time in a laboratory, messing around with what turned out to be electricity.

It's possible even the small amounts generated during their initial experiments, before the actual invention was released and in widespread use, affected those in the vicinity.

And don't forget what the governments of the world may have been doing.
« Last Edit: 27/10/2008 01:06:44 by blaze »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • View Profile
"And don't forget what the governments of the world may have been doing."
Gneerally contributing, indirectly, to the increased lifespan ove the last couple of centuries.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 107
    • View Profile
Not really. Years ago people were dying of things like infection at a young age. We may be living longer in comparison to those living a couple of generations ago, but are we living healthier? No way.

My parents were still not on any medications at my age - they were still very active and essentially healthy - yet I've already run the gambit of a variety of prescription drugs and still feel like I'm 90. Kids today are being medicated with ADHD drugs and antidepressants and drugs for juvenile diabetes and high blood pressure. Were kids generations ago on all these meds? At least half the population from age 0 to death are on long-term prescription medications today for some chronic health problem.

And what about Noah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah

Noah died 350 years after the Flood, at the age of 950 ,[8] 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.

So really, when you think about it, we're not really doing any better than those who lived after Noah. In fact, I know several people personally who died in middle age, not what we'd consider old age - so it would seem we're even doing worse than those who lived after Noah, when modern medical therapies and intervention did not yet exist. That ought to tell you something right there, though I'm sure you'll try to argue the fact that Noah was 900 years old - and I'll bet he didn't even need Viagra.


*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • *****
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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 »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8851
    • 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 8851
    • 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Pseudogene

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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.
The nature of reality is not subject to the decrees of human institutions.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Pseudogene

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 27
    • View Profile
That's what I was thinking of Doc, I obviously didn't read the abstract properly.  Interesting set of articles nonetheless.
The nature of reality is not subject to the decrees of human institutions.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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 »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline blaze

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • 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 »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.