EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 570
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On January 13 2017 10:32 JimmiC wrote: Is it the chemicals in Cigarette's that alter your DNA or does MJ do same/similar things? I feel like I read mostly positives on it with lower drawbacks then I expect. But most things I read also state much more research is required. https://thinkprogress.org/the-impact-of-smoking-marijuana-regularly-on-your-lungs-according-to-science-200f7b07637c#.18ygjq15r I also remember hearing that smoking pure tobacco wouldn't have the same negative effects as cigarettes. What are the chances that if MJ legalizes the same chemicals added to cigarettes will be added to "joints"? npr article on health affects of it. as to your question I really have no idea. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/12/509488977/marijuanas-health-effects-scientists-weigh-in | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On January 13 2017 10:32 JimmiC wrote: Is it the chemicals in Cigarette's that alter your DNA or does MJ do same/similar things? I feel like I read mostly positives on it with lower drawbacks then I expect. But most things I read also state much more research is required. https://thinkprogress.org/the-impact-of-smoking-marijuana-regularly-on-your-lungs-according-to-science-200f7b07637c#.18ygjq15r I also remember hearing that smoking pure tobacco wouldn't have the same negative effects as cigarettes. What are the chances that if MJ legalizes the same chemicals added to cigarettes will be added to "joints"? Don't know. I guess a lot fewer smoke as much marijuana for as long as tobacco smokers, which is often many cigarettes per day for decades. I don't smoke either myself, but I get the impression that most smoke marijuana more casually, and rarely continue at high frequency for decades. So would be harder to get good statistics if so. But I don't have good grasp on that demographic. Personally I wouldn't risk it though... As for what chemical... I did a quick google and found this: www.cancerresearchuk.org the relevant parts: Smokers have a much higher risk of lung cancer than non-smokers, whatever type of cigarette they smoke. There’s no such thing as a safe way to use tobacco. Filters and low-tar cigarettes make little difference – your lung cancer risk is not lower compared to smokers of average cigarettes. This may be because smokers tend to change the way they smoke in order to satisfy their nicotine craving, for example by taking bigger puffs or smoking more cigarettes. and The main way that smoking causes cancer is by damaging our DNA, including key genes that protect us against cancer. Many of the chemicals found in cigarettes have been shown to cause DNA damage, including benzene, polonium-210, benzo(a)pyrene and nitrosamines. This is already bad news, but it’s made worse by other chemicals in cigarettes. For example chromium makes poisons like benzo(a)pyrene stick more strongly to DNA, increasing the chances of serious damage. And chemicals like arsenic and nickel interfere with pathways for repairing damaged DNA. This makes it even more likely that damaged cells will eventually turn cancerous. Smokers are also less able to handle toxic chemicals than those with healthy lungs and blood. Chemicals in cigarette smoke make it harder for smokers to neutralise or remove toxins, and can make their immune systems less effective too. so seems like several chemicals in cigarettes have been linked to causing DNA damage. Don't know which of those are in marijuana as well, and I don't know what other chemicals may be in marijuana but not in tobacco that can cause cancer... So yeah... Don't know, but I wouldn't risk it myself. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On January 13 2017 05:52 Uldridge wrote: about HGT, i meant: HGT is not even close to being controversial, how do you think GMO's are created? They exploit the mechanism Agrobacterium tumefaciens uses which is known to inject a piece of DNA into its host (the plant) to make metabolites for it (and as a byproduct, tumors are generated. If you see knots on a treetrunk, there's a chance this is an A. tumefaciens infection). I still have the slightest clue about what you're trying to say with protein triggering. What does that mean? An elevated level of a protein you ingest somehow gets to fuck you over? Just read the wiki article, it literally says it gets broken down into mononucleotides by enzymes released from the pancreas (which starts breaking down the stuff in your duodenum, uptake from nutrients is in small intestines). And yes, there are very complex diseases which are not easy to solve. IBD may not even be just one thing, just like dementia isn't just one thing. When syndromes become these nuanced things without a set definition for them it becomes a pain to classify them and an extreme financial burden for the person who has these issues to get them exactly figured out. It sucks, but if there isn't enough incentive to find all the different classifications so to find what constitutes as IBD (which I'm sure at least someone is busy trying to find out), then all I can do is hope someone does find something soon. but its existence in higher organisms, including animals, is less well established, and is controversial in humans. ;thought it would be obvious.- on DNA digestion(it's been a thing since early '00 with sightings in mice, pigs, poultry, humans and maybe more): from a .pdf i have - Roundup Ready Soybean – Reapproval in the EU?. This report has been provided on behalf of Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. and Friends of the Earth Europe / Dr. Martha Mertens As different works have pointed out, ingested DNA is not immediately and completely decomposed, but is able to enter the gastrointestinal tract and the cells of different organs and possibly also microorganisms. DNA fragments as big as several hundred to over one thousand base pairs that are found in food are able to survive not only the gastrointestinal passage, but can also enter the peripheral leukocytes, spleen and liver cells, and even overcome the placental barrier and reach the cells of foetuses and new-born mice. The ingested tagged DNA was found in cell nuclei, partly bound to chromosomes (Schubbert et al. 1997, 1998, Doerfler 2000) the .pdf itself is a summary on Mossanto based GMOs methodology research, response articles, declared and undeclared alterations found in GMOs. one ex: + Show Spoiler + Monsanto based its 1994 application documents on research that analysed ingredients, allergenicity, toxicity, and feed conversion of RR soybeans, which, taken together, are intended to demonstrate the safety to health. Related articles from Monsanto employees appeared later in scientific newspapers (Padgette et al. 1996, Burks & Fuchs 1995, Harrison et al. 1996, Hammond et al. 1996). Müller (2004) analysed the publications in detail and challenged the conclusions drawn by the authors’ claim that the RR soy line GTS 40-3-2 is equivalent in composition to the conventional soybeans (Padgette et al. 1996), that no changes to endogenous and allergenic proteins were observed (Burks & Fuchs 1995), that the expressed EPSPS protein is rapidly digested and not acutely toxic (Harrison et al. 1996) and that the soy feed value for rats, chickens, cows, and fish is not changed by glyphosate tolerance (Hammond et al. 1996). The most important points of criticism (Müller 2004): • Data in publicised works differ from data in approval applications. • The analysis of ingredients was conducted on mixed material, which originated from different cultivation regions/years – a direct comparison between RR soy and non-genetically modified soy (isogenic line?) from the same location is lacking. • Not all of the parameters required by the OECD for the analysis of GM soybeans were examined; for example, an analysis of amino acid values in roasted soy flour was missing. • Only acute toxicity tests were performed with bacterial EPSPS proteins therefore, substantial equivalence cannot be proved • Chronic tests, such as tests for carcinogenicity and reproduction toxicity of EPSPS proteins, were not carried out. • Data were inconsistent or missing and the feed studies showed methodological faults, for example, the feed quality for fish and rats. • Observed differences (lower weights and lower feed consumption with male rats and fish, higher kidney/testicle weight in rats, increased milk fat value in cows) between those fed with RR soybeans and those with the control diet were generally interpreted as being within biological variability and were not interpreted as being biologically meaningful • Histological investigations of the gastrointestinal tracts of the examined animals are missing Generally striking is that the studies performed by Monsanto scientists featured diverse methodical inconsistencies and that significant discrepancies were liberally interpreted in favour of the RR soybeans. Müller (2004) criticized the statistical validation of the study’s outcomes as unsatisfactory. The fact that in vitro digestion studies cannot fully detect the potential allergenicity of new proteins and, therefore, are of limited significance as regards the potential of allergens, has already been criticized by Spök et al. (2002b). In most cases, RR soybeans were tested without glyphosate treatment, although it has not been conclusively clarified to what extent glyphosate influences the synthesis of plant substances. For example, the application of glyphosate in transgenic glyphosate-resistant oilseed rape plants leads to changes in amino acid profiles (Nandula et al. 2001). Under stressful conditions, Duke et al. (2003) observed increased concentrations of daidzein isoflavones in RR soy plants, but they attributed these effects not to glyphosate. Reduced concentrations of 9 isoflavone, particularly that of genistein, were also described in RR soybeans (Lappe et al. 1999, cited in Müller 2004) – daidzein and genistein belong to the group of phytoestrogens that can bind oestrogen receptors and create oestrogen-like effects. - on the triggering: what you eat could trigger a gene mutation which would then start triggering wrong/bad/different signals to proteins. Ex: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160329184939.htm By using reference data from the 1000 Genomes Project, a Cornell research team provided evolutionary evidence that the vegetarian diet, over many generations, may have driven the higher frequency of a mutation in the Indian population. The mutation, called rs66698963 and found in the FADS2 gene, is an insertion or deletion of a sequence of DNA that regulates the expression of two genes, FADS1 and FADS2. These genes are key to making long chain polyunsaturated fats. Among these, arachidonic acid is a key target of the pharmaceutical industry because it is a central culprit for those at risk for heart disease, colon cancer, and many other inflammation-related conditions. Treating individuals according to whether they carry 0, 1, or 2 copies of the insertion, and their influence on fatty acid metabolites, can be an important consideration for precision medicine and nutrition. just one example linking dietary habits with evolutionary mutation/adaptations in DNA. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
@Cascade: i read your posts but figure you have some replies in other posts i make. now that i read it better, the controversial part about the DNA changes seem to be DNA changes that get passed on to future generations vs DNA changes that die with the carrier. i linked articles exemplifying the former. Edit: on So in summary, even if you are afraid of having your DNA altered, I wouldn't worry about GMOs. I would be very diligent with sunscreen though, and not smoke. THOSE do nasty things to your DNA! :o :o So well, going out in the sun and worrying about GMOs giving you Parkinson is a bit like racing motorbikes and worrying about being hit by a meteor. HA!, i'd factor in time for that argument; evolution has a way of discarding non-beneficial traits in time(or weigh in the pros and cons and if there are more pros ... it'll let you burn in the sun). pretty vague statement i know, but GMO's never had and never will have that so unless you know pretty much everything there is to know about that subject, you'll always make uninformed decisions. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On January 13 2017 21:42 xM(Z wrote: the meaning is that we know very little to make informed calls on GMO's as of now. we don't even know what the fuck we should regulate there. @Cascade: i read your posts but figure you have some replies in other posts i make. now that i read it better, the controversial part about the DNA changes seem to be DNA changes that get passed on to future generations vs DNA changes that die with the carrier. i linked articles exemplifying the former. Edit: on HA!, i'd factor in time for that argument; evolution has a way of discarding non-beneficial traits in time(or weigh in the pros and cons and if there are more pros ... it'll let you burn in the sun). pretty vague statement i know, but GMO's never had and never will have that so unless you know pretty much everything there is to know about that subject, you'll always make uninformed decisions. I think you're turning the argument upside down. You're arguing that because you don't know what to regulate, you should be very careful (aka regulate everything). I'd argue that as long as there is no evidence of extra harm, it's just fine to regulate them in exactly the same way you regulate all other crop varieties (virtually non-existent). Dragging evolution into it seems a bit arbitrary. If you mean evolution through natural selection, that hasn't been happening with crops since the dawn of agriculture. Since then, our crops have been selected through human selection. We chose what wheat to plant, and once we started consciously breeding for specific traits, natural selection got completely ditched by the road side. The main difference between most GMOs and "traditional" breeding methods is that we are now capable of creating the traits we want, rather than hoping it appears randomly in the hundreds/thousands of offspring we breed. As for your understanding of evolution with regards to why we get sunburnt, it seems extremely limited, and it also misses the point. Cascade's point wasn't to state that evolution didn't find a solution to that, it was to state that if you are afraid of changes to your DNA in parts of your body, you should stay the hell away from sunlight, as it is a far larger cause of random changes to your DNA than GMOs are. You're worried about the chance of being hit by a meteor while dancing in a busy street with your eyes closed. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
his analogy was a joke and i laughed at it; i wasn't arguing of it. there are no apt similarities between what happens and what we make happen unless we mention regulation which evolution does by itself and it's what we're supposed to do; the thing is instead of regulation, humans prefer randomly+ Show Spoiler + i used randomly to put it lightly but it can be easily shown it to be a self-serving affair) that is not an acceptable standard to me. no evidence of extra harm that silver-lining of yours is not accepted since evidence is based on current knowledge which is close to nil.what does "regulate everything" means?; forbidding it from being consumed?; forbidding its practice in controlled environments?; banning the thought of it?. Edit: and you talking about understanding of evolution ... . what are you on?; no one understands it. every now and then we get glimpses into its inner workings but that's about it. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 13 2017 14:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: how did a movie like monster trucks apparently cost an estimated 125 million dollars? I don't understand why anyone would spend that much money on something like that CG both balloons and shrinks a lot of budgets. Shrinks as in the cost of physical effects and location-shots goes down. This has been most prevalent in "street shots" "crowd shots" etc... where a small team of CG effects guys can take the place of plane flights, and large crews. Costs balloon when the CG has to be an actual character. The initial team will almost always suck and their test pieces will make the producers gag like a new-grad on a casting couch, which then translates to bigger and bigger teams to have enough time to craft and render the CG character. Suddenly you have 1 character needing a hundred crew members thousands of man-hours to do what used to be done by a dozen or so puppet guys. But as a more pointed question--I can imagine a producer chatting with his friend saying "Dude, imagine a monster truck, driven by a fucking monster!" Then they go to a starving writer, and they're like "We'll pay you X to write a screenplay about a monster driving a monster truck" And the starving writer is like "but.. but... that sounds so... what was X again?" And viola--garbage fire on a dino turd. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23957 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 14 2017 13:10 GreenHorizons wrote: Do the words "Discount", "On Sale", "% off", etc.. have any legal meaning in the US, or anywhere else? As far as I know there is zero culpability. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5160 Posts
They have no clue how to make movies, they just want sex, but try to dress it up a little bit. Unfortunately they can't do it very well. It's like trying to pull off some combination of clothes without actually knowing anything about what makes good combinations. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On January 15 2017 14:06 Uldridge wrote: Because porn movies use everything that's cliché to cater to their audience. Want barnyard? Throw in a pair of overalls, a wild rag, a horse and some bales of hay. Want a chique setting? Have the people dress up fancy, with flashy jewelry and a house with the interior with polished marble floor and greek columns with a view on the pool and a white, slightly off center couch. Want outdoors? Pick a picnic blanket, picnic basket and perhaps use a tree from your environment and also have the girl have her hair in some form of tail wearing way too short shorts, preferably cut jeans where the buttcheeks slightly show as to initiate the first action of the scene. They have no clue how to make movies, they just want sex, but try to dress it up a little bit. Unfortunately they can't do it very well. It's like trying to pull off some combination of clothes without actually knowing anything about what makes good combinations. What if I want StarCraft porn? + Show Spoiler + asking for a friend | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On January 15 2017 18:32 Cascade wrote: What if I want StarCraft porn? + Show Spoiler + asking for a friend Dunno. But there's a World of Whorecraft out there. I'm sure some enterprising pimp has made Kerrigan, Queen of Knaves or something. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Dark_Chill
Canada3353 Posts
On January 15 2017 22:58 JimmiC wrote: Lies! Next thing you are going to tell me that the nerdy girls are not just wearing glasses and the mild are not just anyone over 30. Why would they spend time and money on sets and costumes when people just want to watch them bone? Because there's an audience for it, I'd imagine. | ||
| ||
