Timeline for Does your body suffer one mutation for every 15 cigarettes you smoke?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2016 at 13:15 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Feb 2, 2013 at 3:00 | review | Community Evaluations | |||
| Feb 10, 2013 at 3:00 | |||||
| Jan 7, 2013 at 23:12 | history | edited | Sam I Am |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 30, 2012 at 17:12 | comment | added | matt_black | @TimQuinn don't worry about asking the question: it was a good clarification.. | |
| Dec 30, 2012 at 17:05 | comment | added | Tim Quinn | Thanks for the clarification, Matt. I see your rep points, so I know you are not ignorant. I guess I thought the question might be misleading to a naive person. I should have been more clear. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 18:37 | comment | added | Larry OBrien | I see a new ad campaign: "Go ahead, kids! Fourteen won't kill you!" | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 12:36 | comment | added | matt_black | @TimQuinn To clarify: I was not assuming there would be germ-line mutations; I assumed the mutations would be in lung or airway cells. I asked the question because I wanted to see whether there was a clear scientific justification for the number in context. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 10:23 | comment | added | Tim Quinn | I guess what I suspect is that Matt thinks that cigarette smokers are more likely to have deformed children. They are not talking about mutations to the organism that would be inherited by an off spring but mutations to individual DNA molecules that will result in localized cancerous growth within the organism. This is only meant as a clarification to the questioner about what is going on. I might be totally wrong, but it would explain why Matt thinks it is extraordinary that so many mutations happen. | |
| Dec 29, 2012 at 4:03 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSkeptic/status/284872135871172609 | ||
| Dec 29, 2012 at 0:35 | comment | added | Larry OBrien | @TimQuinn If I read the paper correctly, they're actually mutations that are apparent within the cancerous cell line, not mutations taken from pre-cancerous tissue. | |
| Dec 28, 2012 at 22:35 | comment | added | Tim Quinn | It might be mentioned that the mutations being talked about are mutations to individual DNA molecules that would lead to cancerous growth. They are not mutations to the organism that would track through to a new generation. | |
| Dec 28, 2012 at 20:20 | answer | added | Larry OBrien | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 28, 2012 at 20:03 | history | edited | Larry OBrien | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
spelling
|
| Dec 28, 2012 at 17:46 | answer | added | RedGrittyBrick | timeline score: 6 | |
| Dec 28, 2012 at 17:30 | history | asked | matt_black | CC BY-SA 3.0 |