[deleted]

No.

Even if they could, how could they tell if it was you smoking or second hand smoke?

I have lung issues from second hand smoke and every time I go to a new doctor they ask if I smoke and kind of don't believe me until I say both my parents did my entire childhood in the house and in cars.

Maybe your parents smoked. Maybe a spouse does. Maybe you just worked in a smoking bar. Who could tell?

[removed]

The body's cyclical fever response is not fully understood but is thought to be a result of the body's attempt to fight off the infection or injury. The fever response may help to activate the immune system and inhibit the growth and reproduction of some pathogens.

Thank you, I will look out for it!!

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

That topic is a running gag in the books The Iron Druid. It does get revealed but pretty late in the series. Its also a really good read or listen.

It is a lot, yes. But they still have a bit of a point. In absolute terms lung cancer isn't hugely common in smokers. About 1 in 10. So you're still somewhat unlikely to get lung cancer as a smoker. Although you're massively more likely to get it compared with someone who has never smoked. So it's a huge relative risk but a somewhat low absolute risk. As an individual even if you smoke the odds are still in your favour wrt lung cancer. Of course, with smoking there is a bunch of other things that can kill you before you get the chance to win the prize of lung cancer. So that has to be considered too.

[removed]

Lung doc here. Not all obstruction reduces DLCO, DLCO is traditionally preserved in non-remodeled asthma.

That said, as a lung cancer researcher, KRAS mutation is much much more common in those who have smoked (not exclusive though). In modern practice, we are doing more assessment of tumor mutational burden and TMB is a lot higher in those who have smoked. Lastly, some subtypes, namely small cell and squamous cell, are almost unheard of in those who have never smoked.

Establishing causation in science is hard, and we observe changes correlated with tobacco use, but as they say, correlation and causation are not the same. We know epidemiologically and through cell and animal models the effects of tobacco smoke on DNA and cell growth, but in an individual, it would be close to impossible to establish exact causation.

[removed]

Where would this be? That sounds like variations in temperature are causing condensation. I have lived on a literal island in the ocean, 500 meters from the pounding waves, and have had my salt clump a bit, but never dissolve itself into salt water in the container, even though dew and condensation was on everything at least some part of almost every day.

Median error when using multiple tissue samples is ~3.5 years but some tissues age faster and have higher error bars than others. Less than 1 year for bats.

DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types

Measuring Animal Age with DNA Methylation: From Humans to Wild Animals

DNA methylation predicts age and provides insight into exceptional longevity of bats

I'm studying for a big exam and basically every disease, restrictive or obturative, lowers DLCO lol. (Barring alveolar hemorrhage). Not just COPD or smoking-related diseases like DIP.

By identifying cells from BF or EBUS or biopsies, You mean like looking for macrofages loaded with soot?

Phenyl rings and iodine go together like peanut butter and jelly, for reasons outside the scope of the question. For thyroid hormones though, an enzyme is used called thyroperoxidase which handles both the management of iodine's oxidation state, and its addition to tyrosine residues.

[removed]

I tried to explain it to an MFA once. It’s surprisingly difficult to describe in simple terms

Wow, wow, wow -- 10-15% of smokers get lung cancer that is A LOT. Yes, most of them end up dying of vascular or lung disease other than cancer (and probably some of those that died of heart attacks also related to their smoking would have gone on to get lung cancer). In non-smokers the number of primary lung cancers is <<1%.

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

What kind of accuracy does it give you? +- a year or two? Enough to confidently say the sample is from a child, adult, senior?