/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8898752
Yes

Why wouldn't it?

>>8898752
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-515913/Mens-smoking-drinking-damage-health-future-children.html
Men's smoking and drinking can damage the health of future children
Men who smoke and drink could be endangering the health of their future children and grandchildren.
Toxic chemicals in cigarettes and alcohol are thought to cause changes in the DNA which are passed down via the sperm to future generations.
While it is well known that a mother-to-be's health can affect the wellbeing of her unborn child, the study suggests that prospective fathers also have an important role to play.
"If I were a young man, I would not drink very heavily, I would not smoke two packets of cigarettes a day when trying to conceive a child," she said.

>>8898752
would the damage be caused to the sperm? or the testies?
I plan on living clean at least 6 months before trying for a child. should i stop drinking now?

>>8898780
sure.

>>8898760

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-515913/Breathing-damages-health-future-children.html

>>8898752
that explains why i got severe autism

>>8898789
Fucking lol

tabac

>>8898752
i'm a BTS "technician", will exposure to microwave antennas harm my future children?

>>8898752
Yes anon don't do it.
My mother drinks a lot and my father smokes a lot. I'm luckily not that much of a brainlet but I could have been a superior specimen of humanity, physically and mentally, if not for their shitty habits.

Think of the children, anon.

Statistically if you smoke, you're already a brainlet who shouldn't be having kids.

>>8898752
No that's retarded. If you're a smoker you'll be having dumb kids regardless though.

>>8900548
>>8900681

>2017
>Doesn´t smoke cigarettes
Were you bullied in school, retarded or perhaps both?

>I-It kills you!
Yes, and? Was life a competition about who lives the longest?

>Y-You get addicted on them!
No you don't, expect if you are underage and incapable of smoking in moderation.

>I-Its expensive!!!
Who forced you to buy a pack a day, you fucking peat-gavel?

>>8898752
Well I sure hope so

>>8900691
Not only do they kill you, they also significantly reduce life quallity. You simply do not notice now, just as you do not notice that you smell like shit, because you are like that slowly boiled frog who can not see his death approaching.
I would like you to show even a single advantage of smoking, then you maybe, just maybe, would have some grounnd to stand on.

>t. former chain-smoker

If you smoke cigarettes in 2017 you're literally worse than a brainlet. Just kill yourself.

>>8900691
This is pretty sad, this anon is so addicted he has to create retarded posts online to defend his "habit".

>>8901399
They are, it's called smoking cigarettes.

>>8900691
Literally every person I know who smokes is addicted to smoking. That shit is for people who can't fit in, fall for some other dumb shit at least, like dying your hair. Not that anyone who smokes has hair anyhow.

>>8900691
>I-I can stop any time I want!
This is so sad.

Would you pass on weaker lungs? Lungs that are susceptible to cancer? Asking because I'm a young man with lung cancer and my dad smoked heavily from about the age of 12, me myself my smoking history is quite limited (late teens to mid twenties socially) but my dad is still alive and well, the bugger! Also my mum has really strong genes so I'm not sure what the fuck went wrong.

desu I find these smug anti-smoking people quite irritating, almost like they're just looking for an opportunity to put themselves above others. some people just don't like smoking and some people do, if you're young and enjoy it you're probably gonna do it, it's nice with a beer. reminder you probably just don't enjoy it, you're not more ethical. smoking heavily your whole life and getting completely dependent is retarded I agree, but scientifically speaking there doesn't seem to anything wrong with smoking a bit when you're wrong.

>>8900691
lol enjoy cancer

>>8900691
you're not just a faggot who loves to suck on long objects till stuff comes out one end, you're a faggot in denial

>>8900691
pretty sad that you caved to social pressure, brainlet

>>8901540
You can't pass on something you developed in your lifetime. You can affect the way that DNA is transcribed and translated in your children with your habits, but usually that is for maternal effects. For example, a mom smoking crack while pregnant. But even if she had some fucked up brain from doing drugs, she can't pass on a fucked up brain unless its rooted in a genetic defect

>>8900691
>translating ylilauta memes

>>8901604
Excuse me, but according to the plot of Alien: Resurrection, that's not how genetics work at all.

>>8901604
but I thought that was it meant by the whole thing of epigenetics and to alter your dna? I swear I read this study on mice where they fucked up some mices lungs with smoke and their offspring ended up with fucked up lungs, it was something like that I think, might be wrong

>>8898752
Potentially, yes. This will depend on too many unknown variables to calculate the odds.

>>8901352
>>8901418
>>8901507
>>8901530
>>8901583
>>8901590
>>8901598
>not recognizing this pasta

>>8901658
epigenetics cannot alter your DNA, just the way it is activated and transcribed. And that can be heritable, but it usually isn't as straight forward as just getting it from your parent.

Example: They fuck up the mother's lungs with smoke and that changes frequency that a histone protein is modified or a transcription factor binds to a DNA sequence. These epigenetic features eventually lead the mom to have fucked up lungs. The mother can pass on these epigenetic features to her kids, which will eventually have fucked up lungs as well because of their DNA not being transcribed correctly. But they won't be BORN with fucked up lungs, they will just develop them over time due to the heritability of gene expression from their mother.

The only way they could maybe fuck up their lungs on birth is if they fucked up the mothers lungs while she was pregnant, and that changed the way that her still developing babies are regulated.

>>8901757
>But they won't be BORN with fucked up lungs, they will just develop them over time due to the heritability of gene expression from their mother.
well I guess that's kind of the same thing, if they fuck up over time on their own without the smoke as the mother had, then that's the same as being 'born' with fucked up lungs, no?