Talk:Tobacco smoking
Could someone please produce a list of every chemical that is found in every vegetable product used, so that it could be compared with the "tobacco" list? Likewise, is this "tobacco" list valid for every single form of tobacco used? Also, could someone please direct me to the scientific study that has determined that "cigarette" is absolutely and completely, without exception, utterly identical to all forms of smoking and other tobacco use?Dogface
There is more history and discussion of this topic at Smoking, which redirects here. --LDC
I have a feeling that this list of chemicals is slightly alarmist, not least because it makes no mention of concentrations. How much radon or polonium can really be in a cigarette. I haven't yet found a list that ranks the chemicals by concentration or danger relative to the amount in a cigarette. Anyone have a good source. Rmhermen 12:31 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)
Quantifying concentrations might be worthwhile, but simply listing the carcinogens found in cigarettes is not "alarmist." The evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer is enormous, and even tobacco companies themselves have conceded this point. Since the fact that smoking causes cancer is not in dispute, how can it be "alarmist" simply to list the chemicals which are likely to contribute to that result? Sheldon Rampton 04:06 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- It would be interesting to list radioactives such as radium or polonium only if their presence in tobacco has health effects above the noise level. For instance, if the amount of harmful radiation that enters one's system in smoking is on the same order as the amount that enters one's system by eating ordinary supermarket vegetables (e.g.), then it is not worth mentioning.
- Does the tobacco plant concentrate radioactives from soil detectably more than lettuce, corn, or broccoli do? Would tobacco's carcinogenic effects be detectably less if it contained no radioactives? If so, then the radioactives are worth mentioning. If not, mentioning them is misleading -- since where there is no detectable effect, science is silent. --FOo 01:56, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Simply "mentioning" them is not misleading. Science should be silent about "effects" it cannot detect, but there is no obligation to be silent about substances that it can detect. As for the attempted comparison to lettuce, corn or broccoli, this is misleading, or at least erroneous. Lettuce, corn and broccoli "enter one's system" through the digestive tract, which extracts useful nutrients and ejects useless and harmful matter in the form of urine and bile. Smoked tobacco "enters one's system" through the lungs, not the digestive tract. The question of how a substance enters the body is significant. A carrot that "enters one's system" by being chewed and eaten is harmless; a carrot that is rammed whole down someone's throat can be deadly. Similarly, there is a difference between a plant that enters the body by being burnt and inhaled as opposed to a plant that enters the body by being cooked and eaten. User:Sheldon Rampton
- Ah, no. Mentioning them can be misdirection if it falsely implies a greater radioactivity than the background noise. It is a fact of existence that everything contains some radioactive particles -- the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and so forth. If we detect radioactivity in apples, and tout this fact as a threat posed by eating apples, we are committing falsehood if in fact the apples are no more radioactive than any other part of our environment. In order to prove something significant, we need to prove that it stands out from the background noise.
- (Also, if these apples are genuinely dangerous because of the pesticides they contain, we would be misdirecting people from the real threat. Tobacco smoke is harmful and carcinogenic chiefly for its nicotine, CO, and other easily demonstrable substances -- if radiation is found to be a bogeyman, it would be a distraction indeed!)
- Your U. Manitoba link indicates the polonium radioactivity in one cigarette's-worth of smoke, to the smoker, as 0.5 picocuries. That is 0.018 becquerels, or about one disintegration per minute. I don't know enough about the radioactive properties of polonium to derive exposure units (sieverts or rem) from this ... do you? In order to figure the smoker's exposure to radiation -- and thus, whether the amount is greater than the background radiation -- we'd need to know how much is exhaled, e.g., and the quality factor of polonium radiation.
- In other words, there's more science that needs to be done before it is acceptable to describe radioactive polonium as a harmful component of tobacco smoke. --FOo 04:34, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- This site [2] says the following about radioactive polonium-210 in tobacco smoke: "Conservative estimates put the level of radiation absorbed by a pack-and-a-half a day smoker at the equivalent of 300 chest X-rays every year (8). The Office of Radiation, Chemical & Biological Safety at Michigan State University state in their newsletter that the radiation equivalent was as high as 800 chest X-rays per year(9). The National Institute of Health published a radiation exposure chart which shows that smoking 30 cigarettes per day is the equivalent of 2,000 chest x-rays per year.(10)". It provides sources for those figures. I think one of the differences between eating an apple with polonium-210 containing pesticide is different than smoke leaves covered in that pesticide. In the latter case the atom can become trapped in the lungs emitting harmful alpha radiation (like radon gas). Eating that apple, while not good, is won't be as harmful. Most of the information I've seen has indicated it was significant, but I'll admit that in my search I turned up numerous 'scare' sights overtouting the harm of the chemicals contained in cigarettes.M123 04:56, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
chemical composition
Concentrations are likely to vary by brand, or even between batches of the same brand. Perhaps median concentrations on nicotine and the other most serious chemical components is in order.
User is smijer - sorry for the clumsy post, I'm not accustomed to the discussion page editing system.
Disputed studies
I deleted "It should be noted that many of the studies used to determine how dangerous tobacco is are disputed.". I have no problem with discussing the disputes, but just stating this boldly without support is useless. Please add some supporting information. RickK 02:55, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Re: "Many of the health and moral effects can be avoided through Smoking cessation" - I have never heard of "moral effects" of smoking, not even in Christian theology or mythology. I have doubts that it can be NPOV alluded to as fact that smoking causes moral effects. Jesus Blows Goats 07:24, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)