Where does the health risk for cigarettes come from? The additives

>>7773087
That meme bothers me.

Nickel & Cadmium are in batteries, shitty ones though. Meme-ion is what all them use now a days.
Butane, lighter fluid? Cool meme.
Methane, sewer gas? It occurs naturally and is even stored in banks of frozen water in places far up north, around Ålesund-north.
Stearic Acid, candle wax? Yeah, but stearic acid is also found in food as a saturated fatty acid, what's wrong?
Ammonia, toilet cleaner? Ammonium Hydroxide is used as an anti-bacterial agent in food, nothing wrong.
Toluene, it's a pretty good organic solvent, but are you actually going to breathe it in? lol no.
Methanol, rocket fuel? Yeah, you're not going to drink methanol, so why are you so worried?

>>7773087
Probably not measurably. Those images are just a scare tactic and somewhat misleading. They don't actually "add" anything to cigarettes besides menthol flavoring (sometimes). All the chemicals they name are just created when the tobacco is burned. The real reason cigarettes are bad is that when you burn things it creates smoke that is actually made of tiny solid floating particles. And those tiny particles clog up your lungs and stop the flow of oxygen, and also cause cancer. Smoking leaves and wood would have the same negative effects.

>>7773101
that makes sense thanks. I don't smoke so I'm just curious about where the problems come from. Is this why vaping is seen as "better"? Because it's just vapor instead of real smoke?

>>7773104
Right. the vapor is tiny liquid particles, so in theory it should not be bad for the same reason that smoking is bad (and so far we have no evidence to suggest that it is). Nicotine itself has not actually been proven to be bad for you either, except for some studies with mixed results about whether or not it causes cancer, but even so we have not observed a higher cancer rate among people taking nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine gum or nicotine-emitting transdermal patch to reduce the craving to smoke).

It is plausible that inhaling a lot of oily liquid from vapes could adversely affect the lungs in an unforeseen way, and it could turn out that commonly used flavorings are carcinogenic to inhale, but both of these seem unlikely. Conspiracy theories aside, the government and anti-drug organizations must be very careful not to endorse something that could possibly be revealed as bad years down the line, because it would be pretty bad for PR.

>>7773087
CO is a carcinogen, and tar (smoke residue) fucks up the ravioli in your lungs

If you vape in below freezing temperatures could that kill you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

>>7773101
Isn't there something in the smoke that paralyses the cilia, which causes shit to build up?

>>7773101
I wouldn't necessarily say that. Tobacco has agents in it that irritate your mouth, throat, and lung tissue. Yes any kind of smoke would be bad, but tobacco is especially bad because it does this.

Believe me I'm not a stoner, but marijuana is actually much better in this regard because it is a soothing agent to these same tissues. In addition, the drug itself has been found to inhibit tumor growth. This is why it is often prescribed to cancer patients in states that support it.

directly breathing in smoke is bad in general

cigarette tar contains hydrophobic compounds which can easily pass the cell and nuclear (and mitochondrial) membranes and react w/ DNA & histones to produce mutations. these mutations can be repaired if "caught" early, but if left unchecked after several rounds of cell divison, they become permanent fixtures that can lead to cancer

there's also inflammatory processes that are inherent to ingesting any foreign particulate matter such as smoke, and these can lead to COPD (this also applies to habitual marijuana smoking btw)

there's also atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease (amputations ahoy!), glaucoma, increased heart rate, etc etc

tl;dr don't fucking smoke and find a better way to ingest weed if that's your thing

File: youarecancer.png (14KB, 218x339px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 218x339px

>>7773211
>In addition, the drug itself has been found to inhibit tumor growth. This is why it is often prescribed to cancer patients in states that support it.
Pull your head out of your popsci ass. This is wrong.

>>7773087
>Nicotine is an insecticide omg nooo!

Kek. So is caffeine lad.

>Where does the health risk for cigarettes come from?
The danger comes from the fact that smoking hot particulates fucks up your lung tissue, chemical contamination is secondary, the worst is the incomplete combustion products which has ionizing degradation reactions on all polymers, not even the stuff people usually bitch about.


These why these weed and hadji smokers are so fucking stupid. Any smoke damages your lungs, cigarettes aren't much more or less damaging.

>>7773358
>Pull your head out of your popsci ass
>posts xkcd shit comic

>>7773373
>"hurrrrr marie J cures cancer xD xDD"
Filthy hippy I hope you die from aids poisoning.

>>7773087
>Where does the health risk for cigarettes come from?

burning plant matter releases a bunch of shitty substances as vapor and smoke. inhaling these fucks up your lung tissue. that's how you end up with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (smoker's lung).

the nicotine is an addictive stimulants, but not toxic in the low amounts you get from cigarettes.
the other things listed in your picture arent a big deal either because they're present in ridiculously low amounts, and stuff like methane, acetic acid, butane, toluene and ammonia arent particularly toxic anyway.

Not a single post mentioning radioactivity, /sci/ worries me sometimes

>>7773413
>>7773372
>ionizing degradation reactions on all polymers

>>7773372
people who smoke weed and cigarettes have fewer incidences of cancer than people who just smoke cigarettes

>>7773411
>>7773216
>>7773118
Okay, how about chewing tobacco? I know the labels say that Smokeless tobacco isn't safer, but how does that have the same effect when you aren't inhaling the particulates?

>>7773888
citation needed

>>7773993
Part of the curing process for tobacco generates small amounts of carcinogens (the fermentation, I believe). In addition, oral tobacco is usually alkaline to facilitate better nicotine absorption. I would consider oral tobacco to be effective risk minimization.

In reality, oral tobacco is much safer than smoked tobacco, though it is still dangerous. As far as I know, the safest way to use tobacco is swedish snus, which uses tobacco cured by a different process (steam? pasteurization?).

I used to smoke pack cigs, then I went to rolling tobacco. Now I use snus and smoke a pipe/cigar on occasion. I'm fully aware of the health risks, but the difference in quality and flavor between pack smokes and proper rolling tobacco is astounding. Much of the tobacco in pack smokes (and blunt wraps and binders in cheap cigars) is actually HTL, or homogenized tobacco leaf. They basically grind up all of the stems and scraps and make it into a "paper". I wouldn't encourage anyone to smoke, but if you smoke pack cigs, give something like Peter Stokkebye rolling tobacco a try. It's cheaper than pack cigs and is much higher quality.

>>7773205
I believe it's that continued inhalation of the the hot smoke burns the celia--which has the effect of not being able to cough up things from the lungs effectively. Hence smokers coughing all the time since they can't effectively clear their lungs.

>>7773372
What if you use a bong, and inhale cooled smoke?

>>7773101
>They don't actually "add" anything to cigarettes besides menthol flavoring (sometimes).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

>>7774569
It's still particulate matter, tar, combustion products, etc.

>>7773099
>>7773101
yeah it's for morons who never took high school chemistry (or lack a fundamental understanding of what a chemical is)

Smoking feels like the modern day boogeyman of health risks. Even worse are the justifications to ban smoking indoors almost everywhere due to "secondhand smoke" being called dangerous for other people. Almost nothing scientifically supports the idea that it's serious enough to warrant those kinds of bans. Tons of people who directly smoke can live for a reasonably long time with only a few health changes.

>>7773216
This only happens to a moderate percentage of people who smoke though, and I wouldn't be surprised if other factors (be it lifestyle choices or genetics) were equally or more responsible for some of these problems.

>>7773372
>These why these weed and hadji smokers are so fucking stupid. Any smoke damages your lungs, cigarettes aren't much more or less damaging

So all of the daily weed smokers saying that it's a miracle drug that won't cause cancer or other health issues compared to tobacco and alcohol are full of shit?

>>7773413
>radioactivity

Is there a way to smoke without radioactivity being an issue.

>>7773087
smoking ANYTHING causes problems because of the temporary oxygen deprivation.

just stop being a degenerate and stop smoking you faggot.

>>7776313
pipes and cigars. I mean at least not inhaling is proven to axe a lot of risk

>>7776337
>just stop being a degenerate and stop smoking you faggot.
Pretty much this

Radioactive lead and polonium isotopes trapped in the tobacco leaves' hair. They're alpha emitters which makes ingesting them really bad and explains the cancer risk.

For comparison cannabis (only) smokers don't get cancer at a significantly higher rate than non-smokers but DO suffer from the other negative effects of smoking like COPD.

A lot of scientists and people in medical industries have been fooled, actually.

http://www.rampant-antismoking.com
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/5988#.VpQO7oo77CQ
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/7451#.VpQPDYo77CQ

>>7773087
If you inhale the smoke of any organic combustion you harm yourself, the rest are some extras.

File: 1443023932278.jpg (44KB, 599x599px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 599x599px

>>7773087
Methane, butane, and hexamine are inert organic compounds.
Methanol can be processed in small amounts.
Toluene as well.
Stearic acid is fine.
Ammonia is no problem in small amounts.
Acetic acid is fine.

Carbon monoxide is filtered out over time, quick exposure to small amounts is meaningless.
>Nicotine
Isn't that a given?

>Arsenic and cadmium
Why would they be in there in non-negligible quantities?

I do remember reading articles long ago about tobacco plants taking up polonium ions in the soil and concentrating them in the plant.
Probably bullshit.

>>7773198
Thank you

Inhaling smoke is pretty common sense that it's bad for you.

You don't even need a study to know this.

>>7776448
So... why the fuck are those isotopes present in cigarettes? Burning shit doesn't suddenly make it become radioactive

File: Screenshot_2016-01-11-19-30-14.png (381KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1080x1920px

Also why is Po 210 an additive to cigarettes that is reported and allowed when pic related?

>>7776893
fertilizer

Filters are bad for you. Don't pack your cigs. It's acetylated cellulose which is similar to asbestos in that they're very fine fibers, and inhaling these can get them lodged in your lungs which is obviously bad.

>>7776924
Why do you think tobacco plants can magically obtain higher concentrations than normal of the ELEMENT from nowhere?

Stop believing idiots.

>>7779620
He is asking why do companies add it and report it as something they have added, read his post again.

>>7775178

holy shit, you're retarded.

Drinking water from a shithole like India is not going to damage 100% of people, does it mean that drinking water from shitholes is good?

>>7779636
Because Hippie lobby groups forced them to to scare the public out of smoking.

>>7773118
http://www.details.com/story/vaping-flavors-popcorn-lung

>>7773099
>It's natural.
>It's used elsewhere in society
>That makes it safe to burn and inhale into your lungs.
Smoking is a disgusting habit.

>>7779651
You might find it disgusting personally. Doesn't mean people can make stuff up about it being unspeakably bad for you in order to justify being disgusted by it.

>>7775335
It's better than all of the drugs you listed for sure, but it is still harmful no doubt. The only question is to what extent?

>>7779643
Drinking from a shithole isn't really comparable, and the fact that so many smokers live into old age with just a few irritating breathing problems is a reason to question how "bad" it truly is.

>>7779647
Exactly

>>7773099
Eat all of those things and post a video.

>>7773993
>the labels say that Smokeless tobacco isn't safer
>government statement
another lie

>>7780084
Everything the government says about smoking and tobacco is probably bull at this point.

>>7773099
>Oh don't worry, ammonia is the same as ammonium hydroxide!
>Oh don't worry, you won't breathe in any toluene since it's not a gas like smoke!
>Oh don't worry, you're not drinking methanol, so breathing it should be fine!

I know you're not serious, memeboy.

>>7773175
Oxygen is a carcinogen, prove me wrong.

>>7773373
If it's so shit, how come you automatically recognize it?

>>7774533
The only problem with oral tobacco is the cancer it does cause really fucks you up. I'd rather die from lung cancer than live breathing through a tube in my throat, mute, and with half my face radiated off.

>>7780112
>Implying that actually happens to chewers