"It is fairly well recognized that there are approximately 4,000 identified chemicals in tobacco smoke. It is also the case that, based on gas chromatographic, mass spectrometric, and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging evidence, there are probably between 10,000 and 100,000 chemical constituents in tobacco smoke. This means that at a maximum, only 40% of the smoke constituents have even been identified, and at a minimum, we might only have identified 4% of these chemicals."
With such a voluminous mixture it is amazing we can actually expect to see any biological activity incited in such low dosages.
Those chemicals must be in super compressed and concentrated form to pack such an incredible punch...Well above their normal weight class.
Too bad we couldn't expect a country of origin along with the list, so our choices would be fully informed.
Free market competition would then make cigarettes safer, based in autonomous decisions, in place of moralist scold, for the first time in decades.
How many chemicals are in a campfire, in candle smoke, and in grilled meat smoke? Should we expect those ingredients to be posted in restaurants and bars that have fireplaces, grills, and candles for ambiance?
FDA Approved and Fortified.
I'll take a list of ingredients in the tobacco plant itself + the additives. That's what I want to know - I'll take it from there.
I never eat marshmallows unless they are burned to a crisp in a campfire [more flaming-the better], others like them toasted a bit and still others eat them raw.[darn chewers]
I expect the FDA to list Marshmallow ingredients per cooking methods from now on - if I don't know each and every ingredient and vapor produced by a burnt-to-a-crisp Marshmallow, I am not being protected. If not I expect 'black-box' warnings on the bag.
Government protect me....
Don't Even get me started on Toast...
Great News from our Dutch friends!
Dutch bar owners winning battle against smoking ban
July 9, 11:13 AM
Can minorities wage battle against government regulators and win? In the Netherlands, at least when it comes to smoking bans, the answer appears to be "yes." After a year of widespread defiance of a law banning smoking in bars and cafes, and two court victories by bar owners, the Dutch government is backing off enforcement of the intrusive ban and effectively letting many smaller businesses set policies that work for them and their customers.
The key to the apparent victory appears to be cooperation. Bars and cafes across the country coordinated their defiance of the smoking ban after business dropped by as much as 30% in the wake of the law's passage. To lure back customers who wanted cigarettes with their drinks, bars put the ashtrays back on the tables.
First-hand accounts even had bar patrons using table-top candle holders for their ashes in establishments that didn;t want tomake their defiance too obvious.
The Dutch government fined hundreds of establishments, but couldn't break the back of the resistance.
The law suffered perhaps fatal setbacks when courts ruled that the the government had no authority to impose total bans on small establishments that had no staff when it let larger businesses designate smoking areas. Another court ruled in favor of a bar owner who designated a store room as the (non-smoking) bar and the rest of the establishment as a smoking area.
Now, Dutch bar and cafe owners are free -- at least for the time being -- to establish rules that attract customers and suit their businesses.
From the beginning, smoking bans have been little more than efforts to take the preferences of some people and turn them into legal mandates for all businesses, without regard for the preferences of business owners and their customers. Smoking bans are widely popular in a country where a majority of the population doesn't use tobacco, and their popularity has been enhanced by cloaking the issue in nice-sounding but spurious public health language that doesn't really apply to situations involving establishments that people can choose to enter or bypass as they wish.
Ultimately, there's little difference between mandating that all bars be non-smoking and that all bars play light jazz -- just because the current crop of politicians likes it that way. It's just easier to sell the smoking rule in a wrapper of false concern for the health of people who are capable of taking care of such matters themselves.
The Dutch example shows that, at least sometimes, efforts to mandate one-size-fits-all environments can be effectively thwarted if resistance is sufficiently widespread and determined.
Dr. Siegel: ”Let's just keep it between you and me that tobacco smoke contains vitamin B2, which has a critical role in maintaining health in humans.”
Damned if I'll quit now. All the benefits of 37 different types of protein, vitamin B2, vitamin A, iron.
I have an appointment with my cardiologist tomorrow morning. Just wait until he comes out with his usual “Matt, you're still smoking. I can smell it” routine. Man, is he going to get an earful. And, he'll probably shit a brick when I tell him I got the information from a noted medical doctor and public health advocate.
Due to the massive misinformation campaign by CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA, a majority of the public (and Congress) have been duped into believing that cigarettes can be made less hazardous and less addicting, and that the FDA will make cigarettes less hazardous and less addicting.
Being informed of the number, names or slightly different levels of different consitituents in the smoke of different cigarette brands will only serve to confuse even more smokers to believe that some cigarettes are less hazardous than others.
While cigarette companies deceived the public for decades to believe that certain cigarettes are less hazardous than others, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA have been decieving the public for the last decade, and the FDA will likely decieve the public for many decades to come.
Good blog Dr. Siegel! 
You left out one of the nasty constituents though: did you note that cigarette smoke contains cholesterol? From p. 260 of Brains:
"A final humorous note on secondary smoke exposure: a cigarette puts off a bit less than 40 micrograms of cholesterol in both sidestream and mainstream smoke. At 1,000th of a cigarette per hour a nonsmoker would have to work with smokers for over 600 years for in order to get one day’s recommended dietary value of 600 milligrams.
I’d recommend a good prime rib instead… provided no one’s made it illegal."
===
Two more serious notes though:
1) If we examined ordinary Boston air, using gas chromatographic, mass spectrometric, and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging evidence, don't you think it's likely that we would similarly find 10,000 to 100,000 constituents? And if we couldn't do it today, we could almost certainly do it with the better instruments of ten or twenty years from now. The simple statement of what exists in a sample is virtually meaningless compared to a statement of quantification, and even the quantification is fairly meaningless without an analysis of effect.
2) It occurred to me while reading this that I don't recall hearing about the FDA's oversight of marijuana in the "medical marijuana" program. Now obviously marijuana IS being used as a "drug" in those programs, and they're being run under government oversight, so the FDA must have approved marijuana smoke as being "safe and effective," right? I just don't recall it happening.... {and no, I haven't been toking with Billy in the boys' room.....}
And, back at the funny farm, are they working on new microdot printing capabilities to get that "bookload" of ingredients down to size for cigarette packs or are we going to need a shopping cart every time we buy a carton of Camels?
:?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Truly funny blog, Doc. And, yes, what everyone, and especially MJM, said. The fact is, you can scare the pants off the The Worried Well by telling them the list of ingredients in anything. The acetic acid you mentioned is listed in chemical dictionaries as "highly toxic by ingestion or inhalation." It's also the single constituent of... vinegar. I should tell the maitre d' that I want to be seated in the non-salad area.
…
"Tobacco smoke contains bismuth"
Makes my day and reminds me that I was treated with bismuth in my youth when I suffered from recurring duodenal ulcers which my physician attributed to stress (during exams at the university). Not only did smoking reduce my stress, it might also have had a beneficial biological function. 
TC has always feared any perspective which could reveal that all cigarettes are not created equally, the low or non significant RRs may apply to some products in the extreme but never to others. No groups are ever queried as to what brand they smoke or even if they inhale, so the risk exists more of biased determination, than any semblance of ethical observation.
Measures of population groupings, comparing this group to that, are never consistent when the groups members change, because our lives are as different as out fingerprints made that much more complex by our genetics.
Epi is only as credible when comparing individuals, as the superstitions, that are grown by describing what it is not, or could ever be.
A reliable marker of cause or personal risk.
Hilarious! I so do love a good comedy, which is why I come back here day after day! In the 3rd paragraph of your Rest of the Story" you say that it can't be done because no one knows what constituents are in tobacco smoke. If that is truly the case, then how did you get smoking bans passed when you had no way of knowing of any dangers? Was it because Stanton Glantz told you so?
Like Gilster, I would like to know what is in marshmallows and toast, along with Sheri's request for fireplaces, including pellet stoves, candles and auto exhaust. Even Prius auto exhaust.
Now tell me what chemicals i inhale by walking down a busy street with buses and cars belching out diesel fumes.Stay safe don't breathe.
Cigarettes are the cheapest multi-purpose self medication on the planet.
The only thing addictive about them is the comfort they provide. The only thing disgusting about smoking, is seen among the comments of the Hippocrates and Bigots lining up to condemn innocentg people who prefer to use a traditional and still legal product, the loudest of them haven't the courage to sample for themselves.
Drug companies pay to condemn cigarettes for one reason only, they want to increase demand for a long list of alternative products it takes to replace a single cigarette. Products they sell which truly are disgusting. Read the monographs, talk about risk and disease causation.
In order to reduce the consumption of cigarettes even by the meager levels Bill is harping endlessly about, look how much the alternative markets have grown as smokers accept temporary second choice devices.
There is nothing as satisfying as a few minutes indulgence, only found relaxing with a smoke in hand, and if that is living dangerously, times certainly have changed.
No individual will ever know all of the components in tobacco smoke, since nobody in his sane mind is going to memorise to himself the 4.000 + trace substances found in tobacco smoke. So TC can claim for infinity that nobody knows the 'true' dangers of smoking, and that more 'education' is therefore required forever.
TC fans are always so optimistic.
The life of the party...If you like prune juice,
LOL
Well I don't know quite what to say,
for the first time in all the articles and studies I have read, someone from TC has admitted that there are some good things about tobacco.
I feel quite faint now!
I have in my possession, a tobacco leaf that has never seen chemical fertilizer, no pesticides, no fuel contaminants, that has been both boiled and simmered but not manipulated in any other way.
Now I'd really like to know the smoke constituents of that.
Tobacco protein
"Research was carried out all over the world to find an alternative product from tobacco. As a result, a protein extracted from the tobacco leaves can be used as food as well as medicine.
According to a leading protein chemist, among the protein extracts that were prepared from a variety of green plants and forage crops, those originating from the tobacco plant had "properties which make them uniquely desirable as sources of edible leaf protein".
In 1981 and 1982, the Leaf Protein International (LPI) — based in North Carolina, US — demonstrated that the extraction process for obtaining crystalline F-1-P (first fraction protein) and other raw materials from tobacco was commercially feasible. The field of F-1-P was estimated at 530 lbs/acre (600 kg/hectare).
Grown for food, tobacco plants can be more densely spaced and generate about four times as protein per acre as soybean or corn (maize). At the same time, it requires only half the labour. The F-1-P (a single, large, homogenous protein that makes up half of the plant's soluble protein) can be obtained in pure crystalline form.
Nicotine is present in the protein, but only in a concentration of 20ppb — many times lower than what is normally found in tomatoes, potatoes and green peppers. It has no colour, odour or taste. It is non-allergenic and exhibits an optimal amino-acid composition which lowers cholesterol.
Its functional characteristics, such as solubility, stability, foaming, gelling and emulsifying ability, are superior to those of egg white, casein and soy protein. In feeding experiments, the F-1-P significantly exceeded casein, soy, corn and other cereal proteins in protein efficiency, that is, the weight increment of growing rats per gram of protein ingested.
The F-1-P has also been recommended for a variety of medical uses such as reanimating patients suffering from coma or post-traumatic stress and treating kidney dialysis patients.
The absence of potassium and sodium in F-1-P makes it useful to considerably reduce the frequency of haemodialysis. It is also useful as artificial milk for infants. F-2-P (a mixture of low molecular weight soluble proteins) from tobacco also has favourable characteristics, and can be added to soups and beverages to boost the nutritional quality.
The insoluble protein can be used to enrich solid foods for human consumption and/or used as a feed for poultry and non-ruminants.
With projections based on North Carolina's pilot study, the third world's almost 4.5 million hectares under tobacco could deliver over 2.5 million tonnes of high quality F-1-P, about half as much F-2-P and 20 million tonnes of insoluble protein leaving another 60 million tonnes of deproteinised residue for use as ruminant feed.
Indeed, this may be just the beginning, because tobacco could later replace some food crops with lesser yields of high quality protein.
It is ironic that the same plant which has killed millions should also possess the potential to feed a protein-starved world.
As stated by the World Health Organisation's Farm and Agricultural Organisation (in 1981), "Tobacco may in time become one of the world's principal sources of protein for human consumption and live stock feed".
http://www.blonnet.com/2003/02/
1...21800120900.htm
Hmm
Kudos on the sarcasm Doc! It's my favourite form of wit.
I have complained in the past when you said there was 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, and I was incensed (no pun intended) when you revised that number to 10,000.
I am now warming to the idea that tobacco smoke has more and more chemicals in it. I hope it turns out to be a billion or so.
Why?
Because the exhaled (and sidestream) smoke is finite*. The more chemicals it contains, the smaller the number, and ergo, the lower the threat they are to us tobacco enthusiasts, and it further dilutes your theory of SHS harm at the same time. Its a win-win.
Keep counting Doc. It strengthens our case.
* Unless you are going to get all quantum physicy on me.
Better living through chemistry!
Tobacco is FDA approved and insuring the healthcare of millions.®
Transferred from previous post:
Re: John P.
“As for questions regarding the proposed ordinance, I know the word "denormalization" isn't very popular around here and from the smoker's standpoint I understand and for the most part agree that things have gone a bit too far, especially job discrimination. But from a youth prevention standpoint I see the focus of denormalization as being entirely different; to prevent them from ever facing smoker denornalization concerns.”
So, John, correct me if I’m wrong. You want to ‘denormalize’ smoking from a youth-prevention perspective so that youth will then not have to face adult smoker denormalization. At the moment you’re contributing to denormalization all round.
“It's about the number of both conscious and subconscious invitations to smoke eventually growing so great inside a student's mind that they culminate in a "what the heck" moment that turns into a lifetime of dependency.”
Here we go, again. I take it that ‘lifetime of dependency’ means ‘addict’. And, in your mind, this is all a person that smokes is – an addict. You don’t see a problem, a denormalized and dehumanized aspect, with this psychologically-myopic view?
“And yes, I was a long-term heavy smoker who got hooked at 15 and spent most of his life trying to break free. I've done some rather serious damage to this body and if I can help just one teen to not go through what I've endured that's be sufficient.”
John, I don’t doubt that you may have problems. However, you’re most probably suffering from the fallacy of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ – arguing causal attribution after the fact (consequent). This sort of deluded form of ‘argument’ is the norm in lifestyle epidemiology and the medical establishment generally. For example, in lifestyle epidemiology, it is believed, erroneously, that the scientific goal is to predict an antecedent from a consequent, e.g., this person with lung cancer (consequent) was a smoker (antecedent). This is actually back-to-front reasoning. In half a century of lifestyle epidemiology it has not remotely dawned on its membership that the scientific process proceeds the other way around: Attempting to delineate high-level predictors (antecedents) for consequents. As such, it has produced a plethora of superstitious belief (i.e., post hoc ergo propter hoc). And nowhere is this superstitious belief more rife than concerning smoke. For example, how do you know that your condition was caused by smoking (why could it not be that you are carrying endogenous abnormality?). It seems that many ex-smokers have come to believe that, had they not smoked, they, at 50, would be as physically sprite as a 20-year-old. Once you press past 30, the bodily pangs and pokes begin to appear and tend to escalate with progressive age, whether we smoke or not. We are constantly looking for ‘the causes’. And, the medical establishment has provided an ‘explain all’ in smoke. Whatever the pang or poke, if there is smoke around, blame the smoke. If there was no smoke, then who knows what the ‘cause’ was. The smoker has a cough – it must be the smoke. The smoker has a back ache – it must be the smoke. The non-smoker has a throat infection – it must be the ETS. This is superstition, not understanding. And, it is this very circumstance that actual scientific enquiry is attempting to avoid. Yet, in the hands of lifestyle epidemiology and public health, science has been contorted into a production-line for anti-science (superstitious) beliefs. This is extraordinary.
John, you, or anyone, do not know the myriad of paths set before you. How do you know that, had you not taken up smoking, that by a chain of decisions, you found yourself at a place and a time, and at a young age, where you were in a car crash that left you in a severely disabled state? How do you know that, had you not taken up smoking, by a chain of decisions, you married which ended up in a hateful divorce, had children that disappointed you and rejected you, and you died, following a number of unsuccessful suicide attempts, an old broken-hearted man? We could come up with numerous tragic or better scenarios. And, it is a question that I have asked Michael on occasions concerning Saving Lives®. Why is it believed, particularly by non-smokers, that a life not involving smoking must always be better, if not perfect, than a life involving smoking? There is no basis for it. There are smokers that have relatively ‘good’ lives; there are non-smokers that have relatively ‘not so good’ lives. The threat to the ‘goodness’ of a smoker’s life at this time is not due to smoke but the bigotry of some non-smokers.
Decisions are being made continuously that affect life, some for the better, some not so. Business decisions that can go terribly awry that one may never recover from; relationship decisions that can turn catastrophic; child-rearing that can become emotionally crippling; following an educational or career path that leaves a person with a feeling of emptiness. And, I would add that leaving this condition no wiser than having entered it is the most tragic of all: Even in difficulty, there can be the getting of wisdom. Why have we become so obsessed with smoke?
“I deeply believe that the industry must continue to have the right to advertise product changes to adults but not in the presence of children.”
We’ve already considered some of the ugliness of the human condition. And, children are not immune from this. In fact, it can be useful to their own learning. What have you made of smoking in your own mind that children singularly should be ‘protected’ from anything cigarettes? There are, at least, many smokers that do not see themselves as terrible people because they made a ‘terrible’ decision to smoke. You seem to believe this, by whatever contortions of thought, and will be projected as hatred – bigotry.
John, you are simply propagating the derangement of the time. The ones that should really be taken to task are those given over to numerous mental and relational dysfunctions that set this phase of the insanity in motion – the medical establishment and its hangers-on. If you want to do something useful, go and study the very considerable damage wreaked by the medical establishment over physical, psychological, social, and moral levels. It is, by far, the greatest health hazard of the time.
_
The leader in Health®, the medical establishment is the leading cause of preventable death & injury, and psychological & social dysfunction.
Setting the Standards in Derangement and Self-Approbation for a New World, for the Benefit of All [of the Medical Establishment].
Very well said Rick!
- MJM
Rick;
From what I gather from your writings, the TC movement is predicated and appears successful, only because the decks are all stacked and the cards are all marked.
They have been deliberately moving all of the psychological and moral credits, to their side of the spreadsheet by default, while making their case with purely materialist arguments. Incredibly they got away with reversing the value of the evidence, by claiming higher expertise and unchallenged unity in the flawed evaluation.
Challenging the null, becomes the null confirming any false reality the mind can create.
The emotive aspects only seem to arise as the denunciation stick, to placate the guilt, of denormalization bigotry, to defile [define] the wicked.
"Protections" of the child evokes a quite popular tactic of emotional blackmail, just to sweeten the pot, by eliminating parental autonomy and in turn by the claims of mind numbing addiction, adult autonomy is also sidelined.
No soundness of mind and body can be seen there...
The tables turn, and they will soon when they are forced to live under the same measure of scrutiny, with the psychological and moral aspects brought back onside, to face off against the superstitions they have been spewing for far too long.
As MJM stated well argued, more than that, well said.
More bad news for Public Meddling ...er, Health. Sit down, Mr. Bill, and grab a cold compress.
Study shows anti-smoking efforts a bust
http://www.examiner.com/examiner...s-first-
thought
;
Excellent comments Rick.It will be interesting to see if you get any response or whether it will be a case of ignoring difficult questions.The denormalisation aspect is played right down by Dr Siegel and the rest of the merry bunch of tobacco assassins.To save a few at the expense of many,is no longer a realistic excuse,but will continually be used to avoid ownership of this vile and evil social apartheid they created.
Tobacco Control has got a lot to reproach itself about,not least the fallacious mindset that illness is always self inflicted and therefore research should continue elsewhere,in other fields.This mentality has been allowed to spread "It is difficult to get support for research into liver disease since there is a widespread view that it is a self-inflicted condition,’ Prof Mieli-Vergani says. 'Nothing could be so wrong: there are devastating genetic or acquired diseases of the liver, in both children and adults, which have nothing to do with alcohol consumption or drugs". Yet this mentality has been allowed to prevail and continues wherever the elite in the medical profession (can it be called that ?) deem it necessitous presumably for their own amoral purposes. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/healt...epatitis-
C.html
Well said Rick.
These activities are anathema to me, though not religious, I have always lived by "do as you would be done by"
So plotting the ruin of total strangers in secret on a matter of ideology, however well meaning they might be, is something I have always considered to be the workings of a deeply dysfunctional mind.
'Psychopath' paratrooper set up viewing platform to monitor neighbours, court hears
Former paratrooper Rod Scott was branded a psychopath by his neighbours in Sheffield after he placed them under surveillance and subjected them to a campaign of harassment during an ongoing feud.
The ex-soldier, 64, set up a 16ft viewing platform draped in camouflage netting in his garden to observe Tony and Janet Durkin "morning, noon and night", a court heard.
He subjected the retired teacher and his wife to 17 incidents in 19 days including blasting out opera music, tirades of abuse, poisoning trees, using power tools at inappropriate times, lighting fires, and throwing a dead rat into their garden, Sheffield Magistrates' Court heard." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ourt-
hears.html
You may try to dignify and justify it in whatever way you feel comfortable with.
But the effect is still the same for those on the receiving end.
Some may have been led to believe that they were seduced into doing something against their will, by subtle advertising, peer pressure etc.
I have always taken great pride in taking full responsibility for my own actions,however they might turn out.
If I put a garden fork through my foot, it will be because I was clumsy or just unlucky, I won't sue the manufacturer or blame my Mother for teaching me how to grow flowers.
And I would very much resent anyone suggesting that I was not master of my own destiny in other matters.
I forgot about this, I found it a couple of years ago.
Its far too big for my ancient computer and I've never got past the first few pages without having to shut the computer down.
Symposium. Chemical, Physical and Production Aspects of Tobacco and Smoke - 1974
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/...=1&
end_page=252
I was reading a published study this morning and for the most part when reading the excessive drama attached I couldn't help but wonder if the authors required an institutional setting, or higher dosages on their meds. Mass hysteria, fails to define what I was reading, which was presented not as comedy fiction, but legitimate scientific endeavor. It then dawned on me this article was published in a Journal no less, dedicated to nicotine and tobacco?
The insanity of that aspect leaves you in awe that this has been allowed to fester unchecked for so long.
Just how disorganized is this entity we figuratively call the scientific community? They certainly don't have any pride left, or power to control or even distinguish insanity among their own membership.
Internalizing psychosis;
From the do it yourself, how to guide series;
http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/cg...eprint/
ntp021v1
Group think section;
http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/
There comes a point you start to equate these multidisciplinary creations, with multiple authored studies as equivalent to the 70s pot parties.
Where the numerous participants enunciate and feed upon their induced experience, to create a group consensus among the stoned and thereby enlightened.
There comes a point you start to equate these multidisciplinary creations, with multiple authored studies as equivalent to the 70s pot parties.
Hot dang. I'm USING that elsewhere. Hope you don't mind. I imagine it's not offensive to the accused, as long as we assume the pot parties would be with pot brownies, not actually smoking anything.
"the dreaded 2-pentyl-3-oxo-1-cyclopentyl-methyl ester present (not dreaded by smokers of course, but dreaded by organic chemistry students throughout the nation)."
..............
I guess that you do not like the smell of Jasmine?
None the less,just how much of this 'dreaded' stuff is in the smoke of a cigarette and what is the OSHA/FDA/EPA PEL for the stuff?
Hardly anyone would recognize "2-pentyl-3-oxo-1-cyclopentyl-methyl ester" if listed on a pack of cigarettes and 'the dose makes the poison'!!
Why not list Arsenic,a name most people recognise, and have full disclosure.
These chemicals include:
arsenic (a heavy metal toxin that can be a deadly poison and can cause lung cancer)
According to the Center for Disease Control:
"You normally take in small amounts of arsenic in the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat. Of these, food is usually the largest source of arsenic.
The total amount of arsenic you take in from these sources is generally about 50 micrograms (1 microgram equals one-millionth of a gram) each day."
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs2.html
1 microgram is equal to 1,000 nanograms(ng/1 billionth of a gram).
50 micrograms is 50,000 nanograms.
According to a study done for the Mass. Dept of Public Health, the total smoke output(both mainstream and sidestream) for an average cigarette contained 32 nanograms(ng) of arsenic.
(The 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study. Final Report 07/24/00)
A non-smoker would have to inhale ALL of the smoke from 1,562 cigarettes to equal the amount of arsenic they normally take in every day.
Since a non-smoker typically only inhales about 1/100th of the cigarette smoke to which they are exposed, a non-smoker would have to be exposed to the SHS/ETS from 156,200 cigarettes to equal the amount of arsenic they normally take in every day.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprof...iles/tp2-
c6.pdf
6.4.1 Air
Arsenic in ambient air is usually a mixture of particulate arsenite and arsenate; organic species are of negligible importance except in areas of substantial methylated arsenic pesticide application or biotic activity (EPA 1984a).
Mean levels in ambient air in the United States have been reported to range from
OOOPS!!
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprof...iles/tp2-
c6.pdf
6.4.1 Air
Arsenic in ambient air is usually a mixture of particulate arsenite and arsenate; organic species are of negligible importance except in areas of substantial methylated arsenic pesticide application or biotic activity (EPA 1984a).
Mean levels in ambient air in the United States have been reported to range from
MY,MY????
Mean levels in ambient air in the United States have been reported to range from
Let's try this!
The threshold OSHA has set for airborne arsenic is 10ug for an 8-hour work shift. This is the PEL (permissible exposure limit), below which the chemical is considered safe.
And OSHA is being very conservative. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, no symptoms are evident below “about 100 ug.”
The World Health Organization estimates that pack-a-day smokers of American cigarettes inhale 2.6 ug arsenic per 8-hour work shift.
The National Research Council says nonsmokers inhale 0.1 to 1% of what smokers inhale.
Now, if a bartender has 25 seats in his bar and 10 are occupied by smokers, each smoking two cigarettes per hour, 160 cigarettes would be smoked per 8 hour shift. L. Stewart, author of Epidemiology 101, or How to Read and Understand a Study, shows that even if the 160 cigarettes could somehow all be smoked in a 40-inch cube without ventilation, the airborne arsenic inhaled in that cube would be only 0.064 ug—which is far, far, far below the OSHA standard.
If instead of being confined to a 40-inch cube, the smoke was dispersed throughout a room large enough to hold 25 people, the concentration would be far, far, far less.
He then notes:
“the same kinds of calculations can be made for every "poison" and "toxin" in all the ads.
Which is why OSHA has stated that it's well-nigh impossible to find any actual workplace where its PELs for secondhand smoke or any constituent thereof would be met, let alone exceeded.
“The point we're trying to make is that while Arsenic!! is a 'poison' and even a 'carcinogen' it's neither at these doses.
And further, people's normal exposure from other sources is greater by great amounts.”
Gary K.
I know what you mean, but the use toxin has a negative connotation, everything is a toxin, even arsenic has beneficial uses. That is what we have to hammer home. Everything is a toxin. Arsenic is in a lot of the food we eat and the water we drink. Speaking of water. It is essential to life and yet it is a toxin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16614865/
Bottom line is dose makes the poison.
The anti-smokers also claim that of the more than 4,000 chemicals
that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250
are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer.
These chemicals include:
* arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
Arsenic can also be present in the food you eat and the water you
drink and the air you breathe.
Three slices of bacon(normal breakfast portion) would be 30 grams of
bacon.
The FDA allows there to be 500 nanograms of Arsenic(that deadly
cancer causing poison) in each gram of bacon and still be safe.
3 slices of bacon could have 15,000 nanograms of Arsenic and still be
FDA safe.
There are about 32 nanograms of Arsenic in ALL of the smoke
(mainstream and side stream) from the average cigarette.
You would have to inhale ALL of the smoke from 469 cigarettes(23.44
packs) to equal the FDA safe amount of Arsenic in those 3 slices of
bacon.
The FDA allows as 'safe' the same 500 nanograms per gram of arsenic
to be in eggs.
A large egg weighs about 2 ounces or 57 grams, two eggs(a normal
portion) would weigh 114 grams and could have 57,000 nanograms of
arsenic(that deadly cancer causing poison) and still be considered
FDA 'safe'.
That amount of arsenic is equal to the arsenic in all of the smoke
from 1,781 cigarettes(89 packs).
Your 2 eggs and 3 slices of bacon FDA SAFE breakfast could contain
the amount of arsenic equal to ALL all of the smoke from 2,250
cigarettes/112.5 packs and still be considered FDA SAFE.
Oooh,you say that you had a 6 oz juice and a 6 oz cup of coffee with
your breakfast!
The EPA says that the safe level for arsenic in water is 10 nanograms
per gram.
That 12 oz of liquid(mostly water) could have 3,408 nanograms of
arsenic and still be EPA SAFE.
That is the amount of arsenic in all of the smoke from 106.5
cigarettes.
Thus, your breakfast could be FDA and EPA safe even if it contained
the amount of arsenic in all of the smoke from 2,356.5(11.78 cartons)
cigarettes!!
Another of the toxic chemicals is Carbon Monoxide(CO).
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/
healt.....ecognition.html
OSHA PEL
The current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for carbon monoxide is 50 parts per million (ppm) parts of air (55 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m(3))) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration [29 CFR Table Z-1].
http://www.advisorybodies.doh....../PDFS/
nfdpm.pdf
Carbon Monoxide(CO) Yield- mg/cigarette
The range is from 1 mg/cig to 12 mg/cigarette.
I will use the average yield of 10 mg/cigarette.
A smoker would have to smoke 5 cigarettes at the same time to reach OSHA's PEL for CO.
Here:
http://www.babfar.com/images/Car...%
20Monoxide.pdf
See the chart.
We find the exposure level to CO that will cause symptoms.
Parts Carbon Monoxide(CO) per million parts of air and the effect:
200 = Possible headache in two to three hours
400 = Head ache and nausea after one to two hours
800 = Head ache,dizziness, and nausea in about 3/4 hour; collapse and possible unconsciousness in two hours.
OSHA's PEL is 1/4th of the minimum level to cause symptoms.
A smoker would have to smoke 20 cigarettes at the same time,continuously for at least 2 hours, to possibly have a headache from the CO.
A non-smoker,exposure of no more than 1/100th of a smoker, would have to be exposed to the smoke from 2,000 cigarettes at the same time, continuously for at least 2 hours, to possibly have a headache from the CO.
Polonium210
(thanks to Mike McF.)
http://www.acsa.net/HealthAlert/
...RadioBacco.html
we see the following: "It has been estimated that the intake of 210Po by a typical smoker is about 0.72 pCi per pack of 20 cigarettes.
and from MSNBC's website:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/a...1/29/
16270.aspx
We see: "The amount is key. We might notice no ill results from billionths of a curie (which serves as a measure of activity). In contrast, Litvinenko is thought to have been exposed to something around 5 millicuries (thousandths of a curie), said Kelly Classic, associate editor for media relations at the Health Physics Society."
Let's say they find that the "several millicuries" that killed the Russian were actually just 3 millicuries. A 30 cig per day smoker gets 1 picocurie per day.
A millicurie is 1,000 microcuries, or 1,000,000 nanocuries, or 1,000,000,000 picocuries,
At 365 days per year,our smoker would have to smoke 30 cigarettes per day for 2,739,726 years to be exposed to only 1/3rd of the dose that was used to kill that Russian.
A non-smoker is exposed to no more than 1/100th as much smoke as a smoker.
A non-smoker would have to be exposed to SHS/ETS for 273,972,600(about 274 million) years to be exposed to only 1/3rd of the dose that was used to kill that Russian.
Nice maths, Gary. Conclusion: TC makes the poison.
If 'honest' information is going to be placed on each cigarette pack,it will take a multi-page pamphlet to present all of the relevent stuff!!
The numbers about the amount of the chemicals in cigarette smoke comes from 'The Massachusetts Benchmark Study, Final Report 07/24/00' as referenced on pages 64-65 of Michael McFadden's book "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" and by him here: http://www.antibrains.com/shs.html
See bottom of article.
For instance using Cyanide and Formaldehyde:
Chemical....PEL/TLV...amount in cigarette smoke
Cyanide.....5,000 mcg/m3..... 716 mcg
Formaldehyde..... 940 mcg/m3. 856 mcg
Our little bar of 740 m3 could have 814 cigarettes continuously burning and not exceed the PEL/TLV for Formaldehyde and 5,167 for Cyanide.
With an air replacement rate of once every 8.3 minutes and 10 minutes for a cigarette to burn, the hourly rate for Formaldehyde is 4,884 cigarettes and cyanide is 31,002 cigarettes.
With our little bar having a rated capacity of 80,we see that each smoker could have 10 cigarettes continuously lit for 8 hours and not exceed the PEL/TLV for Formaldehyde and could have 64 cigarettes continuously lit for 8 hours and not exceed the PEL/TLV for Cyanide.
A smoker's exposure to those 'TOXIC CHEMICALS'.
As was shown, OSHA PELS would allow the total smoke(SHS/MS) from:
Arsenic=312.5 cigarettes/m3
Cyanide=7 cigarettes/m3
CO=5.5 cigarettes/m3
Formaldehyde=1 cigarette/m3
The Calif-EPA says that a sitting person breathes about 7.5 liters of air per minute.
(California Environmental Protection Agency)
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/r...notes/94-
11.htm
15 breaths x .5 liter/breath=7.5 liters per minute.
I have experimented and it takes about 5 minutes for me to smoke the average cigarette and I take 2 puffs per minute.
Of my 15 breaths per minute, two would be inhalations of mainstream smoke(say, 1 liter per puff) and 13 would be SHS of .5 liter per breath.
That is 8.5 liters per minute or 42.5 liters for the 5 minutes per cigarette.
If we take a sealed cube 1 meter on a side(1m3) and have all of the smoke and air staying in that cube, we can approximate the OSHA PELS and my consumption.
1 m3 = 1,000 liters.
1,000 liters divided by my 42.5 liters per cigarette means I inhale only 1/23rd of the available smoke and chemicals.
Even for Formaldehyde(PEL=1 cigarette's worth), I am inhaling only 1/23rd of the PEL.
Considering that the real world does not have me breathing in a sealed cube and that there is a continuous air exchange with fresh outside air, my actual exposure is way lower.
A non-smoker sitting 20 feet away in a non-smoking section of a restaurant or bar would have,perhaps,1/1,000th of my exposure.(Kevin should be able to do the math.)
As For the anti-smoker TC crowd and their politician friends,their problem is this:
http://olbroad.com/wp-content/
up...p_your_ass2.jpg
Gary wrote, "Of my 15 breaths per minute, two would be inhalations of mainstream smoke(say, 1 liter per puff)"
Gee Gary, I don't think even Billy G. has a mouth THAT big!
;>
MJM
Michael, PRICELESS lol
Gary wrote, "A non-smoker sitting 20 feet away in a non-smoking section of a restaurant or bar would have,perhaps,1/1,000th of my exposure.(Kevin should be able to do the math"
Gary, if you refer to the "ETS Exposure" Appendix in Brains I think you'll find that after looking at a number of studies and models I eventually concluded with pretty decent justification that 1/1,000th was a quite reasonable estimate in most normal but decently ventilated situations. Probably somewhat more in a moderately crowded bar and probably a good amount less in an uncrowded restaurant provided both had ventilation standards that met modern expectations of comfort.
Back in ye olden days of yore when "air filtration" was virtually unheard of outside of engineering and hospital clean rooms, when the smoking population concentration was double what it is today and people tended to simply ignore blue hazes of smoke hanging in the air the Surgeon Generals' picked studies tended to show about 1/100th exposure levels.
See some of Roger Jenkins' studies for some carefully measured figures (I think his "16 cities" study might be the one I'm thinking of at the moment.)
The "bio-physical model" in Brains came out pretty clearly on the side of the 1/1,000th figure.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Everybody and everything is made up of "star stuff"! Not 10,000 not 100,000 just simple "star stuff" the one and only ingredient of all things. Does that answer the question Doc?
Excellent stuff, Gary.
I believe that some of what he quoted about arsenic comes for the Clash website.
http://www.nycclash.com/
CaseAgai...eadStudies.html
Also on the site is Littlewood & Fennel's chart of about 20 of the measurable constituents and how many cigarettes you;d have to smoke or be exposed to to reach OSHA Pel's:
http://www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html
:
nemo31
Ever since I discovered that the iron in my blood came from the body of an exploded star, I've taken a different view of life.
Whatever happens,its hard not to feel confident when you know that you have stardust running through your veins.
The Calif-EPA says that a sitting person breathes about 7.5 liters of air per minute.
(California Environmental Protection Agency)
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/r...h/r...notes/94-
11.htm
15 breaths x .5 liter/breath=7.5 liters per minute.
I have experimented and it takes about 5 minutes for me to smoke the average cigarette and I take 2 puffs per minute.
Of my 15 breaths per minute, two would be inhalations of mainstream smoke(say, 1 liter per puff) and 13 would be SHS of .5 liter per breath.
That is 8.5 liters per minute or 42.5 liters for the 5 minutes per cigarette.
If we take a sealed cube 1 meter on a side(1m3) and have all of the smoke and air staying in that cube, we can approximate the OSHA PELS and my consumption.
1 m3 = 1,000 liters.
1,000 liters divided by my 42.5 liters per cigarette means I inhale only 1/23rd of the available smoke and chemicals.
A non-smoker who has 1,000th of my exposure would be inhaling about 1/23,000th of the available smoke and chemicals.
Since we are talking about chemicals that are present in parts per million/billion/trillion, just stating that they are toxic and are present( or guessed at being present) without showing the amount of exposure is not honest health advocacy.
Gary
Sound familiar?
"The Reverend George Trask, author of the widely circulated 1852 tract "Thoughts and Stories for American Lads" (sub-titled "Uncle Toby's Anti-Tobacco Advice to His Nephew Billy Bruce"), pioneered the misuse of statistics in warning of the dangers of tobacco.
"Physicians tell us that twenty thousand or more in our own land are killed by [tobacco] every year," Trask wrote in 1859.
"German physicians tell us that of deaths of men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, one-half originate from this source."
"Makings for millions of "roll-your-own" cigarettes also were sold every year.
Despite those seemingly dramatic increases, cigarettes quickly developed a most unsavory reputation.
First, their newness made them easy targets for the vilest rumors; cigarette papers were said to be saturated with opium, arsenic, and other poisons.
Cigarette tobacco reportedly was gleaned from cigar butts retrieved from urban gutters by derelicts and street urchins.
More revolting was the widely circulated report that cigarette-factory workers urinated on the tobacco to give it "bite." The fact that cigarette smoke was inhaled-a practice not usually associated with cigar or pipe smoking made the alleged "adulterations" even more dangerous"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/T...ed&
start_page=1
"Even if death did not immediately claim the young smoker, failing health surely would. Among the maladies attributed to cigarette smoking were color blindness, "tobacco ambylopia" (a weakening of the eyesight), baldness, stunted growth, insanity, sterility, drunkenness, impotence (or sexual promiscuity, depending on the point to be made), mustaches on women, and that traditional bugaboo of nineteenth century America, constipation."
Rose; some things never change and the source of current medical knowledge about cigarettes, is so noted...
"stunted growth" I remember that one. My mother used to tell me that when I was a child, but I was under the impression that she didn't believe it herself. My father, a smoker, was of normal stature ...
"The American cigarette industry had prospered not only in spite of the extensive anticigarette activity but in some ways because of it.
First, people simply liked cigarettes; they were cheap, easy to smoke, and were better suited than either pipes, cigars, or the ubiquitous rural plug for the frenetic pace of city life. Paradoxically, cigarettes were shedding their effeminate image while at the same time women were taking them up in ever-increasing numbers.
Also, the antismokers' exaggerated claims of the cigarette's deleterious effects were impossible to sustain, and thus eventually proved self-defeating. Whatever reasonable arguments the antismokers had to offer against cigarettes-and as recent developments indicate, they had the right idea but the wrong criteria-were lost in the barrage of idiotic pronouncements and ill-considered "facts."
This discovery must have been a huge blow.
"The name of this vitamin derives from a PR nightmare. Because niacin is derived from nicotine -- the same stuff in tobacco -- it was originally called nicotinic acid.
In the 1930s, scientists discovered that nicotinic acid prevented pellagra, a disease that caused skin eruptions, gastric disturbances, nervous and mental dysfunction.
So American food companies began adding nictonic acid to their products, such as bread "enriched" with this vitamin.
This prompted dire warnings from anti-tobacco groups, who insisted--erroneously, it turns out--that eating bread containing nicotinic acid would cause cigarette cravings.
The name proved so problematic that in 1942, nicotinic acid was finally rechristened niacin -- a combination of the first two letters of each word in its original name (nicotinic acid), plus a common chemical suffix, in."
Boston December 30th 1959
Lung Cancer Cause
A man who has devoted his scientific career to a study of the causes of cancer warns that air pollution is a more important factor than cigarette smoking in the increase of lung cancer.
He is Dr, Wilhelm C Hueper, chief of the environmental section of the National Cancer Institute at Bethesda, and he makes the significant observation that the upsurge in lung cancer first was noted between 1900 and 1920, several years before the practice of cigarette smoking was widespread.
Boston, having one of the most serious air pollution in the entire United States, cannot fail to be impressed - and disturbed - by Dr Hueper's findings.
We have always suspected that there was a connection between our contaminated air and the fact that tuberculosis is more prevalent in Boston than in any comparable city, and Bethesda studies support that suspicion.
The next session of the Legislature would do well to pass laws against the needless poisoning of the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks.
Other places, notably Pittsburgh, have proved the wisdom of screening out the fumes and ashes which currently rain down upon Boston and other cities, damaging human respiratory systems and undoubtedly shortening thousands of lives.
Enlightened Massachussetts ought to be able to accomplish at least as much in the public interest.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/a...D1?
tid=jsv02a00
"The Anti-Saloon League was founded in 1893 in Ohio. An organisation opposed to the sale of alcoholic beverages, it drew most of its support from church and temperance societies. Many business leaders believed their workers would be more productive if alcohol could be withheld with them. John D. Rockefeller, alone, donated over $350,000 to the organisation.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.c...k/
USAsaloon.htm
Vehicle emissions, industrial pollution = tobacco - two birds with one stone
Perhaps that is why Dr Siegel refrains from standing on a street corner mimicking the actions of a smoker to experience at first hand the vitriolic responses he will undoubtedly receive ? Or is it simply to ensure that he will not be presented with the fruits of the denormalisation campaign he was a willingly part of ? A charge he does little to deny but fails to accept the enormity of what has occurred.
At least these people didn't succeed with lettuce, the lettuce panic is from around the same time as Rev.Trask.
"In fact, they became quite vocal as to the incredible danger this represented to society. It would be as if someone today introduced a salad variety of marijuana.
There was great concern that lettuce would cause childlessness or would produce children with subnormal intelligence.
A whole list of horrible things were supposed to happen if people proceeded with this shameless eating of lettuce"
http://www.planetbotanic.ca/
fact..._lettuce_fs.htm
Rose
The ACS addressed the upsurge in cancer rates in their latest study that I believe. The made the claim that there probably was not an increase. TB was prevalent then and diagnosis was not as good as it is now. The report also shows that the lung cancer rates in non-smokers has remained unchanged since 1935. If SHS caused cancer you would have expected to see an increase peaking in the late 70's-80's. It did not!
http://www.plosmedicine.org/
arti...al.pmed.0050185
Here is another one that you can put in your arsenal on pollution.
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpr...s-explain-this/
Also you can show them the maps.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/gis...gis/
atmaplc.pdf
It clearly shows that lung cancer is much higher in certain locations and if you look the rates are higher for all cancer in the same locations.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/gis...is/
atmapcan.pdf
Marshall
Thank you for the links.
Now I am not scientifically trained in anyway, in fact I only came here to ask about the plant science, but there is something so simple and it keeps coming up again and again.
Bear with me.
Mapping the role of NAD metabolism in
prevention and treatment of carcinogenesis
"Abstract
Studies presented here show that cellular NAD, which we hypothesize to be the relevant biomarker of niacin status, is significantly
lower in humans than in the commonly studied animal models of carcinogenesis.
We show that nicotinamide and the resulting cellular NAD concentration modulate expression of the tumor suppressor protein, p53, in human breast, skin, and lung cells."
"Because we have shown nicotinic acid supplementation to decrease incidence of UV induced skin tumors in mice, concomitantly with elevation of skin NAD [10], we have begun to examine how niacin status in human skin affects carcinogenic processes."
"The association of lower NAD with malignancy in skin supports
the hypothesis that niacin maybe an important preventive
factor in cancer."
http://www.mentorcorp.com/pdfs-
g...Dmetabolism.pdf
Scientists have found a cream containing vitamin B3 can significantly increase the skin's ability to stop skin cancers forming.
The results will be presented at an international dermatology conference this weekend.
Even as little as six minutes in the sun can weaken the body's defences against skin cancer.
Researchers at the New South Wales Cancer Institute painted healthy volunteers with a lotion containing vitamin B3 or nicotinamide
http://www.abc.net.au/news/healt...ms/
s1366452.htm
Niacin deficiency and cancer in women
"A new interest in the relationship between niacin and cancer has evolved from the discovery that the principal form of this vitamin, NAD, is consumed as a substrate in ADP-ribose transfer reactions. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, an enzyme activated by DNA strand breaks, is the ADP-ribosyltransferase of greatest interest with regard to effects on the niacin status of cells since its Km for NAD is high, and its activity can deplete NAD.
Studies of the consequences of DNA damage in cultured mouse and human cells as a function of niacin status have supported the hypothesis that niacin may be a protective factor that limits carcinogenic events"
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/...stract/12/4/
412
NIACIN AND NIACINAMIDE IN FLUE-CURED CIGARETTE SMOKE CONDENSATE
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/a...pnx69d00&
page=1
A simple vitamin deficiency,a vitamin that the body requires to repair itself,but if the "glue" runs out the broken DNA can't be repaired.
The niacin in the smoke is too small to be very useful, but may in some cases be an indicator of a greater deficiency.
After all, a cough sweet won't cure bronchitis.
I would imagine that in polluted environments there would be a lot more repairing to be done.
Diesel Exhaust Kills Throat Cells, Study Shows
"Researchers at Deakin University have found that diesel exhaust is far more damaging to our health than exhaust from biodiesel, the plant-based fuel."
"Our research found that the particulate matter from diesel exhaust stimulated a 'death pathway' response that the body uses to dispose of damaged cells. This response caused the airway cells to fuse together and die.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...70911092135.htm
If I ever give up smoking, I will make sure that my niacin levels remain high, just in case.
Rose,
I also find it ironic that tobacco control uses outdoor EPA/DNR standards to justify bans. They take particulate level samples and try to use outdoor standards. The biggest problem with this is they take the standard and use it as a peak standard instead of a long term averaged standard. Of coarse not one of these studies was ever peer reviewed. Of course as Micheal would put it, "Science by press release"
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpr...is-at-it-again/
The most dangerous chemicals in typical cigarettes---as distinct from whatever natural chemicals exist in tobacco plants---will be left in place by the FDA. By the FDA power to reduce nicotine, smokers will get hit with that even more intensely as they smoke more, and more deeply, to get that satisfaction.
But the FDA can't do anything about the most deadly industrial chemicals. The law forbids it from doing anything about the 450 or so pesticides registered for use on tobacco. This law also forbids the FDA from addressing radiation-delivering phosphate tobacco fertilizers. All the "farm" details are left to the USDA---which, unfortunately for smokers---has long approved of those deadly substances.
How the FDA can make scientific or health determinations about anything relating to cigarettes and health without taking into account the combination effects from the pesticides, the resultant dioxins in the smoke, and that radiation, is a mystery.
The law may be said to be an instrument of crime...a tool to aid and abet the cigarette industry and its ingredient suppliers' evasion of exposure, well-deserved PR disaster, and civil and criminal charges.
No wonder Philip Morris likes it. Same for Tobacco Free Kids which is, of course, a creation of various parts of the industrial chemical community. (TFK, supposedly expert in this area, doesn't even seem to know there are ANY pesticides on tobacco...and it does't seem to know that "kids" are especially damaged by those chemicals.)
Commenting by HaloScan
