|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
You guys are masochists for continually feeding this dickwad troll. The ignore feature is indeed a beautiful thing.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------- I used to have compassion, but they legislated it and taxed it out of existence. |
||||
|
Dave, I think you and tnsmoker are right. I sure as hell don't need or want to read the planted Anti troll's misinformation and sermons for the millionth time. It's almost as if the troll thinks we have never heard before the information that he tries to stuff down our throats. He believes in Hitler's way of force feeding the Nazi's propaganda. OVER & OVER & OVER again until it is believed as fact. ladyteal |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
You quoted that website correctly, but I suspect they're wrong. Accoding to BATCo: 62% nitrogen 13% oxygen 13.5% vapour phase compounds 10% water 10% rest 4.5% TPM 4% CO 3% hydrogen, argon, and methane Nitrogen beats CO by a mile. http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/11300/11320/ Can also be seen at: http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/pdf/073/00007425.pdf From: Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction (2001) Institute of Medicine http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309072824/html/288.html They also have CO at 4%, nitrogen at 62%. |
|||
|
normal air contains roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.97% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, in addition to water vapor. I think the figures you are quoting Squeezer are for low tar cigarettes which, as you know have ventilation holes around the filter. One would expect that tobacco companies have done extensive analasis of tobacco smoke and the research should be accessable however it is very challenging to wade through the reams of documents looking for good accurate numbers. The documents we have both referenced don't identify the type of cigarette refered to. Different cigarettes would have different concentrations.
gkayser30, I see you want to change the challenge also. Here is another modification for you. Ladyteal can bring a friend and I can bring a friend. We start off 100 miles from Ladyteal's garage and the cigarettes to be used for the challenge. At the drop of the flag Ladyteal has here friend drive me to her garage on a carton of cigarettes identical to the ones she will be smoking and my friend drives ladyteal to the location of the challenge in a car identical to the one in her garage. Both the cars and the cigarettes will be brand new and in working condition. On arriving at the challenge site each person imediately starts the challenge. Last one standing wins. This puts usefullness of the product into the challenge. The challenge is she breathes in nothing but cigarette smoke from full strength cigarettes and I breath in nothing but pure undiluted car exhaust. Ofcourse we may both exhale but we must only inhale the chosen product. I'm up for it, any takers? Hey lets make it interesting, I'll bet $20,000US against an equal bet. I need to cover my travel costs. Of course gkayser30, your welcome to take ladyteals place if you like. |
||||
|
Dear 'Know it all', I was not going to reply to any more of your posts;but, this is too hilariously absurd to ignore. A carton of cigarettes measures about 4"x9" and has neither motor or wheels. The mental image of you and another adult sitting on a carton of cigarettes and trying to scoot it along for one foot,much less 100 miles,is absolutely precious. I would like to take you up on your wager;but,you have some technical problems to work out first. I have given up on praying for you and your Dementia,you are beyond hope, goodbye. |
||||
|
Don't worry about the technical problems, I will be laughing to hard to worry as you drive of to suck nothing but clean pure healthy tobacco smoke. By the time your friend gets me there you should be in a right state.
Now I understand your inability to undertand very much but do you see how this ilustrates the stupidity of the comparison? Why would anyone with 2 neurons or more compare a car with cigarettes? The only comparison I can think of is you might buy a car on credit and pay for it over 5 years, cigarettes you pay for the rest of your life. |
||||
|
Remember, gkayser, we still have freedom of choice here on this site, unlike in I know NOTHING'S perfect little world.
That freedom of choice is called the ignore feature. Join me. Make your life more pleasant. It's oh so worth it. ---------------------- BAN THE BANNERS!!! |
||||
|
People don't realize how lucky they are to HAVE that ignore feature, as you and I can attest to from other sites.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- I used to have compassion, but they legislated it and taxed it out of existence. |
||||
|
You got that right, Dave.
I used to think it was fun to spar with these imbeciles, but now, I find it to only be tiring. ---------------------- BAN THE BANNERS!!! |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
The reason I bothered to look up my links was because your number was so far off from what I recalled reading and I had never seen the links I furnished before this. I once wrote a Canadian government health website and told them the amount of CO they had listed in a cigarette would kill a smoker in no time. They took that page down before I went back there 24 hours later. There's just not that much CO in tobacco smoke. I don't care what kind of tobacco you're talking about. Feel free to prove me wrong if you like. |
|||
|
There's not much SMOKE in cigarette smoke. Here's something the Anti's never bring up:
My brother-in-law died in a house fire in 2004. Since then, my wife made me put a smoke detector in every single room of my house. Even when subtracting the time I'm away from home (work, running errands, etc.), I probably still manage to smoke about 20 cigarettes a day inside my house. I ask this of the Anti's: Why don't my smoke alarms ever go off? Yes, I check the batteries regularly........... |
||||
|
Even though you put your question to "anti's", I may be able to answer this one Pat.
Because your smoke alarm is set to a level that allows you to smoke in your house. I think a house on fire may make a little more smoke than 20 cigarettes over a 24 hour period. Edit: What was the cause of the house fire by the way? Avoidable Tragedies Most residential fires are preventable, although it is a difficult fact to face for victims trying to rebuild their lives after a family member is lost or a house is destroyed after a fire. The simple, daily act of cooking is the leading cause of home fires in the United States. Usually, kitchen fires result from unattended stoves or ovens, rather than mechanical failure of kitchen appliances. The number one cause of death from fire is careless smoking. http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/fires/010406housefires.html end edit Squeezer I didn't post a number for carbon monoxide or any other gas. Only the solid particles, I believe this is represented as TPM in your post. Yes I can see your number is less than half. Here is some more about the CO in car exhaust and cigarette smoke http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/ce3.pdf For example cigarette smoke contains much higher concentrations of carbon monoxide (0.5-5% v/v) than the auto exhaust from a well maintained vehicle. This concentration of CO would be lethal if inhaled continuously for ~30 minutes. Lady Teal, see why I cut the time down to 20 minutes? I'm not a murderer. 383rr and dave clark, your ignore button isn't working is it? So your eating sand for no gain. I think that is so funny. This message has been edited. Last edited by: I know it all, |
||||
|
IKIA: My brother-in-law's house fire started in the garage. Some kind of electrical short. He was a nonsmoker. He was asleep when it started, and woke up to a smoke-filled house. He called 911, but they arrived too late. He couldn't get out. The point I was trying to make about home smoke detectors is that they are designed to react to significant concentrations of smoke. Since tobacco smoke is nowhere near as concentrated as smoke from burning house parts, the detectors don't react.But the Antis claim that shs is just as "deadly." The former US Surgeon General claimed that just standing next to someone smoking could cause a heart attack in 30 seconds. Also, there is no way I can believe that a cigarette contains higher concentrations of CO2 than a well-maintained car exhaust system. A person inside a closed garage would be dead in a half hour with a running car. Therefore, if what you said was true, a smoker would die after just one cigarette, and sooner.
|
||||
|
The exercise of the challenge to IKIA proved something to me that I have suspected for a long time. You surely noticed that IKIA could not accept my challenge, without being in control of the challenge. This characterizes the Anti Tobacco fanatics. They are really all about "CONTROL". I suspect that 99.9% of them are control freaks. But there is an aspect of all of our lives were we have no control, and of course, this drives the Antis crazy. So they think by controlling SHS, smokers, obese persons, and what we all eat that it will put them more in control. What is this aspect of lack of control that drives them crazy? DEATH!
They cannot accept the fact that no matter what they do, they have no control over death. Their deaths to be more precise. They think that by elminating all of life risks, death will surely pass them by, or at least let them reach a ripe old age and then die peacefully in their sleep. Surely, they think, they will not die young. It's all about CONTROL. This message has been edited. Last edited by: ladyteal, ladyteal |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
I wasn't faulting you in my first post. You must not have caught what I was pointing out. They stated: "The major gas present is carbon monoxide." Unless their language differs vastly from mine, "the major gas" means the largest fraction. It's not. There's 3x the oxygen in tobacco smoke as there is CO. I don't see where they come off saying CO is the major gas. As far as smoke alarms go, ours often goes off when making pizza and there's less smoke coming out of the oven than from someone smoking. It's not being set off by heat either. My wife lived in a house where taking a shower would set off the smoke alarm. |
|||
|
That is not a scientific paper but emotionally charged and value laden piece of antismoking propaganda, masquerading as a lab experiment for kids. They take cigarette smoke via an airtight flask, where the smoke is sucked in with a vacuum at an extremely slow rate (0.5-1 liters/min, which is order of magnitude lower than human inhalation, starving the flame to minimize the oxygen supply to the burning tobacco; it is slow enough that filtered and nonfiltered cigarettes give indistinguishable readings within 95% CI, which in any scientific measurement are quite distinct), while for car exhaust they warm up a well tuned car to bring it into optimum operating mode, then out in the open, wave an open plastic zipper bag somewhere around the exhaust and close it at their own discretion (presumably, the best grade goes to the student which gets the lowest car exhaust CO vs cigarette CO). Further, the language of the article is highly emotionally charged, "toxic" is inserted anywhere near "smoking" or "tobacco". It's as toxic piece of antismoking propaganda for children as they get. The basic fact is that CO poisoning from car exhausts is fairly common (e.g. a car running for 10 minutes in a closed residential garage produces lethal dose) while there is no recorded death, or even injury requiring medical intervention, from CO in tobacco smoke. The CO concentrations in tobacco smoke are precisely in the range in which CO is therapeutic for humans, as one would expect from a medicinal plant cultivated and selected over millennia for beneficial effects of its smoke i.e. at these concentrations CO acts as a messenger/signal (and not as a toxin) to cellular biochemical networks to up-regulate the oxygen supply, reduce blood clot formation and the net oxygenation of cells is improved at these levels of exposure. That's one of the reasons why smoking is beneficial for pregnant women, reducing dangerous hypertension in proper dose-response manner, in the common range of human smoking rates (from few cigarettes to 2-3 packs per day, the higher smoking the higher protection against hypertension). THE EFFECT OF CIGARETTE SMOKING ON THE RISK OF PREECLAMPSIA AND GESTATIONAL HYPERTENSION SYLVIE MARCOUX, JACQUES BRISSON and JACQUELINE FABIA American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 130, No. 5: 950-957 This case-control study assessed the relation of cigarette smoking during pregnancy to the risk of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension. All subjects were primiparous women without a history of high blood pressure who gave birth in Quebec City or Montreal, Canada, hospitals between 1984 and 1986. Cases (172 women with preeclampsia and 251 with gestational hypertension) and 505 controls were interviewed at the hospital after delivery. Adjusted relative risks were estimated by polychotomous logistic regression. Compared with women who had never smoked, women who were smokers at the onset of pregnancy had a reduced risk of preeclampsia (relative risk = 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.77). Relative risks of preeclampsia decreased with Increases in the number of cigarettes smoked daily at the onset of pregnancy: Relative risks among smokers of less than 11, 11-20, and more than 20 cigarettes per day were 0.79, 0.56, and 0.38, respectively (test for trend: p = 0.0002). The protective effect of smoking on preeclampsia was stronger for women who continued to smoke after 20 weeks of pregnancy. While smoking tended to reduce the risk of gestational hypertension, this effect was less evident than that for preeclampsia. Relative risks varied little with severity of disease as based on gestational age at the onset of hypertension, maximal blood pressure and, for preeclampsia, amount of proteinuria. The reduction in mean birth weight attributable to smoking during pregnancy was similar among cases and controls. Nicotine Inhibition of throm-boxane A2 production might explain the decreased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension among smokers. Despite these findings, the harmful consequences of smoking on pregnancy outcome outweigh its protective effect against pregnancy-induced hypertension. Further, CO at these concentrations also reduces blood clot formation (and helps their dissolution), improves oxygenation and helps recovery after strokes and heart attacks, especially of brain. Here is one short article (strongly biased against smoking, as indicated in the quoted text below) on the topic (the original scientific paper is here) of benefits of CO by itself, at the levels typically obtained from tobacco smoke (this doesn't include several other therapeutic biochemical mechanisms of tobacco smoke, such as nitric oxide compounds, Coenzyme Q10, nicotinic acid & its salts, nicotine, which are all already used in pharmaceuticals for circulatory problems & protection against oxidative stress damage). While beneficial effects of low dose (signaling levels) CO are demonstrated in the lab, as purely causal relations, the obligatory antismoking paragraph on "harmful" effects (which weren't the subject of this study in the first place) added at the end of the article, is based on the usual non-causal statistical associations, where they compare apples and oranges (such as pregnancies of inner city smoking women who may be meth or crack whores with pregnancies of non-smoking highly health conscious suburban women). When Preventing Pre-eclampsia, A Little Carbon Monoxide Goes A Long Way Science Daily - Researchers have shown that carbon monoxide may prevent the placental cell death caused by oxidative stress injury, possibly averting the risks of pre-eclampsia. The report by Bainbridge et al., "Carbon monoxide inhibits hypoxia/reoxygenation-induced apoptosis and secondary necrosis in syncytiotrophoblast," appears in the September issue of The American Journal of Pathology. Pre-eclampsia, a form of pregnancy-associated hypertension, affects 5-7% of pregnancies and poses serious risks for both mother and child. If maternal blood vessels at the placental barrier fail to remodel and adapt to the changing nutrient/oxygen needs of the growing fetus, the maternal blood pressure rises in an effort to improve nutrient delivery. This leads to oxidative stress and damage to the placenta, specifically to the syncytiotrophoblast. When syncytiotrophoblast cells die, they are released into the maternal circulation, initiating a cascade of inflammation that can damage maternal organs. Interestingly, mothers who smoke cigarettes during pregnancy have a 33% decreased risk of developing pre-eclampsia compared to nonsmokers. New research questions whether the carbon monoxide found in cigarette smoke, and subsequently carried in a smoking mother's blood, may be the cause. Carbon monoxide, which is produced naturally by the body at low levels, possesses vessel-relaxing and cytoprotective activities that may prevent syncytiotrophoblast cell death and the resulting injury to fetus and mother. Dr. Graeme Smith and colleagues examined this hypothesis using tissue from term human placentas obtained following elective caesarian section from nonsmoking, low-risk women. When cultured tissues were exposed to oxidative stress (hypoxia and re-oxygenation), syncytiotrophoblast cell death occurred. However, when tissues were treated with carbon monoxide, at levels similar to those found in blood of smoking mothers, cell death was significantly reduced. Further, carbon-monoxide-treated tissues did not demonstrate the hallmarks of syncytiotrphoblast cell injury and death, such as condensation of DNA, clumping of nuclei, and separation of cells from the rest of the tissue. These studies have delineated possible mechanisms behind smoking's protective effects on pre-eclampsia and identified carbon monoxide as a possible treatment modality. The use of carbon monoxide in preventing hypoxia/re-oxygenation injury in organ transplantation underscores its potential usefulness here. Future studies will determine whether carbon monoxide can prevent syncytiotrophoblast death in animal models and whether other approaches similar to carbon monoxide may provide feasible protection. Finally, while cigarette smoking during pregnancy has been correlated with lowered incidence of pre-eclampsia, any perceived benefit of smoking during pregnancy is outweighed by its risks: premature membrane rupture, preterm delivery, stillbirth, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome. This work was supported by the Strategic Training Initiative in Research in Reproductive Health Sciences, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Work was directed by Dr. Graeme Smith from the Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Reference: Bainbridge SA, Belkacemi L, Dickinson M, Graham CH, Smith GN. Carbon monoxide inhibits hypoxia/reoxygenation-induced apoptosis and secondary necrosis in syncytiotrophoblast. Am J Pathol 2006 169:774-783. This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight, |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
From that link:
"In addition this leads to the obvious question: why isn’t smoking immediately lethal? The answer must lie in the fact that smokers do not inhale continuously on the cigarette." And here I thought it was God protecting them. Cigarettes may have a higher level of CO than car exhaust, but tie a giant bag to the end of a tailpipe and have a smoker blow into a bag the same size and see which one fills first. (Really has nothing to do with this discussion) Btw, remember Repace(?) sneaking into that cigar smoking event? The best he could say was the CO levels were similar to standing next to a busy freeway. |
|||
|
You are giving that piece of junk far too much credit. If you read the whole thing, you will see that it is a piece of antismoking propaganda for kids disguised as a lab demonstration, with setup carefully rigged to yield the desired conclusion (i.e. they compare 'second hand' exhaust of optimally tuned & warmed up car, additionally highly diluted at the whim of experimenter vs the extremely oxygen starved, concentrated, first-hand tobacco smoke), not a genuine scientific experiment from which it departs by couple orders of magnitude. Had they put three flasks with a mouse in each, one taking in cigarette smoke (e.g. at the rate and of the kind that smoker or those around him inhale), one car exhaust and third one regular air, the car exhaust mouse would have died within minutes, while the other two would be perfectly fine, with the only difference that the smoking mouse would solve maze problems quicker, be less stressed out and be generally a happier mouse. For animal experiments with lifelong tobacco smoke exposures, even at the levels of smoking a carton a day, the smoking animals live significantly longer and have better health than non-smoking animals, including getting fewer lung and other cancers. See for example an extensive literature review, pages 95-100 of the report cover animal experiments e.g. on page 98 "...might be explained by the significantly longer lifespan of the smoke-exposed hamsters" or similarly on page 97 "...the lowest number of tumors occurred in the smoke-exposed rats. Among the latter, the largest number of tumors occurred in rats exposed to cigarettes having the lowest levels of nicotine". The CO levels in tobacco smoke yield the blood CO concentrations well tuned into the biochemical "sweet spot" (the signaling level), as is the case with so many other components of tobacco smoke, where it is the most beneficial for the improved oxygenation of tissues and protection against oxidative stress and blood clotting. That is demonstrated in the lab experiments even without the other components in tobacco smoke (such nitric oxides, CoQ10, nicotine, nicotinic acid & salts and likely other unknown presently or other induced effects such as stimulation of gluthatione & other antioxidants), all symbiotically reinforcing the benefits of each other. Of all the sources of smoke and vapors we inhale every day, tobacco plant is the only one specifically cultivated and honed over thousands of years precisely for the medicinal properties of its smoke, and it is by far the most benevolent of them all. This message has been edited. Last edited by: nightlight, |
||||
|
This will probably give you a hint as to how old I am, but I'm not ashamed of my age. When I became pregnant with my first child, I asked my doctor if I should quit smoking. I didn't want to, but I asked anyway. He said NO, it would probably do more harm than good. So after breathing a big sigh of relief, I kept smoking.
My son was born healthy and weighed almost 7 pounds. I'm a small-boned person and so is my husband. 4 years later with my 2nd pregnancy, I didn't even ask about not smoking. I just smoked. Anyway, my 2nd son weighed in at 7 pounds 5 ounces. So much for smoking causing low birth weight. If my smoking caused them to be lower in birth weight, thank GOD I smoked. I wouldn't have wanted to deliver anything bigger than what my boys were! OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL ladyteal |
||||
|
|