More Cancer-Causing Chemicals in U.S. Cigarettes

Reader Comments
Back to article

Anyone who believes the FDA lock/stock/and barrel deserves what happens to them. The FDA has proven to be liars and money mongers over and over again. They are in bed with the Big Pharmas and Tobacco companies. They care nothing about your health or they would ban cigarettes which contain 4000+ checmicals including carpet glue, formaldehyde, and others and support electronic cigarettes which contain at the most 20, most of which are Pharmaceutical grade and perfectly safe. The ALA, ACS, WHO and others are also on the "FDA" bandwagon caring nothing about your health, but how much profit they are making off of taxes and sales of "reduced harm products" that are PROVEN to be non-effective.
It just goes to show, don't believe everything you hear or read! Buy an electronic cigarette and SAVE YOURSELF!

michael of WA 4:25PM June 04, 2010

I smoked for 22 years until I discovered electronic cigarettes. I only tried them because of a $10 per carton tax that the govt imposed last April. Within two weeks of using an E-cig, (May 1st, 2009) I quit smoking altogether. It was pretty easy actually. Everyone who smokes should try them! WWW.VAPORCONCEPTS.COM is a good place to buy them, but there are lots of companies you could try. The main thing is to stop smoking tobacco! E-cigs give you the nicotine and tobacco flavor that a smoker needs, but not the evil stuff that Big Tobacco puts into cigarettes. Plus, you get to exhale lots of vapor that looks just like smoke. (that's what sold me on the idea) I think that they are the greatest invention since Penicillin, and I will never go back to tobacco!

22yearsmoker of KY 10:43PM June 02, 2010

The physical properties of nicotine are such, that no trace of whole nicotine could possibly survive after burning. The creation of nicotinic acid [niacin] is the reality.
The question we all have to ask the so called "experts" is;
Why have they been telling us for decades that "smokers are addicted to nicotine"?
When obviously in actual scientific reality, this claim could not possibly be sustained.
The term "Sin taxes" should give you a clue.
The essay by John Stuart Mill [circa 1850s]can fill in the blanks.

Kevin Mulvina 11:11AM June 02, 2010

Cash is king and reputation like corporate branding, is a product you purchase and rarely have to earn. "No safe level of second hand smoke" should be the hallmark in revealing their deceptive nature. The statement offers no useful information and is repeated only for emotional appeal, among those who are not listening. No safe level applies to water to milk and almost any element you might encounter through your life. All have some degree of risk so in strict mathematical terms "there is no safe level of anything". What is amusing in all of this is that the lifetime risk of drinking whole milk is very close to 250% higher than the lifetime risk of second hand tobacco smoke.
Are they going to tax and ban the milk monitor from your child's school?
You can never tell, when the fanatics are elevated to prominence, by governments desperate to promote "fear", which in turn creates "need" in a supply and demand manipulation, affording huge expenditures of your tax dollars, in a "lobby me please" arrangement.
Obama promised to end the lobby games, he lied and made matters much worse. Elevating the most obvious of financially conflicted lobbyists, to health centric advisory boards, where they can ply their trade directly. Improving profits to all the stakeholders by cutting out the middle man.
And we all bought it, whether we wanted it or not.

Kevin Mulvina 10:49AM June 02, 2010

The studies posted earlier confirm two basic points which anyone concerned with legitimate science should consider. First the so called "tobacco specific carcinogens" or more correctly "nicotine specific carcinogens" are reduced by 90% when the tobacco is burned and secondly pyrosynthesis [toxins created in the process of burning] to create these toxins does not happen.
Alternative products such as medical treatments sold in child friendly flavors by cartoon characters reminiscent of the Flintstones singing about Winstons and advertised falsely, claiming to "double your chances of quitting" have more than a 98% failure rate compared to the 90% of smokers who successfully quit by cold turkey. In effect they reduce dramatically your chances of quitting successfully. The doubles number is derived "in comparison to placebo" [although they never tell you that unless you press them] with the fraudulent contention that those on placebos couldn't tell they were being treated with placebos and quit trying in higher numbers, without the aid of these miraculous snake oil cures.
Smoking reduces nicotine specific carcinogens significantly, whereas the treatments do not reduce them in the least. Nicotine unfortunately all comes from one place and all the spin in the world can not avoid the truth of the matter. E-cigs because the flash point of nicotine is 90 degrees they do replicate smoking to a much higher degree than the so called "medical treatments" because a transformation to gas does occur. However a reduction of tobacco specific carcinogens is doubtful especially in amounts comparable to the 90% lowered amounts found in tobacco smoke. I would be cautious when relying on financially conflicted rumors with no real science available.
When we are told that smokers are addicted to nicotine that is a misleading half truth, they are actually addicted to feel good endorphins released by the nicotinic acid that is created by burning nicotine, which initiates aceto-chlorine receptors in the brain. This is the same process which occurs when you smell home baked bread. Identical because the chemistry is identical. You see; nicotinic acid has another name, Niacin or vitamin B3 the same stuff they put in your daily bread, to avoid a nasty disease known as pallegra. The aroma of Baked bread which any real estate salesperson will attest, will greatly enhance the chances of selling your home, because the smell of baked bread makes people feel comforted and confident.
The medical mafia and the leech charities who promise mythical cures have been working hand in hand for decades, with full knowledge that they deliberately provided us less than nothing and the addiction to cash keeps them silent in a don't ask don't tell arrangement, that has survived for over 50 years.

Kevin Mulvina 10:48AM June 02, 2010

@Spencer
wow, that's a really good point... the better the filter, the more bad stuff would be caught in it.. and the less bad stuff would go into the lungs as smoke.
The part about the american blend vs. the "bright" being different seems to make sense. Different methods of curing/fermenting/whatever could make a big difference. But yeah, measuring the amount in the filters does seem sorta wrong. They should perhaps measure the unburned tobacco from various unfiltered brands, and measure the actual smoke once it has passed thru the filter on various filtered brands.

me of AL 9:48AM June 02, 2010

I smoked 2 packs of marlboros a day for about 18 years. I tried all the various nicotine replacement products, with varying degrees of success, but none quite satisfied me enough to make me actually lose the desire to smoke. They would make it a bit easier to force myself through a smoke-free day, but I still always had the feeling that it would be really nice to have a real smoke.
Then, I discovered Snus. I first tried the Camel and Marlboro versions that recently have begun being sold in local stores. They tasted ok, and were intriguing to me, but not very satisfying. I did some research on Snus, and I'm glad I did! It turns out that the real Swedish kind is vastly superior to the american big-tobacco company versions.
It's a product that originated in Sweden (the word Snus is Swedish for "snuff" although with a different meaning than what "snuff" means in english), and is similar in concept to american dipping tobacco (skoal copenhagen etc), except is produced in a different way and doesn't contain nearly as much carcinogen as american style chew or dip. Plus, it doesn't make lots of nasty juice that makes me have to spit. It gives a nice tingle and flavor, and a good nicotine rush as it absorbs through the gums. And it's almost impossible to tell that I have one in my lip unless I smile way too wide. No more going out in the cold to get my nic fix.
I highly recommend that any smoker try some swedish snus.. it's cheap, easy to order online, and there are lots of different strengths and flavors to try.
I won't recommend any specific website, because I am not affiliated with any, but a google search will turn up at least a couple good sellers.
Once I tried the real swedish stuff, I realized that the american ones are pathetic imitations. And once I tried the real swedish stuff, after a week or so of switching over, I have been smoke-free ever since. The remarkable part, at least to me, is that while being smoke-free, the thought or urge to smoke hasn't even crossed my mind.
Yes, I've not really quit tobacco altogether, merely substituted one form for another. But everything I've read says that snus, while maybe not 100% safe, is vastly safer than other forms (smoking, or american style dip/chew). This article mentioned the ALA chief's point of view regarding "harm reduction". I understand and agree that it would be ideal if nobody used any tobacco and nobody had any desire to. But, why not be realistic? I had essentially given up on trying to quit, even though I constantly wished that I was a non-smoker. So if I am unable or unwilling to kick the nicotine addiction altogether, why isn't harm reduction a good thing?
For anyone who enjoys the feeling of nicotine, and the taste of tobacco, I highly recommend giving it a try.

nomomarlboro of MD 9:43AM June 02, 2010

I switched to e-cigarettes 7 months ago to reduce the amount of carcinogens that I inhale, yet the FDA is trying to ban them and NY state is also trying make them illegal to sell. I haven't had any desire to smoke a traditional cigarette since. My breathing and overall health has improved tremendously.

Randy of NY 9:02AM June 02, 2010

Are we sure the study isn't on the effectiveness of some brands having filters that remove more carcinogens than others?
Shouldn't the study actually compare the smoke of different brands of cigarettes?
Smoking obviously kills, but this study seems flawed.

Spencer of CA 8:43AM June 02, 2010

Outdoor bans are even crazier than indoor bans. The chemical make-up of shs is nearly 94% water vapor and A SLIGHT AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE with about 3% being carbon monoxide AND 3% CONTAINING THOSE SUPPOSED KILLER CARCENOGENS.........
n-nitrosomines which you hear so much about is actually inorganic arsenic..what they dont tell you is that the measurements they took match the naturally occuring arsenic in the air outside everywhere.
they measured levels at 0-29 picograms
which is totally safe.its the same as drinking a glass of water..the amount has to be 5 million times that to be harmful to humans........you see how they switched it. Trying to blame shs for what is actually a natural thing. The levels of other things in shs if they can be measured at all are millions if not billions of times smaller than the amounts needed to harm anyone......just remember this second hand smoke is a joke within nano seconds from the burn it turns into WATER VAPOR.....Even the exhaled smoke is loaded down with water vapor...osha has said nothing in shs/ets is going to harm you or anyone else.....what shs will do is irritate those with weak immune responces.......thats why shs is classified as a class 3 IRRITANT BY OSHA AND THE EPA.
Remember this a prohibition movement must rely on scare tactics and big money in order to succeed to the level of getting legislation....These outdoor regulations are even crazier than the first claims made for indoor bans.......lets do the silly math if one cig lets off 29 pico grams.We will use the high side of their measurement........and it takes 5 million picograms then thats 5 million divided by 29 = IN CIGARETTES SMOKED AT ONE TIME IN A SEALED ROOM.........172,414 CIGS SMOKED SIMULTANEOUSLY..........DIVIDE THAT BY 20 TO GET PACKS.........8620 PACKS ALL TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME...........SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE........and this same thing applies to anything they claim in shs/ets.........dont be fooled
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978

harleyrider1978 of KY 8:17AM June 02, 2010