Talk:Dipping tobacco

message: :Useful data there, but it's from a blogger who appears to have an axe to grind. The blogger's original source could probably be substituted. I imagine the data itself is accurate, but I'd MUCH rather see the real source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4301:1F2D:7878:A67D:5B93:3F1C (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Better source for note 5?

message: Can someone qualified in statistics and medical risk read the Indian study cited on cardiovascular risks and evaluate what it means, and the quality of the work? Who Gives A Fuck?
I'm deleting the 'Health Concerns' section because it is so bad it can't be salvaged. If anyone wants to rewrite it please cite studies. Kfort 08:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2005

message: I'd like to suggest that links to quit resources be included on this page.  My site KillTheCan.org - http://www.killthecan.org/ has many articles about quitting written by quitters.  It has a free community located at http://forum.killthecan.org/ where quitters can get questions answered. Iuchewie 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember WP:SOAP—oac old american century talk @ 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EXTERNAL LINKS 

message: US$3.50 for a tin of Skoal? It's more like $6.50 around here.
Wow! Come down to Jacksonville, Florida...I'm getting it from Winn-Dixie for $2.90
::if you live outside the South, smokeless tobacco is ridiculously expensive.  I moved from GA to MA, and have paid almost 3 times as much for the same product. 71.192.127.216 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  prices 

message: how many tins come in a roll??  in arkansas a tin of skoal is slightly less than $5. 5, 10, or 15 cans depending on the brand. Copenhagen comes in 5 and 10 can rolls, Skoal is most common in 10 can rolls, but you can find 5 can rolls in some places. Red Seal and Rooster are the only two that I know of available in 15 can rolls.
5 cans is a roll and 10 cans is a log. At least that is true for Copenhagen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.49.186 (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  roles 

message: Can anyone add to this article to discuss the rumors (or whatever) that dipping tobacco contains additives intended to act as an abrasive and provide direct access to the bloodstream?
:I added the rumor to the page.  If anyone has any citations re: additives/plexiglass please add them.—Old american century 12:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard this rumor before although about Swedish snus, this rumor is said to be the main reason why Swedish snus cannot be distributed in the U.K - Lazersnus 06:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This rumour is known in Sweden, however, it has been said that the glass-like particles sometimes seen in snus are in fact salt (sodium chloride) crystals, possibly caused by the snus drying out. As for the "abrasion", this is claimed to be caused by the high alkalinity in snus, caused by the potash added in the manufacturing. The potash makes the nicotine more soluble, but as it is alkaline, it erodes the mucous membranes in the mouth. I don't like the way the article is worded - several sources are said to exist wrt/ the glass rumour, yet none are mentioned. I'll re-word it a bit. --Where next Columbus? (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I spoke, at length, to Jeffrey Wigand, an expert on tobacco additives, about the fiberglass story a couple of years ago. He said it was completely untrue. I realize this doesn't qualify as a citation, but hopefully it's a step in the right direction. I think perhaps the bigger issue is that consumers don't know what is in smokeless tobacco because tobacco products are not required to list ingredients. Randalllynn (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: additives

message: "Smokeless tobacco is sometimes used in the workplace by employees, especially if the employer does not provide many cigarette breaks or the employee is constantly using both hands during work (which doesn't provide opportunities for Cigarette smoking)" was edited to:
"(which does provide opportunities for Cigarette smoking)."
I think it only makes sense using doesn't, because the article is explaining that if an employee is constantly using two hands (making it difficult to smoke cigarettes), some will use smokeless tobacco instead.
Swallowing dip has no unusual effects?  Is stomach cancer not worth mentioning?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.232.61 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage

message: I removed all slang.  It became too excessive and unencyclopedic.  There  was a page for slang, but it was deleted per unanimous votes.  Should we even keep slang on this main page?  It gets spammed a lot. -- Old american century 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slang

message: Their is a lot of information about people who have gum disease have higher heart attack rates, is it safe to assume chewing is also bad for the heart?
: Yes..  I'll add that now. --'oac' (old american century) | Talk 03:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oral disease?

message: An anonymous user removed a bunch of information, which I reverted, that discussed the harm of smokeless tobacco.  The removed information had, if I remember correctly, 5 citations (two from PubMed).  Smokeless tobacco dangers are misrepresented across the internet (I added a citation for this claim, again from PubMed), and there are many studies to back up that smokeless tobacco is less harmful than smoking tobacco, which are cited in the article.  Wikipedia is to retain a NPOV stance, and withholding the above information significantly causes this article to have a POV perspective.  Please discuss controversy re: how to display health effects here.  I stand by the current content. --'oac' (old american century) | Talk 03:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over health effects

message: Somewhat irrelevent, but I changed "$6-7 in Canadian funds" to "$6-7 Canadian Dollars"; it's a more direct wording and is more technically correct. 70.179.86.82 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2008

message: Stating that dip has a high risk for oral cancer is not bias, it is the truth. I have yet to see a credible study that actually states that dipping tobacco has a low risk for oral cancer. It may be lower than some types of tobacco, but the risk is still pretty high. All of the sources that state otherwise, such as number 4, are hardly credible studies as they were done with small sample groups and not conducted over a long period of time. Source number 4 watched users for 2 years; 2 years of using dip is not nearly long enough to show that it causes cancer. The whole reason we didn't discover that cigarettes cause cancer for so long is because they weren't around for long enough until we hit the 80s after everyone had been smoking for over 40 years. Then we were able to do a real study and show the correlation. Quit putting incorrect information on this article.
: Source number 4 states that West Virginia chews the most tobacco and that their "oral/pharyngeal mortality" rates from 1950 to 1980 were lower than the US average.  Seems pretty reliable to me.  A study cited in the article from BMC Public Health states that about 1/3 of government/advocacy/educational websites contain inaccurate information on the dangers of smokeless tobacco use.  Maybe you're familiar with these inaccuracies and haven't read up sufficiently on other studies, maybe none of these studies are credible and you are correct (although I disagree with your position that this article is excessively POV).  Regardless, the studies should be cited so the reader can consider the credibility themselves.—oac old american century talk @ 15:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article never states that dipping tobacco is safe, to my knowledge.  Studies are cited that claim it is less harmful than cigarettes.  The dangers of nicotine are in the nicotine article; I don't see the need to add them here considering this article alreadylinks to the nicotine article.—oac old american century talk @ 07:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: For encyclopedic purposes, dipping tobacco seems to be identical to what Swedes and Norwegians call snus ("snuff"). Regional variations in flavoring and that it happens to have a slightly different name in Norwegian and Swedish doesn't seem to be a valid excuse for keeping separate articles about identical topics. Please merge as soon as possible.
Peter Isotalo 08:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like merging would be similar to *not* allowing Kretek it's own article.  Snus is typically placed under the upper lip, dipping tobacco is typically placed in the lower lip.  Also, saliva accumulated while dipping is typically 'spat' out, whereas snus (generally, if not always?) is spit-less.  Also, according to the article, snus originated from snuff, whereas 'dipping/chewing' tobacco was used by Native Americans (before snuff use was prevalent).  I think the differences between their use and history warrants individual articles.—oac old american century talk @ 19:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Snus'' 

message: I've never heard "enjoying a lip snack" and google shows 0 pages with that phrase, so I'm removing it for now. This will get out of control if it's everything anyone calls it with their friends. GatorOne (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same for "loading a doozie", this is the only page google sees with that phrase. The rest are pretty accepted and widespread I think. GatorOne (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang Again 

message: The 2nd paragraph of the lede claims that the nicotine is delivered to arteries. Wouldn't it make more sense that the nicotine is actually delivered to a capillary bed, which would then lead to the venous system? I don't have a source for this; the original is also unsourced. Antelan 06:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arterial circulation? 

message: Do not "merge" health effects off this page.  Practical effect is moving health effects out of sight -- favorite ploy of tobacco sales.  
This article is well organized by putting health effects first, right where they should be.  Please keep them there.  
Ocdcntx (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't move health effects out of sight by putting them in a separate article.  Concealing health effects is a necessary and favorite ploy of tobacco sales. 

message: An association was detected between use of smokeless tobacco products and risk of fatal myocardial infarction and stroke, which does not seem to be explained by chance 
Ocdcntx (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  smokeless tobacco increased risk of fatal myocardial infarction and especially of stroke 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02qna.html?ref=health
Q. When adolescent boys (and others) substitute smokeless tobacco, the kind held inside the lip or cheek, for cigarettes, what are the health effects? 
... an emerging set of risks, including oral cancers, heart disease and several other severe health problems.
In 2009, a review of studies in Sweden and the United States, published in The British Medical Journal, found a clear and significant elevation of the risk of death from fatal heart attacks with the use of smokeless tobacco.  
... severe nicotine  addiction 
... A pattern of combined use of smoking and smokeless tobacco is emerging in young adults, which is of special concern because dual use may be harder to give up  
Ocdcntx (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral cancers, fatal heart disease, severe addiction 

message: Seems like a fairly serious omission.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the information about cancer?! 

message: :“I tell these guys, ‘You may not like what I say, but with lung cancer you die of lung cancer,’ ” Garagiola said the other day, with the zeal of a convert. “With oral cancer, you die one piece at a time. They operate on your neck, they operate on your jaw, they operate on your throat.”  
"Garagiola, Who Quit, Warns About Chewing Tobacco"
Sports of The Times
By GEORGE VECSEY
Published: May 29, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/sports/baseball/30vecsey.html?ref=health  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.83 (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garagiola, Who Quit, Warns About Chewing Tobacco 

message: There is clear and present vandalism. I am referring to the lines "Aesthetically it makes you look like a complete dork" and "And, you look like a dork."
I have removed these lines. The anti-tobacco wiki is (---->) that way. Keep your crap off of this one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.5.171 (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Definitely seems that someone has tailored this section to essentially state that dip isn't credibly associated with cancer. The first cite (#3) quotes one single line, solely from the abstract, which leaves out other pertinent information (in other words, one line is selectively cited which misrepresents the whole of the article); the second (#4) is a blog that is run by a doctor who is funded by tobacco companies (meaning it is reasonable to assume that that content is biased).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.124.146 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Misrepresents Long-Term Effects 

message: NOTE: Only after writing this did I notice another user had kindly left a note stating not in citation given
   Relevant Section:  Section 6.5 [Section URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipping_tobacco#Additives] 
Relevant Reference#:  15 
My complaint pertains to reference #15  which should have technically contained information supporting the following claim: "Although small, glass-like particles can be seen, this is due to the formation of salt crystals - there is no fiberglass in dip".
After spending a more than generous amount of time checking virtually (if not literally) all the links provided including the seemingly irrelevant ones, I came to the conclusion that the reference provided is bereft of any pertinent information.
Strangely, not only did the URL cited as the reference contain nothing of relevance, but not a single link I visited on the page resulted in any evidence substantiating the claim. After a little bit more inspection, I noticed that I could not find even a single occurrence of the word "fiberglass" on any of the webpages. Once I had reached that point I pretty much thought it safe to assume that the source provided is completely devoid of any usable information. To be quite honest, I am confused as to how the given user actually justified the use of this website as a legitimate source of information. The website contains information collected based solely on Snus products. Although commonly confused due to the shared usage of the terms "dipping tobacco" or "chewing tobacco", to compare Snus Dipping Tobacco to Normal Dipping Tobacco would be the same as comparing apples to oranges. Sure oranges and apples are both fruit, but that is basically where the similarities end.  The kind of Dipping tobacco most people in the USA would envision has a higher nicotine content and comes as loose tobacco without any sort of pouch. This was the least ideal reference to use because any obtained information would have been applicable to Snus products only (pouched chewing tobacco).
One last thing, I did notice that the next sentence provided a Reference #16  that did contain information that was relevant to the claim above. Check out Reference #16 used on the next sentence and scroll down a bit till you reach the section that reads 3.9
Silverblade34 (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference #15 URL Provides No Applicable Information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dipping tobacco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210020704/http://www.ash.org.uk:80/html/regulation/html/eusmokeless.html to http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/eusmokeless.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The reason I removed some of the claims from this section is because while relevant, they need to be sourced before the content is restored back to the page. Thoughts? Meatsgains (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Condensing Additives section