Talk:Cigarette/Archive 1

message: When there are several scientific studies corroborating a claim, please refrain from using language like "purported"
When you can only cite one study corroborating a counterclaim, please refrain from using language like "several studies"
Please do not delete references to scientific papers, particularly those published by the US Surgeon General in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, then insert NPOV language like the sort described above
That is all.
Tarcieri 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV on radioisotopes

message: Uh, can someone delte that warning at the top of the article? its not very professional and doesnt appear on the edit page.
:I believe I just deleted it. It was kinda funny, in a weird and twisted way.--RattBoy 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't, but the article is about cigarettes, not plain tobacco cigarettes. (BTW, the only brand on the list that's made from only tobacco, without additional flavorings, is American Spirit.) Mkweise 19:27, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty much impossible to find a cigarette that doesn't have additives (American Spirit and Winston claim not to have additives, but I have heard it alleged that although their tobacco is unadulterated, they simply move all the nasty chemicals to the paper wrapper instead). But even still, everything else on the list is a tobacco cigarette, adulterated or not. Whereas most people conceive of clove cigs as a different genre entirely. I would restrict the list to tobacco. Matt gies 19:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 1. One guy was blowing smoke out the window as he rear ended another car at a red light. Not very fast, but good enough to be funny.
2. A pretty girl flicked a butt out the window just as a cop rolled up alongside. The butt bounced across the cops hood, and then its roof lights went on. Duh!
3. A trucker driving a dump truck which had dual fuel tanks under the cab doors. The driver flicked the butt STRAIGHT DOWN, BOUNCING IT OFF THE TANK. For about 1/25 of a second, my clutch hand fought my brain, and the brain won. The truck was obviously burning diesel, I thought, and diesel will actually put out a fire under normal atmospheric conditions. And even if it were gasoline I doubted the truck would have caught light. Still, it was an exciting 1/25 of a second. 
Better yet... is when you're riding your motorcycle you get a red hot butt in your:
  1) face (for all you 3/4ths out there) 
  2) jacket
  3) crotch
i've always wanted to pick up the butt and throw it back in the window of the perpetrator, but typically i just freak out and toss it away (not into other motorcyclists, mind you...)
Since both car drivers and cigarette smokers are engaging in singularly dumb-ass activities, I don't find it so surprising that their dumb-assedness not so infrequently crosses the boundary between domains and becomes a kind of interdisciplinary dumb-assery.
Sure, it's a pain, but what do you expect from anyone selfish enough to poison the planet or dumb enough to poison themselves?
:Note: the above testimonials come from an Everything2 node on the subject of "cigarette butt-throwing dumb-ass drivers". —No-One Jones 05:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cigarettes effect on drivers

message: The only dumbass I see is the one who has nothing better to do but call nicotine addicts dumbasses. I guess you don't believe in civil rights; it's my civil right to smoke cigarettes, whether the smoke is going to kill me or not, it's my choice, not the government's. I toss cigarettes out the window as often as possible just to piss liberals like you off. The day it becomes a crime to smoke (which I do see in the future in this "free" country we call America), I'm moving to Mexico. People like you hate freedom, you want to take away as much of it as you possibly can..
--"this "free" country we call America"??? You are not in America. This is an International English Encyclopaedia and insular phrases like this have no place here - even on talk pages!
Consider this me blowing smoke in your face, and tossing a butt on your front lawn.
--Ddhix 2002 14:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't feed the trolls. 69.138.165.23 20:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbass? 

message: This is ridiculous. Wikipedia doesn't call things "junk science". Stop adding your own opinion to the article. Also re: Howrealisreal's edit summary, how in the world would one prove that something "is not factual"? The burden is on you to properly attribute POV phrases. It's not my burden to prove that the tobacco industry's science is or is not "junk science". Original argument like that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Rhobite 19:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I've breifly included why the scientific studies conducted by the tobacco industry are considered to be "junk science". You cannot claim to be NPOV when the content of the article equalizes the tobacco industry's studies with more objective, peer-reviewed scientific research that are clearly at a different level of validity. I agree my inital edits were incorrect because I did not say why they are 'junk' studies. --Howrealisreal 20:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, this is going on RFC. That's YOUR opinion that the studies are "deeply flawed". Don't add your opinion to encyclopedia articles. Hey look everyone, I guess it's OK for an encyclopedia article to badmouth big tobacco! Since they're so evil and all, the NPOV policy doesn't apply here. The only time we have to attribute opinions is when they're unpopular: Don't you dare say that the 2004 U.S. election was not stolen, or that Bill Gates isn't really the antichrist. But by all means, criticize evil corporations all you like. Everyone agrees with you, no need for a cite! Rhobite 20:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
No, I am just a representitive of this POV. I did not come up with this idea on my own, I was taught this. I think you are being very shallow in making this seem more personal than it really is. --Howrealisreal 20:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh lovely, I'm the one being shallow. Thanks for setting me straight, didn't realize you were the self-appointed representative of anti-tobacco POV. Your lofty self-granted status doesn't give you the right to boldly insert, um, the opinions of your constituents into articles. Rhobite 20:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I think we have gotten as far as we can with this. I respect your point of view on this topic and perhaps I am mislead by feeling that you do not feel the same way towards how I feel. I am happy to allow this issue to be settled by general wikipedia consensus rather than continuing to argue in this pointless manner. I am sorry if I have vexed you, that is what happens when passionate wikipedia contributors clash I guess. --Howrealisreal 20:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC response: "junk science" is pure POV. You can say that other scientific studies not sponsored by the tobacco industry have discredited them, you can say that their methodology was criticised, and you can say that there is a general distrust of studies funded by those who are on one side of a contentious argument, and you can even say they are regarded as "junk science" by anti-smoking campaigners, but you can't just say they are "junk science" even if you provide the reasons. It's an expression of opinion. Read the NPOV policy and it is quite clear. David   | Talk 20:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC response: The above comments by Dbiv/David express my opinion on this question flawlessly. Tverbeek 17:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: (Also a RFC response) Here's a possible wording(I would have added it but I'm too tired right now to find a source, and I think it needs one): "According to {As reputable a source possible}, these studies were deeply flawed due to their strong bias and poor methodology, and were considered to be junk science."  Howrealisreal, would you find a reputable web page(guesses: Americian Cancer Society, Science mag article, or something like that) to put in as a source for this?  (Make sure they do say the studies were flawed for the reasons listed and that they do refer to them as junk science.  I agree with you as for the facts, but the glory of NPOV is that sourced facts are better, and I agree with that even more.  Thanks to all of you for contributing to the 'pedia. JesseW 10:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Another RfC response: Obviously the tobacco industry uses junk science, but, for better or worse, we can't simply assert that obvious point as fact.  We can and should present it as an opinion, properly attributed to a notable spokesperson.  Another example of the use of the specific term is at , reprinting material from the American Journal of Public Health, including a reference to "the tobacco industry's 'junk science' arguments", although this may be in the context of second-hand smoke rather than the effect on smokers.  (By the way, the article might be improved by adding a reference to the issue of second-hand smoke, also sometimes referred to as environmental tobacco smoke.  I live in New York City, where smoking is banned in most workplaces () because of concern about this issue.)  JamesMLane 17:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think there should be a merger.  The two topics are different.  Not all tobacco smoking is by means of cigarettes, and not all cigarettes are made of tobacco.  As it stands, each article links to the other, but this one notes that some cigarettes are not tobacco, and the tobacco smoking article mentions that cigars are also an option.  I think that's exactly the right way to do it. JamesMLane 20:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the chemicals are different in each type of tobacco smoking. Hookahs for example, filter out some chemicals. And cigarette paper adds other chemicals. So I vote to merge per nom. --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junk science 

message: The Brand section really needs some cleanup/improvement.  I think it should only list the top 10 or so brands(by sales, probably) and a small(like 7 or less) collection of other noteable brands.  Each of them should have a short explanation of why they are notable following the link.  I just removed an external link added by an annon just today.  I've added explanations to some of the ones on the list, but I don't know enough about cigarettes to fix most of them.  Help is requested.  Thoughts, responses, etc? JesseW 20:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Brand section 

message: Not all brands are chemically treated; therefore, the statement in the main article is misleading.  Nat Sherman brand cigarettes (I only mention because this is the brand I smoke and know best), for example, contain no additives, fiber-glass, etc. Ix
They still will kill you.
FUCK THAT! IM GONNA KILL ALL OF YOU! JESUS CHRIST GET LIVES!
Does your assertion that "Non-treated Cigarettes will still kill me" justify the blanket statement that all cigarettes are treated with chemicals prior to sale?  
Cigarettes will still kill me, so all cigarettes are treated with chemicals?  Thats a non-sequitor if I've ever seen one.  I am going to revise the article, since no one has raised any objections. Ix
I'm going to remove the "cigarettes contain 4,000 chemicals" statement. It's a bit too alarmist for a Wikipedia article, and has more of a place in anti-smoking propaganda. People usually think of chemicals as something bad and unnatural, when in reality, most plants contain hundreds or thousands of chemicals.--Aleron235 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is that "tobacco smoke contains".  Maybe its positioning in the article causes an unfair perception that the cigarettes are all treated bathed in chemicals during production.  Either way, there should be a source for this.  My personal experience is that the second-hand smoke haze has gotten worse since about 2001.  It smells a lot worse and is a lot thicker.  Makes me wonder if there's genetically modified tobacco in addition to the chemicals.--Pro-Lick 16:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Treated with chemicals as in stuff like fragrance and flavours are added? Definitely. Inclusion of natural chemical "enhancer"s? Mostly yes. Intentional addition of toxins? Probably not. -- Sjschen 01:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment with chemicals 

message: If anyone knows why "100s" are called "100s", please let me know on my talk page. I thought it was from 100mm, but I didn't have a metric ruler at my workplace, and i'm unlikely to remember to bring one in next time to measure those things when i'm bored. Karmafist 03:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of 100s

message: This part of the article is troubling: 
" as well as second-hand smoke inhalation show no increase in lung cancer rates among U.S. white males in all credited observational studies."
There are many commercials today about people who did not smoke, and yet worked in restaurants where other people smoked and got cancer.  There's even a lady who goes around lecturing people because this happened to her.  
Commercials as evidence? I hope you are kidding.--Tooiha 08:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Hand Smoke 

message: The first paragraph of the Sale section seems like it would fit better under History.
"Major tobacco companies also pack their cigarettes differently, using the longer more potent section of the tobacco leaf in the end, and moving the short cut pieces in the front (also known as "shake"). The hybrid tobacco leaves a more potent addiction effect this way."
Does hybrid here mean the mixture of the two kinds of tobacco or a hybrid tobacco plant? How does this affect addiction?
--Gbleem 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sale  

message: This section has gotten too long and is completely unorganized.  In my opinion, a good course of action is to move it to its own page: List of slang terms for cigarettes.  GilliamJF 06:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold, and alphabetized what was a sloppy, unorganized list of slang terms for cigarettes.  I moved it in its entirety to List_of_street_names_of_drugs#Cigarette.  There you'll find every slang term you could want for cigarettes, alcohol, cannibis, etc.  GilliamJF 07:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang terms for cigarettes 

message: Obviously we walk a fine line here where it might be better to err on the side of keeping people away from smoking, but I think it would be best if we do not err at all.
Thus I would like to suggest that this article is not living up to the standards of NPOV. In my opinion, entire sections ought to be rewritten with the aim of greater neutrality.
May I also say that, even despite neutrality issues, I believe this article to be quite good. Good work all.
I pretty much agree. I don't think it would be better to err on the side of "keeping people away from smoking." The article must provide any relevant information on the topic and to keep opinion out of it while providing only fact and scientific evidence. Though I believe scientific evidence may keep people away from smoking, and perhaps that is what you mean. But in all honesty I believe this article has WAY too much about the health effects of smoking rather than the history of it. --Tooiha 08:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: In other countries, such as Egypt, however, there is no legal smoking age at all.
As in, it's illegal to smoke at any age?  Or there's no minimum age, meaning anyone can legally smoke?  Can someone who knows fix the phrasing? —Etaoin (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: Did anyone else see that picture with the price for Camel cigarettes? I think that was a prank...
::Its not a prank. it was an actual picture of how much it cost at a local gas station. Very expensive yes, --larsinio (poke)(prod) 14:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That picture-dont think so 

message: The photo of the price of a carton of cigarettes in the State of New Jersey is grossly misleading. I was in NJ about three days ago and cigarettes cost between $5.75 and $6.00 per pack. This would equate to $60.00 and less because cartons are discounted.
According to R.J. Reynolds the average price of a pack of cigarettes in New Jersey is $5.96 as of 11/05. And for those of you who do not know a carton contains 10 packs thus, $95.87 does not sound realistic. If this photograph is indeed genuine and was taken in New Jersey then I guess the only thing left to discuss is whether or not it is misleading.--Tooiha 09:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of price in NJ 

message: I have heard that eating tobacco can be fatal, yet cannot locate a source for this.  It would be nice to know if this is truth or rumor.  Thanks, Jason.
Hi Jason, of course it is fatal, just like smoking a cigarette can be fatal. --Robert Michel Smith  22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eating tobacco 

message: "An estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are littered in American parks, sidewalks and public places yearly. Most cigarette filters are not biodegradable. In fact, ninety-five percent of filters are made of plastic cellulose acetate and take many years to decompose.
There are 165 chemicals in cigarettes that birds and other small animals ingest thinking that the butts are food. Ingestion can lead to starvation or malnutrition if the cigarette butts block the intestinal tract and prevent digestion, or accumulate in the digestive tract, making the animal feel full and lessening its desire to feed."
I think this needs a citation. While it is obvious that cigarette butts do litter many parks, sidewalks, etc I do not know how realistic it is that cigarette butts block the intestinal tract and prevent digestion. It kind of reminds me of that urban legend about throwing rice at weddings and birds eating it thus expanding in their stomache and the bird dies. I know its not a perfect comparison, but I would just like to see a citation for such a strange statement --Tooiha 09:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some citations please 

message: Does anybody know who the first major cigarette company was to produce 100's and actually market them as "100's" (or king size or whatever they called them, just some special term indicating their length)? Also I'm wondering why 100's were produced originally; and what the target audience was. Well I'm not wondering about 100's specifically, but just longer-than-normal cigarettes in general.
Thanks! --JCipriani 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of 100's 

message: This entry seems to have a lot of politics behind it, so I'm hesitant to suggest a fundamental change, but I think we should define cigarettes in the opening sentence as "A cigarette is a paper cylinder (generally less than 120 mm in length and 10 mm in diameter) from which dryed plant material is smoked.  Cured and finely cut tobacco leaves, cannabis buds, and cloves are often utilized alone or blended together."  Any objections before I make the edit? Alvis 06:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: The following chemicals present in tobacco and/or tobacco smoke, while not all explicitly carcinogenic, can have negative health effects:
*Acetone - Affects skin, mouth, kidney, liver, nerve damage and birth defects.
:Only relevant at high concentrations.
*Ammonia - Highly corrosive towards the alveoli in the lungs.
*Arsenic - Poisons organs and causes organ failure. May cause cancer.
:Concentration probably comparable to other plants.
*Benzene* - Toxic. Classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Causes drowsiness, dizziness, rapid heart rate, headaches, tremors, confusion, unconsciousness, vomiting, irritation of the stomach and death. 
*Caffeine - Increases energy and may cause restlessness.
:If it is at all present in tobacco, the amount can't be more than a teaspoon of coffee. Should not be in this list.
*Carbon monoxide* - Causes drowsiness and headaches, followed by unconsciousness, respiratory failure, and death. Also causes ozone depletion.
:Ozone depletion?? Come on! At the concentration present in tobacco smoke, it will decrease the oxygen-carrying capacity of the smoker's blood. Period.
*Carbon dioxide - No effects although when frozen (around -78.3C) will cause skin 'burn'.
:Come on!!!
*Chloroform - Causes kidney and liver problems, birth defects and skin sores.
:Provide a reference that tobacco contains any significant amount of this compound.
*Cyanide/Hydrogen cyanide* - Can cause a coma with seizures, apnea and cardiac arrest, with death following in a matter of minutes. Also faintness, drowsiness, anxiety and excitement. Dizziness, nausea, vomiting, sweating, weakness of the fingers and toes, difficulty walking, dimness of vision, deafness, decreased thyroid gland function and skin sores.
:At the concentration present in tobacco smoke, see carbon monoxide above.
*DDT/Dieldrin - Causes tumours (generally of the liver).
:DDT is not used anymore in (Western) agriculture, so why should it be present in tobacco?
*Formaldehyde* - Causes irritation to the eyes and mucous membranes, (resulting in watery eyes, headache, a burning sensation in the throat, and difficulty breathing), rise in blood acidity, rapid, shallow breathing, hypothermia, and coma or death. Classified as a probable human carcinogen by the United States EPA.
:Provide a concentration. I doubt it is present in toxic quantities.
*Methanol - Causes blindness, birth defects, headache, dizziness, nausea, lack of coordination, confusion, drowsiness, respiratory failure, unconsciousness and death
:Only at high concentrations
*Nicotine* - Causes increased activity, alertness and memory, increased heart rate and blood pressure, reduced appetite, vomiting and nausea.
*Petroleum - Highly toxic to the body.
:Huh?
*Tar (tobacco residue)* - Black sticky resin including hundreds of different chemicals, many of which are classified as carcinogenic and/or toxic. The resin includes polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), aromatic amines and inorganic compounds.
*Vinyl Chloride - Cause headaches, dizziness, loss of coordination, in severe cases may progress to hallucination, unconsciousness, respiratory failure, cancer of the liver, skin irritations, birth defects and death.
:Huh?
*Potassium nitrate - Makes heart problems worse to those suffering from them.
* These are considered to have a large toxic effect.
----
To the "expert" criticizing this list: 
Where are *your* citations? Who are you that you "know" the quantities of toxins in smoke that you can authoritatively be so dismissive as to what constitutes a toxic level? 
Apparently, people who have really looked into it have something worthwhile to say. Take CO levels, for example:
"The range of cigarette smoke concentrations [of Carbon Monoxide] we have found, 1.6-3.7 % (v/v) is comparable to the range of 1.5-5.5% (v/v) reported from other studies [Godish 1985]. 
"Cigarettes clearly put out much higher concentrations of CO than most cars. In fact all of the cigarette measurements we made gave CO mixing ratios of greater than 1.0%, which is interesting in that this level is the usual "passing" value for cars which must have annual emission tests." 
http://faculty.washington.edu/djaffe/ce3.pdf
Of course, smokers do not constantly breathe smoke as they smoke. They would have to breathe it constantly for thirty minutes, as this study points out, for it to be lethal on its own. Nevertheless, in smoke filled rooms, people might very well breathe enough to suffer symptoms of drowsiness and headaches. 
And still more *real* info from Canada's "Tobacco Products Information Regulations" which force manufacturers to list emmision amounts of 6 toxic compounds, including:
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen of medium carcinogenic hazard by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Formaldehyde can have drastic health effects on both smokers and those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. Eye, nose, and throat irritation and other respiratory symptoms are just some examples.
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen cyanide is considered to be one of the most toxic agents found in vapour-phase tobacco smoke (what is left of the smoke once you remove the particulate matter). Hydrogen cyanide contributes to the acute toxicity of tobacco smoke. Many short-term and long-term toxic effects of cigarette smoke have been associated with its presence. Acute exposure to lower concentrations of hydrogen cyanide will cause weakness, headache, nausea, increased rate of respiration, and eye and skin irritation. 
Benzene
Benzene is a substance declared toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is considered to be a substance which may have some adverse effects at any level of exposure. Benzene is also listed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 carcinogen. Smokers have an average benzene body burden about six times that of non-smokers.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2001/2001_62bk6_e.html
The amounts of these chemicals vary from one brand or type of cigarette to the next. This is especially true of the tar and nicotine content, the range of which is so extreme that an entire carton of some brands of cigarettes might contain less tar and/or nicotine than a single cigarette of a "full flavor" brand.
Major tobacco companies pack their cigarettes using the longer more potent section of the tobacco leaf in the end, and moving the short cut pieces in the front (also known as "shake"). The hybrid tobacco leaves a more potent addiction effect this way. Some cigarette companies offer "no additive" cigarettes that are viewed by some as marginally healthier.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.66.163 (talk • contribs) 
----
I'm the "expert" you are referring to. I am not a toxicologist, but I know just enough about chemistry to have the original list of "toxins" (which should be called "toxic compounds") set off my bullshit detector and okay, maybe I overreacted a bit when I also dismissed the 10% of correct facts in the pile of nonsense.
You raise a few good points and I would be perfectly happy if you reintroduce those items into the list with the proper references. The point I tried to make is that describing toxic ingredients of tobacco smoke is only meaningful if the description matches the health risks associated with the concentrations that are present.
Han-Kwang 08:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toxins

message: Should there be a mention of the naming conventions with cigarette brands in the UK? Such as the term 'Lights' being banned and most manufacturers switching to terms such as 'Smooth' - or simply the colour of the packaging 'Blue', 'Gold' or 'Silver'. Was wondering whether this would be useful or crossing into the realm of pointless trivia.
Also, there is no mention of the idea being passed around to raise the tobacco age to 18 in the UK. Here are some articles on the subject:  
Greggykins 12:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Cigarette types in the UK 

message: While RC patrolling I came across this edit, which I reverted because it didn't really add any sources and it seemed to be acted a bit idealistic to the conditions of cigarette sales. Someone please check up on this who knows more about the topic. I added a POV-check tag because I don't believe the first version (or the anon's for that matter) is very good. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute over rewrite 

message: I cleaned up a horrible paragraph regarding underage sales, police stings, and vendor busts in the United States.  A good portion of it was redundant, irrelevant to the topic, and biased.  I have trimmed the paragraph such that it now states the facts clearly, once, and without bias. Lumbergh 01:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underage sales in the US 

message: The sections on sales and health effects have gotten rather large and unruly. I would recommend replacing them with brief synopses and splitting them off into their individual articles. That would also help prevent this article from drifting too far into related topics. Fagstein 20:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting 

message: Wondering whether the position adopted in this article re: radioisotopes (in particular Polonium 210) being the primary cause of lung cancer is true. The two papers I've cited below seem to suggest otherwise. I'm not an expert on the subject by any stretch and would be interested in hearing what others think on this issue.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1981 Jan;66(1):27-31. suggesting there isnt linkage between radioisotopes and smoking related lung cancer.
 
Hecht SS (1999) Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Lung Cancer, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 91(14) 1194-1210. states that there is not enough Polonium 210 in cigarette smoke to significantly impact lung cancer in smokers. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 08:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the claim re: 90% of lung cancers has the references of Dr. Koop, I've checked the link and cant find the relevant figures. MidgleyDJ 08:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should now remove the claims re: Polonium 210 - or at least clarify these statements. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 11:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radioisotopes 

message: An estimated 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are littered in American parks, sidewalks and public places yearly.
This can't be true -- that's roughly two packs a day for every single person in the United States, with not a single butt properly disposed of; and, what's more (if the Consumption section of the article is to be believed) it would amount to 82% of the annual global production of cigarettes ending up as American litter.
I changed it to a nonspecific "billions," which is probably accurate if not particularly precise.  Anyone want to track down the real fact and add it, with appropriate citation?
I'm guessing that it's 4.5 trillion butts in toto in American public places, or 4.5 trillion per year in the whole world (though even that sounds high), or something like that..--Kiscica 03:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4.5 trillion? 

message: I don't know if this is really encylcopedia material, but I was wondering if anyone would be able to find any sources or suitable web articles commenting on the (at least, personally) immense popularity of Native cigarettes in Canada, due to the high government taxation on commercial cigarettes.  Myself, I can get a carton of cigarettes for $10CDN and know of many people who do the same. --golgotha85 16:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native cigarettes in Canada 

message: I've been having difficulty finding the LD50 of cigarettes. I found the LD50 of nicotine alone was 50mg, but I can't find the LD50 of the whole thing. Once found it should be added to the artical. Thank you,
Alex P.
7/20/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.134.132.173 (talk • contribs) .
:It's unlikely that the LD50 of "cigarettes" could be computed at all. —ptk✰fgs 00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LD50 

message: This paragraph appears in the History section:
The Cigarette has evolved much since its conception, the thin bands that travel transverse to the "axis of smoking" (lengthwise) are filled with lighter fluid to facilitate even burning, and synthetic particulate filters remove some of the tar before it reaches the smoker.
Aside from being poorly written, this is ridiculous. Lighter fluid evaporates very quickly. I don't doubt that there is something in the paper to add to its flammability, but it sure isn't lighter fluid. And what is meant by "lighter fluid" anyway? A few different liquids are known by that name...Brian8710 10:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it may not be lighter fluid par-say... but there is an accelerate in cigarettes. (Otherwise they would go out if not smoked...) ---J.S (t|c) 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lighter fluid in the paper???