WHO to disclose toxic tobacco ingredi...

WHO to disclose toxic tobacco ingredients

There are 93 comments on the Korea Herald story from Nov 18, 2012, titled WHO to disclose toxic tobacco ingredients. In it, Korea Herald reports that:

The World Health Organization, in collaboration with its member countries, will disclose toxic tobacco ingredients in a global move to scientifically assess the harmful effects of smoking.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Korea Herald.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
confederate1989

Elizabethtown, KY

#1 Nov 18, 2012
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
dognes

Masontown, PA

#2 Nov 26, 2012
youtube.com/watch...
The whole thing would be Toxic rated by me

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#3 Nov 26, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.
4 % is carbon monoxide.
6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
You are so right. I smoke three packs a day and if there was anything wrong with cigarettes they would have killed me by now. Too many people blame cancer on smoking. The indians smoked and it sure didn't kill them, now did it???????? My wife got lung cancer, but that was from the radon in the house. Since then, I bought a condo on the fourth floor. Being that far away from the basement should help with the radon.
confederate1989

Munfordville, KY

#5 Nov 27, 2012
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.

http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobac...

"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
confederate1989

Munfordville, KY

#6 Nov 27, 2012
smokingwillie wrote:
<quoted text>You are so right. I smoke three packs a day and if there was anything wrong with cigarettes they would have killed me by now. Too many people blame cancer on smoking. The indians smoked and it sure didn't kill them, now did it???????? My wife got lung cancer, but that was from the radon in the house. Since then, I bought a condo on the fourth floor. Being that far away from the basement should help with the radon.
The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area)- 15 mrem

Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area)- 300 mrem

Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area)- 300 mrem

Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

Average Annual Total
361 mrem/year




Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)


Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!

or

Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/facts...

http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/Pub...
Wally

Fairfield, OH

#7 Nov 27, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
In other words, you are too dumb to even understand the issues presented in this document. You don't need to completely understand the mechanism of toxic effects to reliably observe those effects.
confederate1989

Munfordville, KY

#8 Nov 27, 2012
Wally wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you are too dumb to even understand the issues presented in this document. You don't need to completely understand the mechanism of toxic effects to reliably observe those effects.
Well when only about 6% of life long smokers if ever get LC you just gotta ask,why isnt it 100%! But then for 5 decades all we have heard is it causes,yet we find they never had any proof at all! When we dig deeper into anti-smoking FRAUD we find thats the case everytime..........NO PROOF AT ALL!

Then you want folks to believe second hand smoek is dangerous ROFLMAO!
Wally

Fairfield, OH

#9 Nov 27, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well when only about 6% of life long smokers if ever get LC you just gotta ask,why isnt it 100%!
No, maybe YOU would ask that question, but I find it a bit simple-minded. Does every speeder will die in a traffic accident? Will every alcoholic die of cirrhosis of the liver?

Tobacco can kill you in a lot of different ways, not just lung cancer. It can cause of a heart attack or stroke as well. And some smokers will die from causes not related to smoking: in a traffic accident, gunshot wound, food poisoning... A lot of things can kill you.

But, let's do a simple comparison. 90% of lung cancer cases occur in smokers and former smokers. Never smokers account for only 10% of lung cancer cases.

You can also look at the relative incidence of lung cancer in different groups:

"In a 2006 European study, the risk of developing lung cancer was:

0.2% for men who never smoked (0.4% for women)
5.5% for male former smokers (2.6% in women)
15.9% for current male smokers (9.5% for women)
24.4% for male “heavy smokers” defined as smoking more than 5 cigarettes per day (18.5% for women)"

http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-An...

You have to be real stupid (or deliberately avoiding the truth) to not see the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
confederate1989

Munfordville, KY

#10 Nov 28, 2012
Correlation is not causation otherwise youd see a 100% connections everytime too prove the point. This is why the term ''linked to'' was coined!

5 cigarettes a day is not considered heavy smoking unless your a anti-smoking researcher in the real world 60 or more a day is considered a heavy smoker!

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1.(August 1991), pp. 88-105.

Abstract
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is derived from cigarette smoldering and active smoker exhalation. Its composition displays broad quantitative differences and redistributions between gas and respirable suspended particulate (RSP) phases when compared with the mainstream smoke (MSS) that smokers puff. This is because of different generation conditions and because ETS is diluted and ages vastly more than MSS. Such differences prevent a direct comparison of MSS and ETS and their biologic activities. However, even assuming similarities on an equal mass basis, ETS-RSP inhaled doses are estimated to be between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers. Differences in effective gas phase doses are expected to be of similar magnitude. Thus the average person exposed to ETS would retain an annual dose analogous to the active MSS smoking of considerably less than one cigarette dispersed over a 1-year period. By contrast, consistent epidemiologic data indicate that active smoking of some 4–5 cigarettes per day may not be associated with a significantly increased risk of lung cancer. Similar indications also obtain for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Since average doses of ETS to nonsmoking subjects in epidemiologic studies are several thousand times less than this reported intake level, the marginal relative risks of lung cancer and other diseases attributed to ETS in some epidemiologic studies are likely to be statistical artifacts, derived from unaccounted confounders and unavoidable bias

http://www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthi ...
...
confederate1989

Munfordville, KY

#11 Nov 28, 2012
Have you ever seen a storyline about the fact that the antis claim that “smoking ’causes’ lung cancer!!!!!”

Of course,we all have.

Have you ever seen a storyline stating that:“current smokers have 99.95% of a never-smoker’s chances of NOT dying from lung cancer”????

I haven’t either; but, we should have!!!!!!

NOTE: In America the CDC data shows that the never-smoker lung cancer death rate is 2/10,000 per year and the current smoker lung cancer death rate is 7/10,000 per year.

Not dying from lung cancer is 9,993/9,998 = 99.95%

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/25/5...

RESULTS

Although never smokers were slightly older at lung cancer diagnosis than current smokers in two population-based cohorts (MEC and NHEFS), this difference was not observed in the majority of cohorts evaluated (NHS, HPFS, CTS, and U/OLCR; Table 2).
Wally

Fairfield, OH

#12 Nov 28, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
Correlation is not causation otherwise youd see a 100% connections everytime too prove the point.
...
Are you really this stupid?

Playing Russian Roulette will kill you only 16% of the time, so it must not be a real danger?
Wally

Fairfield, OH

#13 Nov 28, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
NOTE: In America the CDC data shows...
I notice you didn't provide a link to the CDC data you claim supports your argument. Let me help you out.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...

"Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year."

"On average, adults who smoke cigarettes die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers."
confederate1989

Munfordville, KY

#14 Nov 28, 2012
Wally wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you didn't provide a link to the CDC data you claim supports your argument. Let me help you out.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...
"Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year."
"On average, adults who smoke cigarettes die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers."
Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one!
confederate1989

Munfordville, KY

#15 Nov 28, 2012
Here's my all-time favorite "scientific" study of the the anti-smoking campaign: "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths," Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute's wesbite, Cato.org . This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.

You might also find this study of interest. It examines carcinogens in cigarette smoke and finds them insufficient to be a cause of cancer. Last sentence is the key one:

there is little reason to be confident that total removal of the currently measured human lung carcinogens would reduce the incidence of lung cancer among smokers by any noticeable amount.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/3/584...

You should quit smoking because smoking causes diseases and kills??????

Some facts for all smokers.

A number by itself has no meaning. To have meaning there must be another number for comparison.

Here(see the table):
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57...

We find the basis for the claim that, in America, smoking causes 400,000 smokers’ deaths(SAM’S) per year from the smoking ’caused’ diseases.

However, we are given no number to be used for comparison.

The 400,000 smokers’ deaths are only a percentage of the smokers’ total number of deaths.
Let’s call that number of deaths “X” deaths.

A valid number for comparison is the number of never-smoker deaths from the diseases caused by smoking out of “X” number of total never-smoker deaths.

Doll’s 50 year study of British doctors’ mortality shows us that 85% of the total smokers’ deaths were from the diseases caused by smoking and 84% of the never-smokers total deaths were from those same diseases.

84 is 99% of 85.

99% of 400,000 = 396,000

Now we can say:

“Out of a given number of total deaths, smokers will have 400,000 deaths from the diseases caused by smoking and never-smokers will have 396,000 deaths from those same diseases.”

Compared to never-smokers, smokers have a 1% increased risk of dying from the diseases claimed to be ’caused’ by smoking!!!!

Now, those 400,000 deaths do not seem to be so great a number.
Wally

Fairfield, OH

#16 Nov 28, 2012
confederate1989 wrote:
Here's my all-time favorite "scientific" study of the the anti-smoking campaign: "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths," Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.
I appreciated that you put "scientific" in quotes. Robert A. Levy is not a scientist at all, but a libertarian lawyer with an ax to grind. The article is on the Cato website because he was Chairman of the Cato Institute when it was written.

What do we know about the Cato Institute?

"The Cato Institute appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook," and in a less-specific list of "National Allies" dated 2000."

"R.J. Reynolds (RJR) in a September 2000 document also names Cato Institute as an organization the company could rely upon to help the tobacco industry "shift the debate and framework under which cigarette-related issues are evaluated in the future."

"...the Cato Institute received funding from both R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#17 Nov 28, 2012
Wally wrote:
<quoted text>
No, maybe YOU would ask that question, but I find it a bit simple-minded. Does every speeder will die in a traffic accident? Will every alcoholic die of cirrhosis of the liver?
Tobacco can kill you in a lot of different ways, not just lung cancer. It can cause of a heart attack or stroke as well. And some smokers will die from causes not related to smoking: in a traffic accident, gunshot wound, food poisoning... A lot of things can kill you.
But, let's do a simple comparison. 90% of lung cancer cases occur in smokers and former smokers. Never smokers account for only 10% of lung cancer cases.
You can also look at the relative incidence of lung cancer in different groups:
"In a 2006 European study, the risk of developing lung cancer was:
0.2% for men who never smoked (0.4% for women)
5.5% for male former smokers (2.6% in women)
15.9% for current male smokers (9.5% for women)
24.4% for male “heavy smokers” defined as smoking more than 5 cigarettes per day (18.5% for women)"
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-An...
You have to be real stupid (or deliberately avoiding the truth) to not see the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
I agree with that confederate guy. That means I only have a one in four chance of dying of lung cancer based on how much I smoke. I have a 75% chance of not dying of lung cancer. Now you would think that if lung cancer killed heavy smokers, it would kill 100% of the heavy smokers. 75% is a lot closer to the 99.8% of non smokers who will not get lung cancer. And since there are a lot of non smokers, 0.02% will be a lot of people. Almost as many non-smokers will get lung cancer as smokers do. So those figures to not prove anything. I mean my wife got lung cancer and she didn't smoke and I didn't get it and I smoke three packs a day. If smoking was that dangerous, I would have gotten the cancer and not her.
CONFEDERATE1989

Munfordville, KY

#18 Nov 28, 2012
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’(aka ‘decision’):

http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mc...

(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.

[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).
CONFEDERATE1989

Munfordville, KY

#19 Nov 28, 2012
Prof Sir Richard Doll was the epidemiologist that did the infamous doctors LC study in the 1950s that the SG report of 1964 points to as his proof of SMOKING AND LC causation! Make a note Doll was a student at Jenna university where Hitlers anti-smoking agenda was begun and the term passive smoking/passervachen was coined! A school highly involved in the eugenics movement that led to Dr Mengeles experiments on jewish girls and men for genetics!
CONFEDERATE1989

Munfordville, KY

#20 Nov 28, 2012
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
(Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; 1943)

The Führer thanks you from the grave:

Hitler was a Leftist
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths.(He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler -
CONFEDERATE1989

Munfordville, KY

#22 Nov 28, 2012
Wally wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciated that you put "scientific" in quotes. Robert A. Levy is not a scientist at all, but a libertarian lawyer with an ax to grind. The article is on the Cato website because he was Chairman of the Cato Institute when it was written.
What do we know about the Cato Institute?
"The Cato Institute appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook," and in a less-specific list of "National Allies" dated 2000."
"R.J. Reynolds (RJR) in a September 2000 document also names Cato Institute as an organization the company could rely upon to help the tobacco industry "shift the debate and framework under which cigarette-related issues are evaluated in the future."
"...the Cato Institute received funding from both R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...
Stick to what they state. Trying to condemn someone as belonging to the tobacco lobby is as bad as me showing where all the second hand smoke junk science comes from at Big Pharma and the 100 million dollars the robert woods johnson foundation gave to the ACS,ALA,AHA to go out and illegally lobby for smoking bans to state legislatures and city councilmen across the land. Then we have RWJF's aka johnson and johnson makers of chantix,nicorette etc with their housed in orginizations thru their own entity TOBACCO FREE KIDS! In fact TFK is a front group for tobacco control for big pharma.

The ACS,ALA and AHA were created by Rockefellor at the end of prohibtion to put a new fresh face on their prohibition movement and they were connected to:

Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework)

Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid history. The three antismoking crusades of the last century have been eugenics-driven. In eugenics, health is erroneously reduced to an entirely biological phenomenon and where a self-installed elite attempt to engineer/breed a “better” human herd. In addition to a genetic aspect, eugenics views tobacco and alcohol as racial poisons needing to be eradicated (negative eugenics). Antismoking was rife in early-1900s USA. Smoking and tobacco sales were banned in quite a number of American states.
http://www.americanheritage.com/artic ....
Dillow (1981) notes that the bulk of antismoking claims were fraudulent and inflammatory. Dillow fails to note that the antismoking crusade of the early-1900s USA was eugenics-driven: Eugenics was mainstream in the USA at this time. At the turn of the last century, eugenics was mainstream in the USA, the UK, some European countries, and a number of Scandinavian countries. The USA appears to be the most prominent. The mega-wealthy in the USA (e.g., Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Kellogg) were supporters and funders of eugenics (and antismoking, anti-alcohol)– and still are. Rockefeller and Ford were also prominent supporters of Nazi eugenics.(Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework). Rockefeller and Ford had trade agreements with the Nazis through the 1930s
...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Pregnancy Symptoms - 12 Very Early Symptoms of ... (Jun '07) 4 hr AlexMom2016 7,192
News Attorneys general to Trump: Dona t cut drug tre... 5 hr anonymous 8
News Lawmakers revisiting requiring those on Medicai... 7 hr Red Crosse 26
News Actor Hill Harper will speak at the fifth annua... 9 hr Again 1
Morgellons - What I believe it really is (Oct '12) 12 hr LLori619 269
News APNewsBreak: Problems remain at troubled Washin... 15 hr CodeTalker 1
News Nurse anesthetists aren't the same as anesthesi... (Sep '10) Sat Stanley 143
Nudity at doctor's office (Mar '07) Sat jack 161
More from around the web