Smoking is... good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter morgan
  • Start date Start date
the filters are made of cellulose i think
From wikipedia:

"Paper is a thin sheet material produced by mechanically or chemically processing cellulose fibres derived from wood, rags, grasses"

As far as I understand we burn paper (which is mostly cellulose) with tobacco. With the tobacco smoke you inhale some paper smoke. The smoke is passing through the filter (which is mostly cellulose).

I can imagine that the smoke from the burned paper may be harmful.

The smoke passing through the filter must be much less harmful, IMO.
 
cellulose is still a plastic although a "bioplastic" but not necessarily bio compatible
I think it is a stretch to say that cellulose is a plastic as cellulose is derived from primarily wood materials. By further extraction of cellulose one can make plastics just as one can with oil.

If one has a problem with the paper or filters being made of cellulose or sensitive to it, then one option is to smoke a pipe or cigars and cigarillos. :cool2:
 
I can imagine that the smoke from the burned paper may be harmful.

Commercial paper, yes. This goes back to 2009 (studied back in the 80's), and thus the use of fire retardant paper was adapted by many countries. Reason enough to stay away from this type i.e., if it goes out on its own when left in an ashtray, you know what kind of paper you are smoking:



After lighting up are you experiencing more headaches, stomach cramps or a coppery taste in your mouth? Does your new FSC (fire-safe cigarette) taste bad, cause dry mouth and are you coughing more?

New York State was one of the first states to require that cigarettes be made with the new fire-safe paper. This paper is constructed by gluing two or three thin bands of less-porous paper together with an ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer emulsion based adhesive (carpet glue).
 
I'm looking for an article I read years ago on Smoking. My memories a bit spotty, but I believe there was specific context on how tobacco became so demonized. One part of it I think I remember, had to do with nuclear testing going on at the time? Or, something along the line of scientists were trying to prove cigarettes caused cancer but could only prove the opposite?

I've been all through SOTT.net and found brief mentions of the above, but what I recall was a very long and detailed historical look at cigarettes and tobacco and what I found was not that. I can't remember if I found it on the forum, sott.net, one of the old websites, lauras website, etc. Or perhaps I'm entirely mistaken.

Again, I apologize for the spottiness of my explanation. I'm having a hard time recalling the specifics of this article but that seems to be some of the points I remember.

Any help would be great, thanks!
 
Hi, could it be either of these two?:


 
I'm looking for an article I read years ago on Smoking. My memories a bit spotty, but I believe there was specific context on how tobacco became so demonized. One part of it I think I remember, had to do with nuclear testing going on at the time? Or, something along the line of scientists were trying to prove cigarettes caused cancer but could only prove the opposite?

I've been all through SOTT.net and found brief mentions of the above, but what I recall was a very long and detailed historical look at cigarettes and tobacco and what I found was not that. I can't remember if I found it on the forum, sott.net, one of the old websites, lauras website, etc. Or perhaps I'm entirely mistaken.

Again, I apologize for the spottiness of my explanation. I'm having a hard time recalling the specifics of this article but that seems to be some of the points I remember.

Any help would be great, thanks!

I think I remember the one that you're talking about. IIRC, it had a timelapse video of all of the nuclear blasts across the globe since the 1940's. It also mentioned experiments on cancer in mice or rats and that if they exposed them to radiated particles, they could create cancer like clockwork. However, they couldn't create cancer in mice or rats that were given the equivalent of 200 cigarettes a day. Then there was a mix up in the mouse/rat test subjects and the subjects that had been exposed to cigarettes were exposed to radiated particles and they didn't get cancer.

Found the following by picking a few search terms from the above:


 
I think I remember the one that you're talking about. IIRC, it had a timelapse video of all of the nuclear blasts across the globe since the 1940's. It also mentioned experiments on cancer in mice or rats and that if they exposed them to radiated particles, they could create cancer like clockwork. However, they couldn't create cancer in mice or rats that were given the equivalent of 200 cigarettes a day. Then there was a mix up in the mouse/rat test subjects and the subjects that had been exposed to cigarettes were exposed to radiated particles and they didn't get cancer.

Found the following by picking a few search terms from the above:



Thank you everyone for helping out with this. "Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer" was the one! Thank you very much Jones!! :D
 
An article at RT about a smoking marathoner in China who was disqualified! :cool2:

A 52-year-old athlete who chain-smoked his way through an entire marathon in China has been retroactively disqualified after race organizers determined his actions breached rules governing “uncivilized behavior.”

The cigarette enthusiast, identified in media reports as ‘Uncle Chen’, completed the Xiamen marathon on January 7 in a very respectable three hours and 33 minutes.

His feat became all the more remarkable after video footage from the race showed Chen puffing on cigarettes as he navigated the 26.2 mile course en route to place 574th out of more than 1,500 competitors.


 
Back
Top Bottom