[ommunist]

A significant amount of the shredded brown innards of most modern cigarettes is a paper product called "reconstituted tobacco" or "homogenized sheet tobacco," which is made from a pulp of mashed tobacco stems and other parts of the tobacco leaf that would otherwise go to waste. Manufacturers spray and impregnate reconstituted tobacco paper with nicotine and other substances lost during the process, along with as many as 600 chemical additives. These include several that may come as a surprise, such as ammonia, which aids in the delivery of nicotine, and chocolate, which masks the bitter taste of tobacco. Finally, the 'recon' is sliced to resemble shredded leaf tobacco. So basically good research should compare people smoking quality cuban (once a week) with pipe smoker (once a day) with this poor creature addicted to synthetical 'tobacco' on her 20/day. And of course, since urban people are exposed to contaminated air from cars, control group must be taken from rural areas. I predict result that tobacco is not responsible for lung cancer, in absence of other air contamination factors. You know, more than 90% of people with lung cancer ate cucumbers. So think twice before blaming tobacco.

[msimpson]

I've heard this argument before. The claim that "clean" tobacco smoke is not carcinogenic and only the additives are to blame. Well, hate to burst your bubble, but when you burn tobacco--additives or not--you are creating hydrocarbons like benzene, bezopyrene, and butane. All of which are carcinogenic and will cause mutation in human cells upon contact.

You cannot remove these hydrocarbons from tobacco as they are only present during pyrolysis.

Further reading: https://www.amazon.com/Chemical-Components-Tobacco-Smoke-Sec...

That book is authored by Alan Rodgman (bio below).

After joining R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s research department in 1954, Rodgman initiated the company’s research on cigarette smoke composition. He personally conducted and actively directed environmental tobacco smoke research until 1987.

Rodgman became director of research in 1976. During his career, he served on the editorial board of Tobacco Science, the Council for Tobacco Research, the Coresta Scientific Commission and several U.S. government tobacco-related committees.

He was a member of the Chemical Institute of Canada and the American Chemical Society for 60 years and a member of the New York Academy of Sciences for 40 years.

Rodgman published numerous scientific papers on tobacco smoke composition and served as a reviewer for tobacco-related manuscripts. In 2003 he was awarded the inaugural Tobacco Science Research Conference Lifetime Achievement Award for his tobacco-related research and activities. In late 2008 Rodgman co-authored The chemical components of tobacco and tobacco smoke, for which the authors jointly received the 2010 Coresta Award.

[zeveb]

Of course, that's all also true of woodsmoke, and while some (IMNSHO, deluded) people are trying to ban fires, charcoal cooking &c., the societal consensus right now is that it's okay.

[msimpson]

Yep. Also, I'm completely in favor of smoking, or chewing, or whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone else.

[openasocket]

People aren't inhaling large amounts of woodsmoke on a regular basis for years.

[ommunist]

People are inhaling large amounts of industrial pollution every year.

[ommunist]

As a smoker I have special interest. There is no archaeological evidence of cancer among aboriginal nations of Americas which cultures had a lasting tradition of smoking tobacco. Cancer became plague with development of industry, and proliferation of lazy lifestyle.

[msimpson]

"As a smoker I have special interest. There is no archaeological evidence of cancer among aboriginal nations of Americas which cultures had a lasting tradition of smoking tobacco."

Well, as a past smoker I too have special interest. But also, as a logical person, I'd expect all you'd find of cancer in "archaeological evidence" of human remains are those which afflict bones. So you're not really making a case. Also:

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2010/10/14/claims-th...

[kabouseng]

Downvoted because you provided zero evidence and pure conjecture arguing against a by now well established fact - smoking causes cancer.

[tudorw]

smokers get cancer, tobacco contains carcinogens, however, studies rarely take enough account of the wide range of conditions that contribute to health, stress, nutrition, socio-environmental conditions, mental health, exercise, meditation and mindfulness, these are often left out, clearly they have an effect, it's not an easy task, I'm not an advocate of ingesting harmful substances, I am an advocate of interdisciplinary research that helps us understand the why and how humans are susceptible to what seems like 'wrong choices', or are they, see 'The Paris Problem', problem eh... don't forget the man in the dark street searching for his lost keys only under the light from a streetlamp..

[ommunist]

No problem, mate, its a free country. I mean Russia, of course. In the US there are established opinions that firms censorship which you just exercised.

[ommunist]

Eat this http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm No evidence that tobacco cause cancer.

[chaosfox]

* this is not a scientific paper, it an editorial

* it was published in 1999

* in a very sketchy journal

* did you even read what you linked ? it is arguing semantics:

  >If they would say that smoking increases the incidence of 
  >lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor in the 
  >development of lung cancer, then I would agree. The 
  >purpose of this article is to emphasize the need to use 
  >language appropriately in both the medical and scientific 
  >literature (the media, as a whole, may be a lost cause).

[tudorw]

https://www.sott.net/article/234667-Pestilence-the-Great-Pla...

[lrem]

It is actually hard to tell if you are serious or not... But the comparison you call for is actually pretty interesting.

[ommunist]

I am damn serious. It is not tobacco that kills. And I am qualified research worker, with publications in biology. So yes, lets give it a run.

[tpeo]

Well, this largely explains the vague cardboard smell and taste of commercial tobacco.