Safe Cigarettes?

CDPatten writes "The UK Times Online is reporting that we could see a 'safe cigarette' next year. From the article: 'BRITISH American Tobacco (BAT) is to launch a controversial 'safer cigarette' designed to cut the risk of smoking-related diseases such as cancer and heart failure by up to 90%.' I wonder if this will have any impact on the no smoking bans we have seen in recent years?"

Comments

Philip Morris LIES

[ikewillis]

Of course Philip Morris says there's no safe cigarette. They don't want to invest the money to make their cigarettes safer...

Internal memos from Philip Morris from April 1980 indicate that the tobacco companies have been fully aware of radioactivity in cigarettes for over two decades. They also knew of ways of eliminating the radioactivity, but wrote them off as a "valid but expensive point":

That phosphate fertilizer (specifically superphosphate fertilizer) contains natural radioactivity is a well established fact.

Natural uranium accumulates in the phosphate rock and has been shown to substitute for calcium in the rock structure. Uranium and its daughters are thus carried through the mining and manufacturing process and appear in the commercial product. Soils to which these products are applied show an increase in radioactivity over that naturally present and this increase is a function of the rate of application and the number of years that the fertilizers have been used.

M. E. Counts has shown that the specific [radio]activity [...] increases as the particle size of the superphosphate fertilizer decreases. Thus the smaller particles, which would be more likely to be made airborne by normal farming practices, would be expected to settle out on the tobacco leaves during the growing season and/or be more readily taken up by the plant root system.

210Pb and 210Po are present in tobacco and smoke. The Martell "Hot Particle Theory" has been addressed in the past and has apparently lost popularity in the scientific community (lack of recent publicity in this field). For -particles from 210Po to be the cause of lung cancers is unlikely due to the amount of radioactivity of a particular energy necessary for induction Evidence to date, however, does not allow one to state that this is an impossibility. (Ed: and of course, more recent evidence says just the opposite)

The recommendation of using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate as fertilizer is probably a valid but expensive point. What Martell appears to be suggesting is the purification of phosphate rock to obtain P2O5 or H3PO4 free of calcium (uranium and daughters) and inert materials. Preparation of ammonium phosphate for fertilizer would then yield a product greatly reduced in or free of the natural radioactivity present in the parent phosphate rock.

Furthermore, switching to indirect fire curing would eliminate virtually all of another carcinogen, nitrosamine, from cigarettes. Nitrosamine was previously found in BEER thanks to direct fire curing of barley. Switching to indirect fire curing of barley reduced nitrosamine in beer to indetectable levels. Yet Philip Morris makes Marlboros, cigarettes with more nitrosamine than any others in the world.

Yes, believe what Philip Morris says, because if you realized there could be a safe cigarette, it would cost them a lot of money...

Here's two simple manufacturing changes they could make which would eliminate the two most potent carcinogens from cigarettes. But I guess it's just cheaper for Philip Morris to kill their customers.

Damn Ex-Smoker words below

[GeekyMike]

I quit smoking 3 years ago while attending college full time and working full time at an ISP tech desk (phone support). I had smoked for about 9 years prior to that. I think if you really want to quit, you will, my (then) 3 year old girl telling me "Daddy, the cigarettes make you cough." I figured if my 3 year old can see that, I should be able to see that as well.

I set a day and time for me to quit (Friday at 17:00) and chainsmoked up to that point. At 17:00 I placed the remainder of the pack on my counter and left them there. When I had a craving, I smelled the tobacco and placed the pack back on the counter. The aches from the wonderful chemicals leaving my joints were relieved by ibuprofin. And I kept saying to myself, I have gone (insert time) without a cigarette, I will wait a few hours and get one if I need it. The mantra kept repeating, setting goals and pushing them higher and higher.

I threw the pack away three months later with the same contents as it had that Friday. Food and drinks tasted better, my newborn son's asthma went away (I smoked outside, but the smoke comes in on your hair, hands, and clothing), and my wallet was fuller.

I feel so much better now that I would suggest quitting to anyone. People around you will understand if you are a bit of a Hellbeast, and will forgive you if you matter to them. If they don't, screw them they don't care for you anyway.

Re:Still Safe?

[Doc Ruby]

But the free market doesn't work in this case - as in so many others. Here in NYC, as with elsewhere I've lived that banned smoking in restaurants and bars - all the "status quo" people said it would kill business. It didn't. People were in a rut; the smoking minority made it worse for everyone, even impeding people from spending more time in bars because of the smoke. When the majority of people finally banded together to stand up to the junkies and forced them to stop smoking inside, the result was better places for eating and drinking. Smokers continued to frequent the places for those reasons, and made concessions to their addiction by smoking outside. The doomsayers were wrong - though it might have decreased cigarette sales. There were many reports here in NYC in retrospective reporting, of smokers saying the ban was what finally gave them the discipline to quit. So I suspect lots of the doomsaying was paid propaganda from the tobacco pushers, including bars and restaurants that sold cigarettes.

Smoking bans not only make public places healthier, they also demonstrate very simple ways in which the free market doesn't effectively model choice or social preferences. Especially when the markets are controlled by minorities with deeply vested practices, irrational needs and a budget to promote detrimental group behavior. For clues, note how expensive smoking is in product and healthcare, and how many people behave uneconomically within the algebra of junkie need.