
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/the-shocking-ingredients-in-cigarettes.html
The Shocking Ingredients in Cigarettes

By Melissa Breyer, Senior Editor, Healthy & Green Living
If you think cigarettes are simply dried tobacco leaves rolled in paper, you’re about 597 ingredients off. The tobacco industry has become master mixologists with the additives. Some ingredients are added for flavor, but research has shown that the key purpose of using additives is to improve tobacco’s potency resulting in increased addictiveness–and the additives they choose to use are dreadful.
I remember hearing something about “the list” back in the 1990s when tobacco companies first started being taken to task for their dastardly ways, but seeing the list again now that I’m educated about chemistry and health, I am absolutely staggered. It’s amazing this isn’t in the news everyday! It’s bad enough that many of these ingredients are approved for use in food–but that they haven’t been tested for burning? When burnt, the whole mess results in over 4,000 chemicals, including over 40 known carcinogenic compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.
You know it’s bad when the Phillip Morris website has this posted on their homepage: Nearly 5,000 chemicals have been identified in tobacco smoke to date. Public health authorities have classified between 45 and 70 of those chemicals, including carcinogens, irritants and other toxins, as potentially causing the harmful effects of tobacco use.
According to Dr. and Mrs. Quit, also known as Lowell Kleinman, M.D., and Deborah Messina-Kleinman, M.P.H., from the Quit Smoking Center, cigarette flavors have gone through many changes since cigarettes were first made. Initially, cigarettes were unfiltered, allowing the full “flavor” of the tar to come through. As the public became concerned about the health effects of smoking, filters were added. While this helped alleviate the public’s fears, the result was a cigarette that tasted too bitter. (And filters do not remove enough tar to make cigarettes less dangerous. They are just a marketing ploy to trick you into thinking you are smoking a safer cigarette.)
The solution to the bitter-tasting cigarette was easy–have some chemists add taste-improving chemicals to the tobacco. But heck, once they got rolling they figured out they could really maximize the whole addiction part, what a hook. They found that a chemical similar to rocket fuel helps keep the tip of the cigarette burning at an extremely hot temperature, which allows the nicotine in tobacco to turn into a vapor so your lungs can absorb it more easily. Or how about ammonia? Adding ammonia to cigarettes allows nicotine in its vapor form to be absorbed through the lungs more quickly. This, in turn, means your brain can get a higher dose of nicotine with each inhalation. Now that’s efficiency.
For a start, here’s the who’s who of the most toxic ingredients used to make cigarettes tastier, and more quickly, effectively addictive:
Ammonia: Household cleaner.
Arsenic: Used in rat poisons.
Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber.
Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid.
Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas.
Cadmium: Used in batteries.
Cyanide: Lethal poison.
DDT: A banned insecticide.
Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals.
Lead: Poisonous in high doses.
Formaldehyde: Used to preserve dead specimens.
Methoprene: Insecticide.
Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics.
Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs.
Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India, in 1984.
Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element.
For the whole list of 599 additives used in cigarettes, see the BBC Worldservice page What’s in a Cigarette.
Read more about cigarettes and the Great American Smokeout:
Lessons from a Smoking Cessation Class
Make the Pledge, Live Longer, Live Better




Robyn
Melissa
Deepak
Eric
Dave
Dr. Brent
Isha
Susan
Delia
Michelle
Wendy
Megan
Hilary
Ann
Judi
Ronnie
Kelly
Lily
Terri
Betsy
Cait
Andrew
Jana
Annie B.
Veronica
177 comments
add your comment »The tobacco-less nicotine device mentioned in someone's earlier post is at http://www.modernvapor.com/aboutus.asp. I assume the product is not a hoax; you breathe in vaporized tobacco-less nicotine from a cigarrette-like device. That would better satisfy addiction than patches or gum; it would have minimal health consequences, so people who use it would not be taking money out of our pockets to pay for tobacco-related diseases.
Regarding complaints about the government losing tax money if tobacco were outlawed, the whole point of the tax is to pay for the cost to the public that tobacco usage incurs. That tax money is not magic money to pay for roads or police or other state duties: what smokers do to themselves (and others with second-hand smoke) costs us money. If there were no smoking, there would be no such expense, therefore no need for the tax money.
If it were outlawed, resulting in 0 tax money, we would gain because there would be no future tobacco costs. Only when all the smokers die out would there be no more public cost due to tobacco, and that would take decades. But having the tax perpetuates the disease and the expense: getting tax money today guarantees future expense from future illness.
Let's keep the addicts addicted, and tax the smokeless tobacco they get from modernvapor.com, and set the tax to diminish over time until all the "real" smokers have died out.
Ironic: my initial comment on this article was because of its factual inaccuracies.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
In many ways I agree with you GEORGE B.
But - going one step further - let's ban ALL nicotine (smoking) products. That would be the ultimate solution. But - then the Governments wouldn't get their 40%+ tax from it all, would they ? Oh woe to them !!
This comment comes from a smoker - who knows ALL about the horrid addiction this actually is. I would LOVE to see it all banned - but I reckon the non-smokers would have a pink fit at what Governments would have to do THEIR hip pocket (taxes) to make up the shortfall in no more tax from smoking. hmmmm. Interesting - huh ?
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
I don't want to throw my two cents into this LONG discussion just say that most of the comments have brought up valid points, ones to mull over, and I am grateful to the posters.
George B, I esp. love your eloquently written comments and whole heartedly agree with what you believe.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
The rest of my comment: [I guess it was too lengthy for Care2]--
[*The second thing I would do would be to use our armed forces, not to protect one group of desert nomads from another, but to seal off the borders of all the rainforests and prevent intrusion except by the occasional scientist.]
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Dear Modern--
I have no argument with nicotine itself. It may actually have some benefits that outweigh the slight detrimental effect on the cardiovascular system. The lower incidence of Alzheimer's in smokers is clearly because of the nicotine. As far as the fact that it is addicting is concerned, I could live with that if the drug were delivered in a manner as innocuous as that of the product you provided a link to. It doesn't bother me that diabetics have to have their "fix" of insulin every day, nor would it bother me if someone used that particular product, if it is truly as described on that web site.
If snake-creatures from the star system Rigel were to land on earth and make me king, the first thing I would do* would be to outlaw all smoked and smokeless tobacco products; I would require all addicts to either quit or to use a pure nicotine product like the one you mentioned.
The tobacco industry for many decades actually funded research on analogs of tobacco (compounds similar to nicotine) and some of these analogs have been reported to make people feel good without any detrimental effects. Unfortunately, since these substances don't exist in nature, they would be classified as drugs and are, therefore, unavailable. We seem to have a built-in cultural bias against even considering the use of such substances.
[*The second thing I would do would be to use our armed forces, not to protect one group of desert nomads from another, but to seal off the borde
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
When I read this kind of article, I wonder how can people who have access to the Internet, magazines and TV still smoke. Also, cigarettes show the system at its best: it's OK to poison people, as long as it makes them get addicted and keep buying our products!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Again and again I see the pseudo-argument, "don't pick on us because there are other bad and more evil things" in the world. Are we supposed to ignore the burglars because there are murderers? On second thought, though, is tobacco use that innocuous?
In fact, tobacco use is extremely deadly: twenty times as many Americans die each year as the result of tobacco use than as the result of homicides. Five times as many Americans die as the result of tobacco use than as the result of alcohol use. Tobacco use kills more Americans each year than have all illegal drugs in our entire history. Tobacco use kills 150 times as many Americans each year than were killed in the 9/11 attack.
Worldwide, about 5 million people die each year as a result of tobacco use. That makes Hitler look like St. Theresa. Let's do something about it instead of just talking. Let's devote proper resources to eliminating this menace.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Nobody has mentioned the number of fires that smokers cause, or the deaths as a result of those fires, usually caused by smokers falling asleep while smoking. Could it be that nobody is concerned about smokers killing themselves more directly and immediately, as a result of fire, than killing themselves indirectly and years and years down the road, as a result of smoking diseases?
A separate issue that several commentators have touched on is the issue of the health hazard to companion animals. Tobacco smoke condenses on environmental surfaces, including animal fur and feathers. Animals that preen themselves, such as cats do to an extraordinary extent, absorb the tobacco smoke residue off of their fur. That residue is highly carcinogenic, which is why cats of smokers have such a high rate of malignant lymphoma. This is a different risk factor than that of inhaling the second hand smoke.
So not only can you not condone smoking if you value the sanctity of human life, but you cannot condone smoking if you value the sancity of your companion animals--your pets, your dogs, cats, birds, etc.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
What we call "statistics" are commonly misunderstood. We cannot go up to anyone and say, you, sir, will get lung cancer if you start smoking or continue to smoke. We cannot say that you individually will die sooner and get this or that other disease as a result of smoking. We can say, when we look at hundreds of thousands of people, that it is just as certain as the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow that smokers--on average--are going to die a lot sooner and get more diseases; some will get lung cancer.
There are no recorded cases of lung cancer in medical history prior to the introduction of tobacco. There are other causes of it now, but the vast majority are still due to tobacco.
One of the most common excuses for allowing smoking is something like, "Aunt so-and-so lived to be a hundred and was never sick a day in her life and smoked 3 packs a day." Does the fact that some people survive gunshots mean that you should expose yourself to gunfire? I think not.
I gave my mother's graveside service and when I spoke, I specifically stated that I did not want the fact that she lived to be 82 despite smoking almost one million cigarettes to be used as an excuse by anyone for smoking. She suffered, but she would leave her oxygen to smoke a cigarette.
The damage caused by tobacco smoking is not just a matter of statistics: it can be reproduced in the laboratory on animals and cell cultures. If you value the sanctity of human life, you cannot condone smoking.
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
PLEASE!
STOP MAKING THEM FROM NOW ON!
That would't be the wisest decision ever!!!!
send green star
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account: