Talk:Tobacco smoking

1957 book as historical resource

The BMJ review says:

To smoke or not to smoke being the question of the day, Sir Compton Mackenzie's latest book, Sublime Tobacco (Chatto and Windus; 21s.), may well be regarded as the apologia of a lifelong addict. It has been written, the author says, "as a token of gratitude for the immense benefit I have received from tobacco and in complete certainty that I have not derived from it the slightest harm." This is a well-documented and illustrated history of tobacco. tohacco-smoking, and the tobacco trade from its introduction into Europe from America to its present position as an important source of revenue, both public and private. The text contains many quotations, ranging from James I's Counterblaste to Tobacco of 1604 to eighteenth-century rhymed advertisements and the anti-tobacco campaign of Dr. Solly in 1857. As a prologue Sir Compton relates the history of his own smoking life, from his first cigarette at the age of 4 1/2, through a variety of pipes, cigarettes, and cigars, to his present unrepentant addiction.

BrainyBabe (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

This article states: "Smoking is the most common method of consuming tobacco, and tobacco is the most common substance smoked. The agricultural product is often mixed with other additives[9] and then pyrolyzed." Really? Pyrolysis is chemical decomposition at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxygen. This would be a neat trick for any smoker to achieve without suffocating (humans, even smokers, require oxygen to live), not to mention requiring a lot of fancy equipment to first deplete the working fluid (i.e., atmosphere) in the vicinity of the tobacco product to be consumed of oxygen and then find a way (not involving combustion, as you've just depleted it from the vicinity of the tobacco) to raise the tobacco product's temperature to where it will begin to pyrolyze. I think the word you're looking for here is burned, not pyrolyzed, to produce smoke, a byproduct of combustion - hmm, wonder if that's why they call it smoking and not pyrolyzing...Wiki strikes again. Hi-yo, Silver! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The article still uses this word. If I was a registered user I might try to change it. 74.2.191.66 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC) UNSIGNED

Poor use of references

I couldn't continue to read this article after checking the sources for the following claim:

"The active substances trigger chemical reactions in nerve endings which heightens heart rate, memory, alertness, and reaction time."

The referenced study comprised sixteen male smokers which is a pathetically small candidate pool and in no way representative of the human species. There was also no control of non-smokers, so the above claim only applies to male smokers who are presently experiencing withdrawals from nicotine which easily accounts for poor performance prior to the re-administration of nicotine. The study in no way relates to the claims made and indeed the study clearly states that no significant impact on memory was measured in direct contradiction to the claim the above statement makes. I would say this statement is not only misleading but also dishonest as someone (probably a smoker) took the time to find a study which though it doesn't support the statement in the least looks to the casual reader "scientific" enough to not trigger the BS alarm.

The following would be more accurate:

"The nicotine in tobacco is physically addictive. Shortly after nicotine reaches the bloodstream via the lungs it begins to leave the bloodstream. As this occurs there are measurable impacts on heart rate, memory, alertness, and reaction time (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060821215918.htm). Further doses of nicotine administered through smoking, patches or nicotine gum can reverse these withdrawal symptoms temporarily(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2498936), or approximately three weeks of abstinence cause virtually all withdrawal symptoms to vanish completely and permanently. (ISBN 978-0-9744864-8-2.) 202.89.181.178 (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The toxicity of smoking

"Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism." — from the Wiki article on "toxicity" The Wiki artcle on the health effects of smoking offers plenty of evidence and makes it abundantly clear that tobacco smoke has a fairly high degree of toxicity. In short it's toxic. Tobacco for personal use is a toxic substance. Any article covering and aspect of tobacco production and use should make it clear that it is raised by and large for personal use, as so used is toxic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

CIGARETTE SMOKING

Smoking especially of cigaretts is one of the most common and important aetiological factors for bronchogenic carcinoma . This ahs been proved by various epidemiological studies and animal experiments.The risk of getting carcinoma is directly proportional to the quantity of tobacco consumed. It has bee shown that cigarettes contain many carcinogens which act either as initiators or promoters. Radioactive substance,carbon, polonium , and contaminants like arsenic and nickle have additional effects

It appears the that the real damage to lungs is caused by the particular phase of cigarette smoke . It is particulates which deposits on the carina between the dividing bronchi and bronchi oles, the common sites for the cancer . The gaseous phase may reach far into the alveoli. The influence of alveolar cancer is not higher to the smokers due to less carcinogenic effect of gaseous phase compared to the particulate phase. The direct toxic effect of smoking damages the mucocilliary apparatus and promotes infection, with recurrent cell desqumation and regeneration cycles. Thus chronic bronchitis caused by tobacco consumption i often complicated later by lung cancer.

          Many retrospective and prospective studies have led to the following conclusion. 

1)The risk of dying from bronchial carcinoma increases with the extent of smoking and is highest for those who smokes cigarettes only. this risk decreases with filter tipped-cigar.If smoking is stopped it takes 15years fro a heavy smoker to equal the risk that a non-smoker faces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.27.94 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There's a specific Wikipedia page on health effects of tobacco for this sort of material. Your contribution may be even more welcome if you can work on the English and provide appropriate references.Hypocaustic (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)