Jump to content

Talk:List of additives in cigarettes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thoraxcorp (talk | contribs) at 22:25, 3 October 2015 (Conflicting Information Among Different Wiki Articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Notareferencedesk

Discrepancies Between Differing Articles

I noticed that this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens only lists 33 known carcinogens, while this "List_of_additives_in_cigarettes" claims 69. Which one is it? All of the articles surrounding cigarette smoke seem to be very outdated, and the sources don't agree with each other. There's a big difference between 33 and 69 and it would be nice if someone could find a reputable source with a definitive figure.

Thoraxcorp (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ddsurfsca

I was wondering why cigarettes recently have been going out while being smoked. was something taken out of them, as an additive that kept them from going out? or was something added to them such as some sort of flame retardant? Please help me with this I have been researching this for a while now.

ddsurfscaDdsurfsca 10:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here is an interesting article on "fire-safe" cigarettes that might answer you question on why cigarettes go out while being smoked.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=228784 ````tlc920 4/23/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.176.4 (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...

"...all these chemical compounds have been approved as additives to food..."

Now, I may be wrong on this, but I'm fairly sure Ammonia is not an approved additive to food, you know with being a carcinogen and all. Please clarify. --George The Man 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I drank some ammonia (with Senega) the other day. Its used for chest infections —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.255.133 (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the accelerates were removed as part of the agreements with many European countries that have banned additives to cigarettes. It's cheaper to not buy them at all than to buy them just for the manufacturing process for US use cigarettes because of the quanty discounts. Poor DJCC. Philip Morris is the only one I know of that still uses them in some American cigarettes. Lostinlodos 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia is still used in food processing, and has been claimed to be useful for killing bacteria in "pink slime" (the product made from fatty slaughterhouse trimmings and mixed with ground beef). Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all SciMathGuy (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No merge

There is a huge difference between cigarette additives and (mainstream) smoke consituents. The latter being the result of the combustion of the former. I am removing the merge tag. Popo le Chien 08:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why so many?

Will someone please explain to me why the cigarette companies have to add up to 599 additives? how many chemicals can be used to enhance flavour? or whatever they are used for. 599 just seems way too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.117.202 (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in why do they still?, Because the American Big 6 (including the five listed here), made agreements with American chemical manufactures INCLUDING DUPONT, many years ago that are sill valid. The reason the harmful chemicals have not been ordered to be removed from the otherwise relatively-safe tobacco, officially is because, as stated above, there are all cleared ON THEIR OWN for FOOD consumption, though I recognize other reasons that wouldn't fit in a wikipedia page including this talk board. ;) Lostinlodos (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but speaking from a strictly chemical standpoint, thats an extremely stupid reason. Burning something then inhaling it is vastly different than eating it. Even something simple and safe like silicon dioxide (a component of sand) can be carcinogenic and will cause respiratory problems when inhaled. Additionally, many compounds change into something totally else while undergoing pyrolysis ... For example, its not out of the question to wonder if the benzaldehyde in the Almond oil (on the list) could react with d/l-Alanine (on the list) to produce the mild stimulant drug phenylpropanolamine - right in the cigarette as it burns, depending on if whatever else in there catalyzed it or inhibited it... and those are just two substances from the first letter of the list!!! Zaphraud (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm...

Can someone please translate this article into english? Thanks. Drahcir my talk 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, layman's terms for many of these chemicals would be helpful, or grouping them into families that can be labled with layman's terms. --160.79.83.254 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so umm yeah, i'm pretty sure ciggerettes don't have Caffeine in them, i'm just saying- zak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.138.16 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additive Free

Why is there no link to an article listing brands of additive free cigarettes and why does Wikipedia not have such an article? I discovered a Wikipedia article on Natural American Spirit additive free cigarettes but no link to it from this article. And Wikipedia may have other such articles that are unknown to me. Isn't it likely that readers will come to this fine article that you have written looking for a list of additive free brands containing only tobacco and would want such an article? Thank you. rumjal 08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered an unlinked Wikipedia article on additive free Winston. There should be a link to the above. I am not sure if "additive free" means one hundred percent tobacco or not, but an article should discuss this. rumjal 08:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Standard Winston cigarettes are not additive free. They have rebranded some of the American Spirit line as part of the Winston line only, which are also sold as RJ Free. Lostinlodos (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of category and redirect

I had a thing on my talk page about it. Maybe that we could delete Category:Cigarette additives and then make there have a redirect from the category.

~~EBE123~~ 21:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Gross

I can't believe how much is in one cigarette. That is so gross!!! It is amazing how these chemicals were not tested when they were burned!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.24.200 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comprehensive list of all additives. It does not mean that all additives were in every cigaret. Furthermore, the list was compiled in 1994 and does not reflect current law on cigaret additives.Euonyman (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of ammonia could be difficult

Since ammonia is a gas ... Some knowledge of chemistry is really helpful. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ammonia occurs naturally in tobacco during the curing process, especially the bale method of tobacco maturation for cigars and barrel fermentation for pipe tobacco. Sometimes it also used as a fumigant to rid harvested tobacco of pests, particularly tobacco worms and their eggs, which are nearly microscopic.Euonyman (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

list is out of date

The list was prepared from documents almost two decades old. Everything pertaining to cigaret additives changed in 2009, when the federal government banned the sale of flavored cigarets.Euonyman (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_additives_in_cigarettes&oldid=683998871"