Talk:Tobacco smoking
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tobacco smoking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
 | Tobacco smoking was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 3, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
NPOv
This whole article is very POV. Most of the article is about dissaproval of smoking and health risks. Shouldn't those things be moved to their own articles and the article on smoking actually be devoted to smoking tobacco. Also, the section on religion is all negative. I know for a fact that Judaism's opinion on smoking is overwhelmingly positive, but the article only mentions the negative opinions. Why not move all the anti-smoking comments to an article, "Helath risks of smoking," and chose a few big points people feel need made to a section here, "Heaqlth risks and controversies: see main article Health Risks of Smoking. 88.153.200.32 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Non Health Related Effects of Smoke
This article doesn't mention the effect cigarette smoke has on homes / apartments. I'm thinking something along the lines of wall coloration, furniture, smell, etc. I've noticed some collectibles on eBay are advertised as from 'non-smoking' homes as well. I don't know if this sort of thing should be included in this article, or another article just on tobacco smoke, but it should be included somewhere.
Smoking Bans
It states "In New Zealand and Australia smoking is banned in all public places, including bars and restaurants." While i cannot speak for New Zealand The statement is misleading for Australia as there are a: the different states have their own anti smoking legislation and b: not all public places are smoke free - something along the lines of "And In Australia new legistation severly curtails smoking in public" would be more appropriate
Snide Remark
Deleted that little "they are very good for you" comment? What was that? - Gnome 58.165.115.225
- That would be wp:vandalism. --Nephtes 16:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Good Article
The article was change to become more neutral, well-cited, accurate, and well-written. It is not yet good enough to become a Featured Article but is good enough to be listed as a Good Article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 05:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Archive
I have archived all the past discussions for this page. Please go to Talk:Tobacco smoking/archive1 to read them. Thanks. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Featured Article
I have re-nominated this page as a Featured Article. It was greatly improved since its original nomination. --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You probably should have waited to get feedback from the good article nomination first. I am not sure this article is stable enough yet for featured article status, but on the positive side it seems to be a large number of constructive edits and not an edit war.Badocter 15:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Passive Smoking
It has never been shown that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. The studies done that say this were thrown out of a US court for being skewed and flawed. All warnings, such as the Surgeon General's Warning are based on these articles and are thus also flawed. Please watch : "Second Hand Smoke/Baby Bullshit." Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Showtime. 21 February 2003. Even if you disagree with their tactics and attitudes, Penn and Teller have done their research very well. --The Talking Sock talk contribs 13:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The above comment is factually correct. But the issue, unfortunately but not atypically, is more complex than Talkstosocks implies. First, the EPA report to which he's referring to was *partially* vacated by the court; specifically, the parts referring to cancer. The rest of the report, which claimed links between 2nd hand smoke and other lung diseases such as emphysema, still stands. Second, it's worth mentioning that the judge who made the decision was a former tobacco lobbyist, and in many people's opinions, should have recused himself because of his dubious impartiality. I'm not getting into the issue of whether or not this justifies smoking bans. --Nephtes 14:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Enh, I guess this argument has been had already, many times over...--The Talking Sock talk contribs 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Summarization of history section
A user proposed to short the history section. I think it's the best section of this article and very informative. Perhaps it's not necessary to summarize it, I don't know yet. But, if we go for a summarization process then it's best to create a main article "Tobacoo smoking history", so all this incredible information does not get deleted. Loudenvier 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's already a History of Tobacco Smoking main article. I think I missed it in the first removal I´ve done... We could talk if it's best standing as an stand-alone article or be merged into Tobacco Smoking. If the artcile is reaching the threshold for article size then I would back-up the separate articles, if not then I'm against it, since there's no place better suited to host the History of Tobacco Smoking than the articl on Tobacco Smoking itself. Loudenvier 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm too lazy these days... The article already is beyond the threshold for a good article size. So I think it's best to have a separate article for the history section. We now have to be carefull to let the most important information on the main article Tobacco and only the details for the History article. Loudenvier 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Photo
The vast majority of tobacco smoking worldwide is via cigarettes, so the first photo in the article ought to be of someone smoking a cigarette, rather than Image:Smoking equipment.jpg, an assortment of (relatively) exotic equipment.
Also, Image:Smoking equipment.jpg is obviously an altered image, which is technically a violation of the WP:NOR policy. It needs to be labeled as altered or removed, or the unaltered photo should be put in its place. Tempshill 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is absurd. Image:Smoking equipment.jpg does not violate WP:NOR policy. Modifying images to demonstrate a point is allowed, and is frequently done.
- I changed the picture to better fit the article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 19:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
GA Nom Comments
I've dropped by to review the article. I want to commend all for an amazingly NPOV, thourough and easy to read article. While long, this is not a consideration for GA, although it is for FA. What needs to be done for me to promote it anyway is to document more thoroughly, especially in the early sections and the lead expanded according to WP:LEAD standards. I'll put it on hold so you all can work on it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I expanded the LP a bit more and am trying to figure how to tie in more of the sections, but it is slow going. I find it a little amusing that an article with 60+ references gets the suggestion to document better, but admittedly the history section as well as its stand alone article need of more citations. Thanks much for the positive feedback.Badocter 18:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be much "controversy" going on anymore.
- Should we remove the tag? --Frescard 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I will remove it. --GoOdCoNtEnT 05:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
minor inacuracies: some areas of new york state (for example suffolk county) have an age of 19 for purchasing tobacco. The photo of the price of a carton of cigarettes in new jersey is out of date. Currently they run at around $40-$60. The united states requires (small) warnings on packs of cigarettes, and packs from phillip morris (particually marlboro and parlament) sometimes come with quitting infromation. the image at the top is of Djarum Blacks, a brand of cloves. Cloves (kreteks) are not discussed in the this article, and are in fact only mentioned in the "see also" section. I'll let some one more experienced make the changes if deemed necissary, but i thought it would be helpful to point these out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.239.254 (talk • contribs) .--CTSWyneken(talk) 08:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Reason for new flags
GoOdCoNtEnT, it would help me to know why you raised the flags on the article, since I'm monitoring it for GA at the moment. Thanks! --CTSWyneken(talk) 08:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Here are the problems with this page at the moment:
- Prices and laws are outdated.
- Page is too focused on the Western world.
- Page has too many sections that can be combined.
- The history section is poorly cited.
Otherwise, its GA material. --GoOdCoNtEnT 20:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, citations have to be re-written. --GoOdCoNtEnT 04:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- This article is still on the GA disputes page, but it was submitted on the 4th of august, are these problems still extant? Homestarmy 13:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
GA Failed; Hold expired.
Please feel free to work on the concerns in my hold comments and the flag explanation and renom when ready. --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Package Warnings
I think that the Package Warning section should mention the Surgeon General warnings that the US requires on cigarette packages. Is there some reason this isn't included?
- I have added the link to the main article that reviews warnings in various countries. There are often complaints that material in these articles is too US-centric, and this case the UK warning is more representative in both size and content to warnings I have seen in a dozen or so countries I have visited. The UK warning is more typical globally than the US labeling which goes into the minutia of what government agency issues the warning.Badocter 07:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Inhales the smoke?
I have heard that what is inhaled is not really smoke but vapors from the heated tobacco. Steve Dufour 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's kind of a smoldering smoke which contains some heated and/or anaerobically cooked tobacco vapors. That's the problem (healthrelated). There are gadgets available which consist of a little hotplate set to like 500 degrees F and a funnel that actually do just vaporize the volatiles from your smoking material without either burning it or cooking up nasty reactive chemicals. Gzuckier 14:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Acetylcholine
There are some serious issues with accuracy in this article which I am disappointed were never caught by anyone. Amazingly, in this article, it credits an increase in the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brain with the effects of nicotine. The information seemed suspicious to me, and to my dismay, I found that the source that was cited did not mention this at all! In fact, as nicotine binds to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the brain, it has an "antagonistic" effect, meaning that it inhibits function of these receptors, which is the exact opposite of what acetylcholine does. This alone almost made me want to put out a NPOV on this article and when I saw it was almost a featured article I thought I had better put this notice in here to make sure you correct the factual inaccuracies.
- Good point, I was just editing pages on some nicotinic insecticides where they mention how they don't affect the acetylcholine systems. Gzuckier 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify, nicotine does affect acetylcholine systems, but in the opposite way that acetylcholine affects them. Flying Hamster 01:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, somebody is confused here and the article reflects that confusion. Nicotine IS an agonist for nicotinic ACH receptors. http://www.neurosci.pharm.utoledo.edu/MBC3320/nicotinic.htm It doesn't effect muscarinic ACH receptors quite so drastically. Acute administration increases the net ACH effect in a manner which seems to slow the progression of AZ (in a manner similar to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors) but its effect in PD is more probably related to a cumulative dysregulation of the extrapyramidal DA system.
(DA dysregulation in the mesolimbic system may be one of the reasons that chronic smokers who suffer from schizophrenia have a higher need for antipsychotic medication. An alternative theory is that the hallucinogens harmaline, harmane and norharmane present in tobacco may be the major contributors. These hallucinogens disrupt the serotonergic system rather than ACH or DA.)
I'd recommend deleting the entire paragraph starting with "A large body of evidence". Sorry I forgot to sign this comment, starting with "OK" I'm new here. Trilobitealive 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have been looking at this article again, especially the paragraph starting with A large body of evidence but don't believe I'm quite ready to destroy another person's work, even if it is biased and erroneous. I did add a paragraph at the bottom of the health benefits section clarifying the nature of the smoking/PD negative correlation. Trilobitealive 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I did some work on the section Bodily functions and how they are affected to correct some of the misunderstanding about N effect on ACH receptors and add some important links. Edit includes the first paragraph and the first phrase of the first sentence on the second paragraph.Trilobitealive 14:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this true?
I have been informed by a few sources that a burning cigarette does so at 1000 degrees, is this true? also if you dont inhale the smoke, but keep it in your mouth are you more likely to catch mouth cancer?
dingos-ate-my-baby 15:09 11th October 2006
More likely than what? Definitely more likely than if you don't smoke at all, probably not more likely than if you inhale. Gzuckier 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Improved.
Last time i saw this last january it was a quagmire of poorly pov'd crud from addicts in denial and badly sourced anti-smoking rhetoric. I think it's almost GA quality again, although there are still gaps in the sourcing and problems with health issues being pushed off into their own article which seems a POV edit designed to lessen the "impact" such connotations may have on opinions of readers.--I'll bring the food 21:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm - I'm afraid that I consider many of your recent edits to be of the anti-smoking POV. The humorous (yet POV) edit summary "savour the flavour no more my fellow wikipedians" is a pretty good demonstration of why. You have stated that all smoking is the "addictive habit of..." Which is something the reader can assert for theirselfs. In my case you are probably correct, but in the cases of others, I kow for a fact that non-addicted smokers exist that smoke only for occasional enjoyment or as a form of socialisation. --Crimsone 00:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have just semi-reverted your edit of the lede. I have however included your mention of addiction. What is important is not that the words are given in order of percieved importance, but in accprdance with WP:NPOV, each fact be given additional weight. In possesion of the full facts, it is for the reader to decide what's important. As per WP:LEDE, the article should be written with a good flow of text and minimal redundancy.
- Please also note that "habitual" is NOT a weasle word. There are two components to what is commonly known as a smoking habit, one being that of the habit of smoking, (the physical act in subconcious association with the passage of time or given situations), and the other being nicotine addiction. This, in part, is the reason why nicotine replacement therapy can be unsuccessful. Each component of a smoking habit or addiction can be equally significant as the cause of smoking.
- It would appear from your edit summaries and consideration of "habitual" (A verifyable fact) as a weasle word hat you are strongly against smoking. Please be advised that this is indeed a non-neutral POV. You may wish to make the article make smoking look bad, but that is not the goal of an encyclopedic article. The goal is to offer the facts in a neutral format, and let the reader make that assertion for his or her self. --Crimsone 19:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Habitual is less clear cut and can also mean accustomed to, or used to. It also is similar to the word habitat which gives feelings of warmth and housing, animal housing and cute little fuzzy hamsters etc. Addiction is a very blunt and obvious term. Habitual is true of smoking for most if not all smokers but is also IMO weasel wording. I am however fine with what i removed the second occurance of pleasure from. it looks okay like that.
My decision to put the "savour the flavour no more" as a description was based on chunks of wording about the flavour and subtleness of tobacco etc etc which i removed from the methods sections (also naturalness with the complete absense of info about artificial chemicals used to treat them). As the first part of the article they were being used as a pro-smoking vehicle, not by you, but by a user who formally edited this article whom i have had my eye on who ceased to edit in may of this year.
I feel especially compelled to the pro-POV and take exception on a wholly almost unreasonable level as i feel an article on a children's CD should be better than this was.
Your mention of 'i know for a fact people that smoke only for pleasure' or similar wording of some degree is original research. My goal is certainly to improve the article which is why i just gave it its first ISBN'd book reference. Thank you for your collaboration. --I'll bring the food 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Not really - i know for a fact people that smoke only for pleasure means in this context that I know it can be easily sourced :) --Crimsone 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Minor Inaccuracies:
Sherlock Holmes was a cocaine addict, not heroin.
- Good catch. According to Sherlock Holmes he was "an occasional user (a habitual user when lacking in stimulating cases) of cocaine and morphine": not really right in any respect, and hardly relevant to pipe smoking, so I have removed it. Notinasnaid 20:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Two points, being that an addiction is with an addict always - not just when business is slow and boring. Secondly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the article --Crimsone 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- He was shown to use cocaine according to the source in much the same way Hendrix used drugs for "inspiration". Either way it's relevant that he was also addicted to other substances, as cocaine use was also seen as trendy at the time (as smoking is or at least was until the last 10 years), see coca cola.--I'll bring the food 19:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I fthis were an article about addiction I'd agree with you, but it's an article about tobacco smoking. The comparison between smoking and cocain use is not exactly encyclopedic though - There are (and always have been) far less cocaine users, and in the last 20 years Cocain has been banned anyway, being as it is an illicit substance - which tobacco is not. However, if you wanted to add a fully and appropriately sourced section to the article on the subject of parralels with controled substances, you'd be more than welcome to if it was purely relevant to smoking. However, it still is not relevant to the mention of the fact that Sherlock Holmes smoked a pipe in the pipe smoking section of the article, where the comparison is further weakened by the fact thatHolmes pipe nothing to do with looking "trendy". Smoking a pipe was just a part of everyday life for the landed gentry and upper-middle class of the time. --Crimsone 21:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Two points, being that an addiction is with an addict always - not just when business is slow and boring. Secondly, it has absolutely nothing to do with the article --Crimsone 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps that new section you suggest should mention the debate between those who believe smoking leads on to illicit drugs and those who believe it doesn't?--I'll bring the food 01:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a minor debate against the number of smokers who havn't gone one to illicit drugs. You could mention it of course, but you'd need to qualify it against it's direct opposite for balance. If the article started on that slippery slope, it would mean huge editwars in the long term. You're attempting to add a lot of weight to the anti side of the article - it's not really required. Non-smokers don't like smoking (and dont smoke anyway), and most smokers wouldn't bother reading it if it's biased towards the anti-smoking side of the debate having heared it all already.
- Perhaps that new section you suggest should mention the debate between those who believe smoking leads on to illicit drugs and those who believe it doesn't?--I'll bring the food 01:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- However, given it's something that 25% of the UK population partake in, and I don't know how many millions of people in Europe and America, WP:BLP could come into this to some extent.
- Um, no, it wouldn't. BLP is for specific people, not a minority of the population--I'll bring the food 02:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- The spirit of the policy is that such things may affect the lives of living people adversity. Smokers aren't labels - they're people like you and I (well, like me perhaps. lol.Bear in mind that I did say that the BLP argument was weak, though it has been invoked before now in an article regarding PayPal, so there is a precedent :).) You aren't a smoker as far as I know.) However - 25% of the uk population may be a minority - but when you factor in children and elderly that can't smoke for various reasons, that number is probably closer to 30%. Whether 25 or 30%, it a very significant minority even so. In places such as the arab world, or possibly China or Africa, I'd expect to see that number significantly higher incidentally. Crimsone 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Smokers are labeled. They're called "smokers". It is a label to describe them based on the plumes of cancer causing smoke that pillar from their mouth.--I'll bring the food 03:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Link Between Tobacco use and subsequent use of Illicit drugs.
Cigarettes along with alcohol and marijuana are considered a “gateway drug.” A 1994 report from the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University states that there is a consistent relationship between the use of cigarettes and alcohol and the subsequent use of marijuana. Cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana use and the subsequent use of illicit drugs like cocaine is also linked, regardless of the age, sex, ethnicity or race of the individuals involved. Children 12 to 17 years old who smoke are nineteen times more likely to use cocaine. The 1994 report also found that the younger children are when they use these gateway drugs and the more often they use them, the more likely they are to use cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens and other illicit drugs. The report concludes that the data is already robust enough to make a strong case to step up efforts to prevent childhood use of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana and to take firm steps to reduce children’s access to these gateway drugs. [1]
People who abuse drugs are likely to be cigarette smokers also. More than two-thirds of drug abusers are regular tobacco smokers, a rate more than double of that in the general population. NIDA researchers have found that craving for nicotine also increases craving for illicit drugs among drug abusers who smoke tobacco, and this suggests that smokers in drug rehabilitation programs may be less successful than nonsmokers in staying off drugs. [2]
I'm not adding arguments against a proven fact, you can't delete a reliable, sourced statement, i suggest you make those additions yourself. Be bold ;), unless you can't find anything that says there is no relationship, which you probably won't, unless you look at some wack job pro smoking site that wants people to die of passive smoking induced cancer so they can savour that flavour...--I'll bring the food 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nope - I can't delete it and I wouldn't dream of it (why you might believe that I would try though is somewhat beyond my comprehension), but I can put it into it's true context on the very same sources. (and should were it not for the fact that I'm tired).
- Most children aren't very likely to use cocain anyway, and so 19 times more likely is still not very likely. Not all smokers start in childhood, let alone before the teenage years. Smoking habits quite frequently form as a result of depression etc. Many (though not all) smokers smoke in moderation and so aren't addicted.
- While two thirds of drug abusers are tobacco users, not all of those are addicted - some simply use it to take the drugs occasionally. Even so, drug abusers make up a minuscule proportion of all of the people that smoke. That said, I have no issue at all with efforts to stop childhood tobacco use - There is an age restriction on it precisely because it's addictive - it's a case of everything in moderation, but only once you're old enough to be responsible.
- It's also worth noting that from everything you've written, it says nothing of adults and those who already smoke. I would like to finish this comment with a request that you please be civil. As it happens, the BMJ not very long ago published a journal article that called the evidence for passive smoking in general harming others significantly into some question. I'm neither pro nor anti smoking myself - merely a smoker. I am pro-balance though. sources which are not vehemently anti-smoking do exist. Crimsone 03:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd ask "how many people who have smoked have also had sex", and then suggest that sexual relations are a gateway to smoking. 203.129.45.216 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
anon twit
Are they always fiddling with the article? and why was the studies link section deleted?--I'll bring the food 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes unfortunately. I've a few articles on my watchlist that tend to be subject to vandalism and tests, and I'm afraid this is one of them :( Crimsone 22:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
smoking
smoking is not hard to quit at all its all in your mind. like i know this one girl her boyfriend had been smoking his hole life and she told him if he did not quit it ways over and he quit he said that once he took his mind off of it.it was really easy and i think that people should thing about it because their kids might start smoking to and to be turthful with you i am only 13 years old and yes i did try it and i did do it for about a mouth and i feel so bad because i would get on to ever one around me and now ever time some one smokes around me i start coffing and they had to go out side because it hurt my throt really bad and I DONT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO YOU.
- Urm.--I'll bring the food 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- ...and a similar thought from myself also. Crimsone 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
suicide risk
It would seem that an addition could be made in the section on smoking and depression. I'd recommend: "There is a correlation between smoking behavior and suicide risk. Whether the tobacco effect on suicidality is primarily causative, secondarily causative or co-morbid has not been fully determined." Here is a quick link to one of many articles which illustrates one of the opinions. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/6/1000 Trilobitealive 22:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Polonium 210 (Po210))
As I understand it, Po210 has a half-life of something close to 138 days. I wonder then how there is enough of it left in aged tobacco to be a problem for smokers. Even more importantly, where is this stuff coming from? Are we running our fertilizers through nuclear reactors or something?
The claim does not make sense to me.
- Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking#Radioactive_components_of_tobaccoGzuckier 22:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is an answer to that. It is my understanding that since the nuclear test ban treaty came into effect the largest US souce of polonium pollution is probably the burning of coal in conventional power plants. According to the Wikipedia Fossil_fuel article In 2000, about 12,000 metric tons of thorium and 5,000 metric tons of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal. Polonium is one of the daughters of radium produced by decay of uranium which would seem it could be generated in the body by breathing anything above it in the decay series. Regardless of polonium levels thorium is also carcinogenic. Trilobitealive 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Natural radioactivity works such that radioactive elements in mineral decay into lighter nuclei. That's why there's radon in the atmosphere and radioactive potassium-40 in our bodies. Polonium is naturally produced from uranium, an element that's actually quite common. The danger in smoking with respect to radioactivity is in the delivery: directly to the lungs. Yet I can't see the point in fretting about radioactivity, when smoke contains benzopyrene, a pollutant that has been shown to reliably induce cancer (in animal tests). --Vuo 11:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
From The New York Times on December 1, 2006: "The [tobacco] industry has been aware at least since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant levels of polonium. Exactly how it gets into tobacco is not entirely understood, but uranium “daughter products” naturally present in soils seem to be selectively absorbed by the tobacco plant, where they decay into radioactive polonium. High-phosphate fertilizers may worsen the problem, since uranium tends to associate with phosphates..." [1] --Howrealisreal 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on! Seriously. SOmetimes it becomes increasingly obvious the whole anti-tobacco thing is mostly about popular piling on and taxing something. SO now we are supposed to believe the tobacco plant is actually an evil devil plant that has evolved to selectively absorb damaging radioactive materials from the soil, and manage to convert it into a more deadly form identical to the original save that its half life is increased so it stays radioctive in signifigant quantities despite a long aging process in tobacco? Tihs is done selectively. Meaning if there are nutrients in the soil that could lead to the further survival of the tobacco plant or its greater health, its roots have evolved to preferentially absorb deadly radioactive particles instead. Some lies are so incredibly obvious, everyone believes them. 88.153.200.32 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Smoking paradoxes
In the section talking about beneficial effects of smoking, it is refered to as "smoking paradoxes". The only reason it is called that, is because the anti-smoking cartel is surprised it has any benefits at all. Dullfig 03:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sources for your assertion? I'll try to find an easy online reference for the alternative thesis that it is has been called a paradox for many years because there are some recognizable minor transient benefits in the face of the overwhelming actuarial data demonstrating smokings's huge health risks. The NIH has death rate tables but they're bulky and difficult to read. Regards. Trilobitealive 12:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Clinical Investigation and Reports
- Impact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Restenosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- Another Smoker’s Paradox?
- David J. Cohen, MD, MSc; Michel Doucet, MD;; Donald E. Cutlip, MD; Kalon K.L. Ho, MD, MSc; Jeffrey J. Popma, MD; Richard E. Kuntz, MD, MSc
- That's reference 32; the one that's referenced right where the text says "Smoker's Paradox". Gzuckier 19:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- That is just one of the references on the paradox itself. I was asking about the assertion there is an anti-smoking cartel and that they were surprised smoking has benefits. I would say from the historical perspective there was more surprise that smoking had significant provable health risks. (I personally remember watching TV commercials where doctors discussed the health benefits of asbestos cigarette filters.) Until around 1950 there wasn't much general public interest in anything but smoking benefits. In fact it was 1964 before there was a surgeon general's report on smoking's negative consequences. IMHO there are many small but easily recognizable benefits but it was only when we started having the capability of looking at large numbers of outcomes the true direction of the risk/benefit ratios emerged. Trilobitealive 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Footnotes
I had to add back the footnotes. What happened to them? There are people who want to see the links to the original sources without having to wade through the edit page. Trilobitealive 03:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Notes, References, Statistics and studies, and Further reading sections were blanked by 65.65.246.88 in consecutive edits on December 12. [2],[3],[4],[5]
- Imaninjapirate reverted the last of those edits, restoring the Further reading section. [6].
- Other users edited to restore categories and interwiki links, so I restored the other sections to their pre-blanked state in this edit [7]. Please double-check to make sure everything has been properly restored.
- -- Chondrite 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- thank you. I'm such a noob I can't put up a reference without being able to check to see that its format is minimally workable. Trilobitealive 12:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Smokers"
I had a small question (actually it might be a big one,but never mind): What is the definition of "smoker?" Is a smoker one who smokes on occassion-maybe the equivilent 1 or 2 cigarettes a day or even a week? Is it someone who smokes 3 packs a day? The guy who always has a cigar in his mouth? I mean, maybe that's too broad a definition, but it seems as if this article is unclear about such things. Generally, people think of "smokers" as people that are addicted to cigarettes, but as someone who smokes "only" one or two a day (yeah yeah, even that much is bad for me and all that shit, I know), I still consider myself a "smoker." Is this an important distinction, or not?
"Slutting" or "smoking"?
In the first paragraph it says "Tobacco smoking, usually referred to as "slutting"," is this correct, the term slutting. Shouldn't it be smoking?
If you look at the history of the page you see people(some logged in and other not) changes the term the whole time(Or at least thats what I think I see with my limited knowledge of the wiki software :P)
I also googled for "smoking slutting" and found some websites that claims smoking is called slutting or reference to smoking as slutting.
I'm going to leave it at the moment as is, because I like calling the people at work that smokes "sluts" :P. But I do feel we need to change it to the correct word.
Regards, Openhazel 09:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- ^ [Betty Ford Center] - Dr. James West Public Q&A Page. URL Accessed October, 2006
- ^ [The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the NIH, a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.] - Nicotine Craving and Heavy Smoking May Contribute to Increased Use of Cocaine and Heroin - Patrick Zickler, NIDA NOTES Staff Writer. URL Accessed October, 2006