“A Safer Way to Smoke?”

Joined: December 18th, 2008, 11:57 pm

November 30th, 2007, 9:02 pm #26

Physical design analysis and mainstream smoke constituent yields of the new potential reduced exposure product, Marlboro UltraSmooth
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Volume 9, Issue 11 November 2007 , pages 1197 - 1206

Authors: Vaughan W. Rees a; Geoffrey Ferris Wayne a; Brian F. Thomas b; Gregory N. Connolly a
Affiliations: a Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
b Center for Chemistry Services, Health Sciences Unit, RTI International, NC

Potential reduced exposure products (PREPs) purport to lower toxicant emissions, but without clinical and long-term health outcome data, claims for reduced harm status of PREPs depend heavily on standard machine yield smoke constituent data. Two prototypes of the new carbon-filtered PREP Marlboro UltraSmooth (MUS) were investigated using both standard (FTC/ISO) and intensive (Health Canada) machine methods to measure gas/vapor- and particulate-phase smoke constituents.

Basic physical design characteristics that may influence smoke constituent yields, such as ventilation, pressure drop (resistance to draw), quantity of tobacco, and quantity and type of carbon, were measured. The possible presence of added chemical flavorant compounds was investigated using gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy. MUS prototypes were found to have several key differences in physical design compared with a conventional cigarette, including higher ventilation, lower draw resistance, and in the case of the Salt Lake City prototype, the use of vitreous carbon beads and the presence of chemical flavorants on both the beads and an embedded filter fiber.

When tested under the standard regimen, gas-phase constituents of MUS prototypes were reduced compared with a conventional low-yield cigarette. However, far smaller reductions in gas-phase constituents were observed under the intensive regimen, suggesting that the carbon technology used in MUS is less effective when smoked under more intensive conditions. Particulate-phase constituents were not reduced by the carbon filter under either machine-smoking regimen.

The data suggest that MUS has been designed to reduce toxic yields while preserving consumer appeal. However, MUS is less effective in reducing toxic smoke constituents when smoked under intensive conditions.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... order=page

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 7:22 pm

July 10th, 2009, 10:59 am #27

Factory ciggies better than rollies - study
Last updated 17:28 05/07/2009

A new study has shown that factory-rolled cigarettes maybe the lesser of two evils.

The Christchurch-based study compared people smoking factory-rolled cigarettes to those smoking roll-your-owns and found that smokers tended to **** rollies more intensively, more often and more efficiently, making them at least as deadly as factory-rolled cigarettes.

The study, led by public health specialist Dr Murray Laugesen , is the first to use people rather than smoking machines to compare the two types of cigarettes.

It compared 26 men who smoked rollies with 22 who smoked factory-rolled. Each smoked a filtered cigarette every half hour over two hours, according to usual habit.

Cravings and exhaled carbon monoxide were measured before and after each cigarette smoked.

It found that participants smoking rollies took 25 percent more puffs per cigarette and generally puffed for six seconds longer per cigarette.

Both types of cigarette boosted the level of carbon monoxide, measured in exhaled breath, by the same amount.

The study found that while the amount of tobacco used in rollies was less, the pattern of smoking - particularly for cigarettes later in the day - resulted in increased inhalation of tobacco smoke.

"Roll-your-own smokers inhale more to get the most value from their cigarettes and don't let so much be wasted, while smokers of factory-made cigarettes let a lot of their smoke drift into the air," Dr Laugesen said.

Dr Laugesen said the research dispelled the belief some smokers had in thinking rollies were safer because they used less tobacco, or had less additives, or because they used a filter.

"Instead, we find that using less tobacco actually means more smoke inhaled. Roll-your-owns contain more additives than factory-made cigarettes, not less, and using less tobacco in the roll-your-own cigarette means more smoke is inhaled, not less."

Dr Laugesen believed New Zealand's tobacco excise tax approach, levied by tobacco content rather than per cigarette, encouraged smokers to hand-roll thin cigarettes and pay less tax, making them the cheaper option.
"The tax rate per smoke should be equalised. Equal harm deserves equal tax."
Copyright © 2009 Fairfax New Zealand Limited
Source Link

Thanks Helen for bringing this article to our attention!

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 7:22 pm

June 7th, 2010, 5:42 pm #28

Last year the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was signed into law here in the U.S., effectively charging the FDA to find a way to make what the act itself calls an "inherently dangerous" product less dangerous.  What most folks don't realize is that America's largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris, actually helped write the law.  Below,  Professor Michael Siegel, MD with the Boston University School of Public Health takes serious issue with public health groups that are suggesting that the FDA is about to make cigarettes safer.  By the way, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free-Kids worked with Philip Morris in drafting the new legislation.  

I post this here at Freedom not to stir debate but to prepare you for coming news headlines suggesting that smoking tobacco will someday soon be safer.   I assure you, if the tobacco companies knew how makie cigarettes safer they would have already done so.   Still one guiding principle toward each of us spending the balance of life living here on the free side of the bars ... no nicotine today!

Breathe deep, hug hard, live long,

John (Gold x11)

Why FDA Regulation of Tobacco Constituents Makes No Sense, and Will Transfer Fraudulent Deception of Consumers from Tobacco Industry to Government

A number of health groups - such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids - contend that the new FDA tobacco law will save lives by allowing the FDA to mandate reductions in certain constituents of tobacco smoke. In fact, the basic regulatory structure of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is the task - given to the FDA - of requiring safer cigarettes by mandating the reduction or elimination of certain chemicals in cigarette smoke.

While that might sound beneficial for the public's health on first glance, a more careful analysis of the science reveals that the idea is actually an absurd one that makes no sense and will - rather than protect public health - simply transfer the fraudulent deception of American consumers from the tobacco industry over to the federal government.

The Rest of the Story

The FDA's regulatory approach to tobacco products is hampered by four critical, but often unrecognized facts:

1. We currently have no idea what constituents in cigarette smoke, at what levels and combinations, result in the observed health effects of smoking.

Without knowing the specific constituents that are responsible for the harmful effects of smoking, there is simply no way that the FDA can produce a cigarette that it knows will be safer.

2. We have only identified 4,000 of what may be as many as 100,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. Thus, there are as many as 96,000 unknown chemicals.

With 96,000 unknown chemicals in tobacco smoke, it is clear that we cannot determine the risk of cigarettes simply by knowing the levels of the 4,000 known chemicals.

3. Research has demonstrated that risk analysis of the known constituents in cigarette smoke explains less than 4% of observed lung cancer risk. In other words, even if all identified carcinogens were removed from cigarettes, there is no evidence that the incidence of lung cancer among smokers would be reduced.

An article published in the March 2007 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention concludes that even if all currently known and measured carcinogens in tobacco smoke were completely removed, there would be little reason to believe that there would be any observable reduction in smoking-related cancers (see: Pankow JF, Watanabe KH, Toccalino PL, Luo W, Austin DF. Calculated cancer risks for conventional and 'potentially reduced exposure product' cigarettes. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 2007; 16:584-592).

Using data on per-cigarette smoke yields of a large number of known carcinogens and the known cancer risks posed by those carcinogens, the researchers assessed the lung cancer risk posed by regular, light, ultralight, and a number of PREP (potentially reduced exposure product) cigarettes using a mathematical model. They found that neither light, ultralight, or any available PREP was predicted to offer any substantial reduction in cancer.

Moreover, the researchers found that knowledge of the yields of all currently known lung carcinogens in cigarettes was able to account for less than 4% of the observed lung cancer risk of cigarette smoking. This inability to account for observed cancer risk means, they conclude, that even if all currently known and measured carcinogens were completely removed from cigarette smoke, there would be no reason to believe that actual human cancer risk would be decreased.

The authors conclude: "The current inability to account for the observed health risks of smoking based on existing data indicates that current expressed/implied marketing promises of reduced harm from PREPs are unverified: there is little reason to be confident that total removal of the currently measured human lung carcinogens would reduce the incidence of lung cancer among smokers by any noticeable amount."

"Expressed another way, even if a PREP design were to succeed in removing all currently measured known human lung carcinogens from cigarette smoke (and even perhaps all other currently measured carcinogens), there would be little reason to be confident that such removal would by itself lead to any observable reduction in smoking related lung cancer."

In perhaps easier to understand terms, Dr. Pankow summarized his key conclusion as follows: "Since we can't account for the risks from smoking conventional cigarettes, it does not accomplish much to just remove a few of the known toxins. An analogy might be someone who abuses alcohol by drinking 10 beers a day, but says they are going to cut down to 9."

And Dr. Pamela Clark, a senior research scientist at the Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, explained that "Dr. Pankow's study shows that simply lowering the levels of a few known harmful compounds from tobacco smoke may not significantly reduce the risks of smoking."

This is a critically important study and it has vital implications for the consideration of the FDA tobacco law. Specifically, the study demonstrates the complete folly of the regulatory approach and the ridiculous nature of the claims being made by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Medical Association, and other organizations that the legislation is going to "save countless lives."

Quite the opposite. This research demonstrates that a regulatory approach based on asking the FDA to require the reduction or elimination of various constituents of cigarette smoke is an absurd approach that offers no known or expected health benefits. Any claim that this legislation is going to save lives by requiring safer cigarettes is completely undocumented and unsupported.

As the research shows, there is no reason to believe that requiring the reduction or elimination of even a large number of the known harmful and carcinogenic constituents in tobacco smoke would result in any reduction in the risks of smoking.

In some ways, I find that the health groups are making claims that are more baseless and deceptive than anything the tobacco companies have stated about the risks of low-yield cigarette products. The cigarette companies have certainly deceived the public by implying that low-yield products offer a health advantage over conventional products. But they have never gone so far as to claim that they would save countless lives - a claim being made about the FDA legislation by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Nor have they pinned a specific number on the lives saved, something the American Medical Association has done by suggesting that the FDA legislation will save millions of lives.

I don't really understand why it is that if the tobacco companies make such baseless, undocumented, and deceptive claims, it represents fraud and engenders attacks on the companies for their unscrupulous actions, but when anti-smoking groups make even more baseless, undocumented, and deceptive claims, it is now magically acceptable because we are working towards an allegedly noble cause.

The FDA tobacco legislation is really a mechanism to transfer the deception about low-yield cigarettes from the tobacco companies to the government. It takes the tobacco companies off the hook, allowing them to smile all the way to the bank as the very low-yield health claims they have been found guilty of making are now made by the federal government. And to boot, the companies no longer will have to face a liability risk for making such undocumented claims. The government is going to be doing all the dirty work for them. What a brilliant scheme!

The rest of the story is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the law supporters' contention that by reducing or eliminating specific constituents of the smoke, we will produce a safer cigarette that will save countless lives, millions of lives, or even any lives. In fact, the science shows that even if every known carcinogen in cigarettes were removed, we'd be in no position to be confident that the actual cancer risk of smoking had been reduced. And you can be sure that the FDA is not going to enact regulations that require the removal of every known carcinogen from cigarettes!

Realistically, the best the FDA could do under the proposed legislation would be to require the reduction or elimination of a number of specific tobacco smoke constituents. This research demonstrates that there is no basis to believe that such an approach would result in a measurable decline in smoking-related mortality.

Moreover, the only way to know whether a reduction in specific constituents would reduce the risks of smoking would be to mandate those changes and then conduct long-term epidemiologic studies. In other words, smokers would have to be used as guinea pigs. The FDA would have to set so-called "safety standards" without knowing whether those standards actually reduce the product's risk. It would take years to find out.

In the mean time, smokers would be misled into believing that by virtue of the FDA's promulgation of a "safety standard," the product has been made safer. This will certainly undermine the public's appreciation of the hazards of smoking and will cause many smokers who would otherwise have quit entirely to instead continue to smoke, thinking that the FDA-mandated changes to cigarettes have made them safer.

The end result will likely be harm to the public's health, due to an increase in smoking caused by deterrence of smoking cessation because of the perception that cigarettes are now safer. In other words, it will be the "low-tar" fiasco all over again, except now it will be the federal government perpetrating this fraud instead of the tobacco companies.

It is critically important to understand that there is no way of determining cigarette risk based solely on studying the product in the laboratory. Epidemiologic studies of the actual use of the product in the population is necessary to determine whether a change in the constituents of cigarettes will lessen their health risks.

To repeat the important conclusion of Pankow et al.: "The current inability to use toxicant-specific methods to account for the observed cancer risks of smoking carries an important implication for PREP cigarettes. Namely, all expressed and implied promises of 'reduced harm' ... of PREPs (including ostensible PREPs) must be viewed as speculative and unverified. Indeed, because does considerations for known tobacco smoke lung carcinogens account for <4% of the lung cancer risk of conventional cigarettes as they are smoked by North American populations, then lowered levels of these toxicants in PREPs still leave PREPs in the possible position of being as harmful as conventional cigarettes."

This means that the FDA has been put in the absurd position of being asked to promulgate "tobacco product safety standards" for which it will have no way of knowing whether they will improve, have no effect on, or harm human health. This is an untenable to position to be in, and it needs to be rejected outright.

The FDA tobacco law has been enacted, but there is no requirement that the FDA adopt any "product safety standards." Instead, I recommend that the FDA take an entirely different approach, and devote all of its time and resources not to regulating the product, but to trying to decrease the demand for the product and actually make a dent in smoking rates by funding anti-smoking education and prevention programs, including media campaigns, throughout the country. Unlike product regulation, which has no science to back it up, the use of media campaigns to reduce smoking is supported by solid scientific evidence.

The rest of the story is that in their zeal to put a feather in their cap by being able to claim that they achieved FDA regulation of tobacco products, the major anti-smoking and health groups actually deceived the public about the potential health benefits of lower-yield cigarettes to a greater degree than anything the tobacco companies have ever done. Frankly, the tobacco companies wouldn't even dream of deceiving the public to this extent. They remained somewhat subtle in their deception, by merely implying that there is some health value to reduced yield cigarettes. I can only imagine the scorn and ridicule the companies would have received had they claimed that their lower-yield cigarettes were going to save countless lives.
Last edited by JohnPolito on June 7th, 2010, 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Joined: January 27th, 2011, 6:11 pm

February 4th, 2011, 3:39 am #29

"A pitch for True cigarettes used at the time by Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit: "Considering all I'd heard, I decided to either quit or smoke True. I smoke True."

That's just evil.

Joined: May 22nd, 2010, 9:53 am

September 26th, 2011, 2:47 pm #30

A couple of weeks ago while on holidays in Spain I overheard a man telling his friend how cheap the cigarettes were and his friend said  oh but are  they the "good ones" and with that the man takes out the pack and says" yes they
 are they have the health warning on them ". Been there done that.
Alma Gold x1.

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 7:22 pm

April 11th, 2012, 12:40 pm #31

A host of menthol related health products ranging from cough drops to muscle pain ointments can feed and fuel a false sense of health security in menthol smokers.  Truth is, menthol numbs tissues and makes scores of powerful toxins in smoke more tolerable. 

Below is a new study summary (abstract) suggesting that the risk of stroke for menthol smokers may be twice as high as for non-menthol smokers, three times higher in women menthol smokers and nearly 3.5 times higher in non-African American menthol smokers. 

Why? We don't yet know.  What we do know is that all nicotine is out of body and we move beyond peak withdrawal within 72 hours of quitting.  We also know that once we stop using nicotine that it is impossible to relapse so long as all nicotine stays on the outside.  We also know that just one puff and within seconds up to half of brain dopamine pathway receptors become occupied by nicotine.  While most who attempt cheating when quitting walk away feeling like they've gotten away with it, it won't be long before their awakened chemical dependency is again wanting or even begging for more.  

We know that within one year of quitting that risk of stroke drops to half that of a smoker, and within 5 to 15 years drops to that of a never-smoker.   There's just one rule to beginning to turn your excess risk of stroke around and letting the healing begin .... no nicotine today!

Breathe deep, hug hard, live long,

John - Gold x12

Archives of Internal Medicine - Vozoris

Research Letter

Mentholated Cigarettes and Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Diseases: A Population-Based Study

Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172:590-591.

Nicholas T. Vozoris

Cigarettes labeled as "mentholated" contain substantially higher levels of menthol than regular cigarettes, to produce a characteristic mint flavor and cooling sensation. Potential noncancer adverse health effects of added menthol to cigarettes are largely unknown. Epidemiologic data on the risks of cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases among smokers of mentholated vs nonmentholated cigarettes are extremely limited.1-2 The purpose of this study was to determine if cardiovascular and pulmonary disease risk was different between mentholated cigarette smokers and nonmentholated cigarette smokers...


A total of 1286 of 5028 respondents (25.6%) usually smoked mentholated cigarettes, and 3742 of 5028 (74.4%) usually smoked nonmentholated cigarettes. After adjusting for sex, age, race, education level, total household income, body mass index, and smoking quantity and duration, mentholated cigarette smokers were found to have significantly increased odds of stroke compared with nonmentholated cigarette smokers (odds ratio [OR], 2.25; 95% CI, 1.33-3.78), and in particular women (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.74-6.19) and non–African American smokers (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.70-7.13) (
Table). There were no significant associations between mentholated cigarette smoking and hypertension, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and COPD. After also controlling for health professional–diagnosed, self-reported hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia, the odds of stroke remained significantly increased among all (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.05-4.58), women (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.60-7.84), and non–African American (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.24-7.34) mentholated cigarette smokers vs respective nonmentholated cigarette smokers.


To my knowledge this is the first study to report that smokers of mentholated cigarettes, and in particular women and non–African Americans, have significantly increased odds of stroke compared with nonmentholated cigarette smokers. Although potential causal links cannot be established and further research is required to confirm the findings, the association between mentholated cigarette smoking and stroke is noteworthy, given that the results are based on large population-level data, with data spanning nearly a decade, and given that the relationship is independent of multiple sociodemographic, smoking behavior, and health status confounders. The mentholated cigarette– stroke association may even be underestimated because this analysis included only current smokers and not former smokers...

These results highlight the need for further review of the last legally allowed tobacco additive in North America, given that mentholated cigarettes may be placing individuals at even greater risk of potentially devastating cerebrovascular disease than regular cigarettes.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... /172/7/590

Last edited by JohnPolito on April 11th, 2012, 1:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Joined: December 21st, 2009, 6:03 pm

July 18th, 2013, 4:13 am #32

I wanted to mention this because it was my main reason for returning here after quite some time.

The past while I've been seeing something that really disturbs me.  Unregulated television advertisements for "E-Cigs"
The ads claim that you can use them anywhere.
They are available to minors much more easily than conventional tobacco cigarettes.
They claim to be safe and to not affect those around the user.

Assuming, and I know I'm being very very very very generous in even daring to make this assumption, but still assuming that they are "safe", I find them very disturbing as they are still a nicotine delivery device, and they also mask the chemical with several flavours that are also kid-friendly, despite company claims that they aren't marketed toward children (sounds all too familiar).  They also have "nicotine free" flavoured cartridges, to act as an effective trojan horse and gain the potential use from non-smokers and former smokers (imagine how easy it would be to accidentally take in nicotine because you thought a flavoured cartridge had no nicotine).

Is this very disturbing topic addressed anywhere here?

Thank you for everything

Joined: November 13th, 2008, 2:04 pm

March 20th, 2016, 1:52 pm #34

New video based on this topic: "A safer way to smoke?"