Heavy Metals in Cigarette Smoke - Pipe smoke???

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Log in

Search on Site

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Recent Posts

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

maineyachtie

Senior Member
Aug 14, 2010
346
0
http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemScience/Volume/2005/12/Toxic_smoke.asp
Interesting article. I came across this while researching the effect smoke may have on a fetus.
Of course I think it's a scandal how most times there is no discrimination in research about what kind of tobacco is being tested. We all know there are 500+ chemicals added to most cigarettes.
I have not found a study so far which singles out pipe tobacco and concludes there are heavy metals present in pipe smoke. Has anyone else?

 

batdemon

Preferred Member
Dec 20, 2011
834
0
Most all of the studies I have ever seen are regarding cigarette smoke, and to be fair, they almost always state it is cigarette smoke. Of course, that is all they are going to test because cigarette smoke is far more dangerous than pipe or cigar smoke. That wouldn't fit the agenda. Just my opinion.

 

tedvig

Member
Nov 21, 2011
156
0
That's kinda spooky. I remember reading at one point that some of the aresenic and heavy metals come from early pestecides used back as far as the civil war. Arsenic in particular. So one could gather that if it is still in the soil in tobacco fields, it is still in the soil everywhere it has been used. I think they oughta check second hand smoke from burning cucumbers.

 

maineyachtie

Senior Member
Aug 14, 2010
346
0
I agree with you batdemon that the studies, peer reviewed journals, and research always state "cigarette smoke," but when that research filters down into magazines, newspapers, and online articles the universal term "smoke" is usually (I think purposely) used.

 

pipetrucker

Preferred Member
Sep 13, 2010
939
0
Following the white rabbit
Typical agenda driven article. They failed to mention that the concentration of these metals is far below the level the EPA has classified as safe and acceptable. I remember reading that little tidbit in another, more honest article on the subject some time ago.

 

papipeguy

Preferred Member
Jul 31, 2010
15,800
2
Bethlehem, Pa.
#1 rule is: who sponored the study? It's the old, "If you want a blue suit, turn on a blue light" bit.

Secondly, almost everything has heavy metal content. The elements are generally measured in parts per billion and most folks don't realize how infantesimal those measures are.

Third- do what you want because someting else is going to get you.

 

reichenbach

Preferred Member
Jan 5, 2012
552
0
West Park, NY
I really liked the heavy technical jargon used but I guess one should expect it from an academic publication. The problem is when it is digested and filtered back for mass consumption, loaded words are added to set that scary doom and gloom tone. We've already established that cigarettes are bad for you. How long can you beat a dead horse before your hand breaks? I guess it comes down to fervor.
To echo papipeguy and to quote one of my bosses (who does field testing for new pesticides), "it's not exclusively the poison that kills you, it's the dose."
Not to compare the RSC to that "consumer advocacy group" that ran the suspect test on soda but it's kinda like that. They discovered that if you drink 1000 servings of soda a day, you will get cancer from the carmel dye. So obviously it gets reported that soda gives you cancer. I'm not a doctor but if you sit down to drink a 1000 sodas a day you've already decided to commit suicide.
Everybody who does scientific research is looking for their next grant. That's a fact. So if you can "prove" something then you'll get another grant and another and another. This is also like politicians. People love cliff hangers.
However, as with everything (science, politics, lifestyle, everything) correlation does not prove causation. Sometimes you do have a strong case, more often than not though, it's either someone taking credit for something which they had no control over.
I'm not disputing that cigarettes and their 4000 added chemicals are bad for you but I don't trust the extent of the data based on someone's special interest money and a wink and a nob suggesting I should trust them.
What's the chemical content of a substance that's not politically volatile? Oh, the car industry hasn't paid you to find out the chemical content of exhaust? The oil companies haven't paid you to dissect gasoline fumes? Paint fumes? Other things already know are bad for us? Oh, a warning label should suffice and you don't need to continue doing research? What, minors are allowed to buy paint and gasoline and furniture varnish?
Scandalous.
Sorry for the long post, I just get worked up.

 

adam12

Preferred Member
May 16, 2011
919
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVt5mTkO_VY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz61YQWZuYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_88L-CU7PD4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u8teXR8VE4

 

profpar

Senior Member
Dec 8, 2011
318
0
Buford, Georgia
Do these articles list 1) list the specific heavy metals, and their average concentrations and mean deviations at the 95% confidence interval? 2) the method(s) of analysis, sample and controls used to ieliminate external contributors of these heavy metals; 3) if the analyses were done at analytically certified labs with properly calibrated instruments? Are the results available in refereed publications? If not it is more or less meaningless dribble.

 

chopz

Senior Member
Oct 14, 2011
352
0
you'll stop me from smoking cucumbers when you pry them from my cold, dead, dill and carbon smudged fingers.

 

batdemon

Preferred Member
Dec 20, 2011
834
0
but when that research filters down into magazines, newspapers, and online articles the universal term "smoke" is usually (I think purposely) used
I agree. Also, even when it does say "cigarette smoke", I think by and large, the public only sees "smoke" and they lump it all together.

 

johninkc

Junior Member
Feb 7, 2012
56
0
The 1964 Surgeon General's Report, Smoking and Health, has a 20 page chapter describing the chemistry of smoke. Once you strip the additive compounds out of cigarette smoke (and for those who smoke aromatics, factor in the additive compounds for your particular blend), you're at the 100% solution. Now, if you're not an organic chemist, this is probably good enough for the 80% solution.
What we choose to do has risk. How much risk you are willing to accept is your decision. I'm willing to accept the risk, and enjoy a bowl. That's my decision.

 

pipeinhand

Preferred Member
Sep 23, 2011
1,199
0
Virginia
Used to do Metal, Megadeath, Anthrax, White Snake, of course Metallica, now more into Trance/House and Chill.
Sorry, had to do it.