[ExI] Is tobacco really harmful?

Sockpuppet99@hotmail.com sockpuppet99 at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 23 10:35:43 UTC 2009


Rob:

Really, since you've cone up with this geoundbreaking theory, the only  
responsible position to take is to bear it out by smoking as much  
additive-free tobacco as possible and seeing whether or not you get  
lung cancer. I anticipate that your experiment will provide  
immeasurable benefits to mankind.

Tom D

Sent from my iPod

On Nov 22, 2009, at 10:04 PM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>> A vast body of medical statistics indicates that cigarette
>> smoking causes many diseases.  But these data, almost
>> entirely, pertain to cigarettes with chemical ADDITIVES--of
>> which there are many...  Rob
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
>> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of
>> Robert Masters
>> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 5:36 PM
>> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> Subject: [ExI] Is tobacco really harmful?
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm working on a theory (actually just the germ of a
>> hypothesis), and I'd appreciate comments on it--especially
>> leads toward relevant data.
>>
>> A vast body of medical statistics indicates that cigarette
>> smoking causes many diseases.  But these data, almost
>> entirely, pertain to cigarettes with chemical ADDITIVES--of
>> which there are many.  The list of additives in the popular
>> cigarette brands is enormous:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
>> http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm
>> http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/cigaretteingredients/Cigarette
>> _Ingredients_and_Additives.htm
>>
>> Is there any possibility that these additives are a
>> statistical "confounding factor"?  Specifically, could THEY
>> be the cause of the health problems?  Could it be that pure,
>> additive-free tobacco is harmless?
>>
>> I don't know of any way to test this hypothesis with
>> statistics--due to the simple fact that, for a long time,
>> almost all the cigarettes being smoked have had the
>> additives.  (Recently, with the trend toward "the pure and
>> natural," a few additive-free brands have come on the market,
>> but they account for only a tiny fraction of the data
>> base--and ten or twenty years ago they were even rarer.)
>>
>> Has anyone done any studies on this?  Are there medical
>> statistics on people who smoke, and have always smoked, only
>> additive-free brands?
>>
>> In looking for facts to falsify the hypothesis, the only
>> thing I can think of is my (possibly incorrect) impression
>> that tobacco has had a bad health rap for a long time--all
>> the way back into the 19th Century--when, presumably, fewer
>> chemicals, or none at all, were being put into the product.
>> For example, in Dickens' novels, didn't people call
>> cigarettes "coffin nails"?
>>
>> Also possibly relevant is the fact that nicotine, in pure
>> form, is a deadly  poison. (I've heard that secret agents
>> have used it for assassinations.)  Is there a known
>> biochemical mechanism by which this toxin (even at low doses)
>> could cause cancer, heart disease, etc.?
>>
>> That's about as far as I've got with it.  Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Rob Masters
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list