A germ-killing vapor
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- propylene glycol
- Status
yeah i saw that too, makes me never want smoke a crafty one no matter what, which i have been acustomed to, especially after work. i keep remembering tom waits' line to iggy pop in 'coffee and cigarettes': "you know, now that i've quit smoking, i can have one, cause i've quit"
do you think the doctor is over-exagerating on his claims for the life of a ruyan cart. i think he says 1600 drags or 1-4 days. i dont own a ruyan so i cant comment.
do you think the doctor is over-exagerating on his claims for the life of a ruyan cart. i think he says 1600 drags or 1-4 days. i dont own a ruyan so i cant comment.
Last edited:
Naz: No cigarettes allowed! Did you read this section of the report? "Smokers may take some time to switch completely from tobacco to nicotine smoking. As long as they continue to smoke even a few cigarettes a day their risk of dying early remains excessive. (The risk of smoking even 1-4 cigarettes a day carries a 60% excess risk of dying early. Smoking 5-9 cigarettes a day doubles the risk of dying early, compared with never smoking2). In particular their excess risk of heart attack will not diminish substantially until they quit tobacco smoking entirely."
Somethign isn't adding up there- 1-4 ciggs increases risk by 60% while 5-9 increases by only 50%, so 20-40 will increase risk by only .025% by my calculations
From other correspondence with him, I can tell you he is HARD CORE on cigarette smoking. To his mind, nothing is gained unless you quit inhaling tobacco smoke completely. There is no straight-line drop of danger correlated with fewer cigarettes smoked. His answer to me is you might as well smoke 20 as 4. Same danger. No benefit unless you quit.
Go figure. He has the international podium, so he gets to speak his piece.
Go figure. He has the international podium, so he gets to speak his piece.
8-o geee I still smoke real cig even now I constant e smoke
one day at most 6 real cig or even 10 to 12
Them are some fightin words !!! lol ...
Anyone here actually ride ?!?!? I do
Have my m1 and been through 3 bikes in 3 years I used to- Had a couple of clunker bikes- Honda 650 and Susuki can't remember the bore now- didn't have enough power- that's all I really remember bout it lol Never had a liscence for any of em and rode em all over the country - even rode it to a court date I had lol- let's just say I was young and braindead at hte time
i think its just worded badly naz...Somethign isn't adding up there- 1-4 ciggs increases risk by 60% while 5-9 increases by only 50%, so 20-40 will increase risk by only .025% by my calculations
i reckon that means that 5-9 increases the risk by 100%.
I think this sort of study is ridiculous. He footnotes this preposterous statement but the actual source is not given in the report. Does anyone have a link to the actual source of this statement?
There are other studies (such as a well known Danish study) which show that men smoking 6 cigarettes a day or less had risks that were essentially the same as non-smokers for myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality.
I must say I'm getting tired of reading studies that use cherry-picked data and unscientific epidemiological data of the worst kind. These studies should be torn apart for the biased propaganda they are. But don't take my word for it. I challenge anyone to post real proof that smoking 1-10 cigarettes a day is as bad as smoking 20-30.
In many of these studies if you really look at their data you will find flaws and manipulative use of overstated risks without supportive actual population numbers. For example, 2 out of 100,000 people more might get lung cancer. They turn this into an increase of risk rather than stating it as statistically insignificant. Or they include "smokers" as individuals who ever smoked more than 10 cigarettes, thereby increasing tobacco deaths disproportionately. Or they include 88 year old individuals whose lives were "cut short" due to tobacco use.
This kind of information is as ridiculous as the whole SHS scare. Many studies showed that the risks of secondhand smoke were insignificant. I suggest everybody read these reports carefully and decide for yourselves if their methodologies and results match the data. But don't believe it just because it comes from "credible" sources. And in this case we don't even know what the source is.
Just remember that for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.
Study: Cutting down on cigarettes cuts lung cancer risk
Ten a day OK, smokers told
Smoking Does Not
Cause Lung Cancer
(According to WHO/CDC Data)*
Last edited:
Okay, let's use pure common sense on this. No experts. No statistics.
Does anyone believe that inhaling smoke from the combustion of a tobacco plant is good for a healthy person?
Does anyone believe sucking in the smoke of burning tobacco plant material is neutral to the human body? No effects at all. The lungs are indifferent (they can handle the tar buildup, etc) and other organs don't care about the 4,000 combustion contents distributed throughout the body after the inhalations. Anyone believe that?
No one should believe either of the above is true. Not only do statistics testify to the inaccuracy, but common sense says that can't be true. A lung full of smoke is not as good as or better than a lung full of air.
Now it is true that people die in many horrible ways. And not smoking doesn't guarantee a soft death in old age. But ask your own doctor, or ask Dr. Loi, if they haven't witnessed the horrible ravages tobacco smoking takes on some patients. Not all. But you gamble every time you suck in a hard hit of tobacco smoke. Common sense tells anyone all they need to know: Cigarette smoking is a deadly gamble with a terrible executioner.
On an individual level, justify cigarette smoking to yourself any way you like. Belittle the research and statistics and experts who have studied it far more than any of us. Dismiss those who care for or autopsy life-long smokers. Just don't try to persuade others to false belief. The verdict has been in for a long time now. Cigarette smoking is overwhelmingly guilty of crimes against individuals and society.
Surely no one can objectively look at inhaling tobacco, with its known consequences, and conclude this practice is worthy in any way.
Does anyone believe that inhaling smoke from the combustion of a tobacco plant is good for a healthy person?
Does anyone believe sucking in the smoke of burning tobacco plant material is neutral to the human body? No effects at all. The lungs are indifferent (they can handle the tar buildup, etc) and other organs don't care about the 4,000 combustion contents distributed throughout the body after the inhalations. Anyone believe that?
No one should believe either of the above is true. Not only do statistics testify to the inaccuracy, but common sense says that can't be true. A lung full of smoke is not as good as or better than a lung full of air.
Now it is true that people die in many horrible ways. And not smoking doesn't guarantee a soft death in old age. But ask your own doctor, or ask Dr. Loi, if they haven't witnessed the horrible ravages tobacco smoking takes on some patients. Not all. But you gamble every time you suck in a hard hit of tobacco smoke. Common sense tells anyone all they need to know: Cigarette smoking is a deadly gamble with a terrible executioner.
On an individual level, justify cigarette smoking to yourself any way you like. Belittle the research and statistics and experts who have studied it far more than any of us. Dismiss those who care for or autopsy life-long smokers. Just don't try to persuade others to false belief. The verdict has been in for a long time now. Cigarette smoking is overwhelmingly guilty of crimes against individuals and society.
Surely no one can objectively look at inhaling tobacco, with its known consequences, and conclude this practice is worthy in any way.
It depends on the dose, the substance which is burning and the health of the individual. The human body and lungs have adapted over tens of thousands of years to adapt to environmental smoke. I don't think it's good to inhale the combustion byproducts of the internal combustion engine either but I do so every day whether I want to or not. A lung full of smoke may not be better than a lung full of clean air. But who on earth is breathing clean air anymore?
I also happen to believe (being part Native American) that tobacco is a sacred plant and has spiritual healing and restorative qualities if used in a responsible manner. So, yes, I think light and occasional inhalation of the unadulterated tobacco plant is beneficial to the human being as a whole.
By analogy we could say that a liver without alcohol is better off than one with even 1/8 of an oz. a day. We could generalize this to anything. Who needs trans-fats, too much sugar, polluted air, polluted water, etc? Do you only eat organic food, drink distilled water, and wear a full face OSHA respirator all day? If not, living will eventually kill you. If you do, living will eventually kill you anyway. To be fair I was talking about light smoking which if you do any deep research on you will find hasn't really been studied much at all. I personally think that risk of tobacco consumption is dose-dependent and this is supported by many historical studies. This latest crap about 1 cigarette will addict you and is as bad as 20 is just unadulterated BS in my opinion.
One thing I do believe is that we should have real facts instead of scare tactics. I believe that as an individual living in a free society I should have the choice to smoke tobacco. I wouldn't belittle the research if there wasn't so much that is unscientific, biased, unadulterated propaganda. But I'm not trying to persuade anybody. I'm only encouraging people to look at the evidence and make up their own minds. Is it common sense (not to mention ethical) to lie to people smoking a few cigarettes while e-smoking just to scare the sh** out of them and get them to quit? Even if it's not backed by rigorous scientific evidence? I'd hate to see e-cig users just become a new breed of anti-tobacco fanatics as they defend a totally unresearched method of nicotine delivery.
Actually, nothing you mention compares to cigarette smoking in damage to individuals and society.
Fact is, the people responsible for public health looked at all those unscientific, biased, propagandized research documents and made laws for the public good. In your country. In mine. Across the globe. I guess country after country is full of incompetents who can't interpret research correctly, eh? I don't see any nation encouraging cigarette consumption, that's for sure.
You should have every right to use your sacred plant anywhere its use does not impact others. As soon as it does, the majority's rights prevail. There is great truth to the anti's slogan that your right to smoke ends at another's nose. There are four of those offended noses out there for every one of your's.
And do you really, really want a new generation of cigarette smokers on the earth, addicts like yourself? Look for a higher common good and do what's right to prevent a continuing scourge. I can't imagine anyone encouraging another to start smoking, not given what we know today.
Fact is, the people responsible for public health looked at all those unscientific, biased, propagandized research documents and made laws for the public good. In your country. In mine. Across the globe. I guess country after country is full of incompetents who can't interpret research correctly, eh? I don't see any nation encouraging cigarette consumption, that's for sure.
You should have every right to use your sacred plant anywhere its use does not impact others. As soon as it does, the majority's rights prevail. There is great truth to the anti's slogan that your right to smoke ends at another's nose. There are four of those offended noses out there for every one of your's.
And do you really, really want a new generation of cigarette smokers on the earth, addicts like yourself? Look for a higher common good and do what's right to prevent a continuing scourge. I can't imagine anyone encouraging another to start smoking, not given what we know today.
Last edited:
Nope. I'm stuck with nicotine. Wouldn't like to see anyone else stuck with it. The sacred leaf point doesn't really fly in this argument, as most of the world's consumers of tobacco certailny don't venerate it.
On a purely secular point, freedom of choice, I'm against the ban-everything nutters, but there isn't a chance in hell of winning a light and occasional use argument. Most of the world is against smokers. They won't give e-smokers any easier of a ride.
Emp
On a purely secular point, freedom of choice, I'm against the ban-everything nutters, but there isn't a chance in hell of winning a light and occasional use argument. Most of the world is against smokers. They won't give e-smokers any easier of a ride.
Emp
There are many risks associated with smoking , not only lung cancer , and it makes sense that the more you smoke the higher those risks are, or the less you smoke the lower those risks get.
As an anecdote, a couple of years ago , while my doctor was making a routine yearly examination I somehow mentioned the fact that I smoked. He was like Really? You smoke? Well yeah! I had been smoking for 25 years and apparently didn't show any of the symptoms associated with long time smoking.
I've always smoked less than ten super ultra light cigarettes and always tried to exercise a little to sort of keep in shape. I think it does make a difference weather you smoke 5 cigs a day vs a pack and a half a day. The higher risk of cancer is probably still there, but the overall state of health is much improved with a reduction in the amount of cigarettes smoked every day.
As an anecdote, a couple of years ago , while my doctor was making a routine yearly examination I somehow mentioned the fact that I smoked. He was like Really? You smoke? Well yeah! I had been smoking for 25 years and apparently didn't show any of the symptoms associated with long time smoking.
I've always smoked less than ten super ultra light cigarettes and always tried to exercise a little to sort of keep in shape. I think it does make a difference weather you smoke 5 cigs a day vs a pack and a half a day. The higher risk of cancer is probably still there, but the overall state of health is much improved with a reduction in the amount of cigarettes smoked every day.
You're telling me! I once heard of a fella that was lighting a cigarette and stepped out into traffic and got squashed- Kersplat! Kathump! El-Squisho! And hten htere was the woman who was lighting a cigg and walked into a sign, cut her forehead, got an infection, and died- and then there was the kid who was lihgtign a cigg and stepped into a pothole, broke his ankle, got gangrene, had to have his leg amputated. Then htere was the...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
