Have you read this? Sorry, it's old, but has nice chart about nitrosamines content in different smokeless products.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123301644462817757.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123301644462817757.html
WSJ article about smokeless tobacco (from Jan)
- Thread starter Katya
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That is a good article. I didn't know The Wall Street Journal even had a health section. Praise worthy for sure. Isn't this a strange thing for our health officials to say:
" And U.S. public-health officials note that no clinical trials have been conducted showing that smokeless tobacco is an effective quitting aid."
But they get caught red-faced by this:
"Britain's Royal College of Physicians, which sets health standards in the United Kingdom, has said smokeless tobacco is between one-tenth and one-one thousandth as hazardous as smoking, depending on the specific product."
" And U.S. public-health officials note that no clinical trials have been conducted showing that smokeless tobacco is an effective quitting aid."
But they get caught red-faced by this:
"Britain's Royal College of Physicians, which sets health standards in the United Kingdom, has said smokeless tobacco is between one-tenth and one-one thousandth as hazardous as smoking, depending on the specific product."
Apples and oranges here, TV. Yes, smokeless tobacco is multiples safer than smoking; no, no clinical trials have been done showing smokeless is an effective quitting aid.
We seek safety; they seek prohibition of tobacco use.
I have no desire to quit nicotine and/or tobacco, whether they want me to or not. I do have a desire to not commit slow suicide by poisoning myself through my lungs.
We seek safety; they seek prohibition of tobacco use.
I have no desire to quit nicotine and/or tobacco, whether they want me to or not. I do have a desire to not commit slow suicide by poisoning myself through my lungs.
Nice article. I'm guessing that the American snus being lower in nitrosamines than the Swedish is only a result of the Swedish one being a bigger portion. It's good to know that the dissolvables are that much lower than the snus. Isn't it funny that the least dangerous tobacco products are the ones currently seeing the most opposition?
Hey TBob: What's the best online source (read: cheapest) of Stonewalls that you've been able to find? I think some pre-PACT and pre-who-knows-what stocking up is in order.
Hey TBob: What's the best online source (read: cheapest) of Stonewalls that you've been able to find? I think some pre-PACT and pre-who-knows-what stocking up is in order.
Well stated, TB. Well stated, indeed. Sadly, our groups simply talk past one another.
I like this guy. And he's well stocked.
Lil' Brown Smoke Shack. Tribal Smoke Shop In Yakima, WA > Home
or
http://www.genuinetobacco.com/index-main.asp
Thanks Dredbull and Firechick.
Last edited:
this chart doesn't look as General Snus, having that much lower of the Cancer causing agents??, am I missing something??......
Not sure what you're asking, but if you mean why does the Camel and Marlboro have that much less than the General, it's most likely because the General is roughly twice as large of a portion.
I saw that too, but since they are all measured in PPM(parts per million), I figured it wasn't a valid point.
I wonder if it has more to do with their tobacco they use and the nic content, since they seem to be marketing it as a temporary cig replacement for times you cannot smoke.
That's a good point about the parts per million - maybe it's not the size difference after all, and American snus do in fact have lower TSNAs than an equal volume of General snus.
But the Camel snus supposedly have 8mg nic, same as a standard General portion...
If your eyes don't tend to glaze over nearly as easily as mine, read through this if you're curious to know more about the Camels:
espacenet — Description
(reading some of that is equivalent to watching how sausage is made)
Last edited:
Not sure where the numbers came from but here is another source. This one puts the general numbers at 2.0. I would guess the numbers for General are a bit old.
http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/TSNA-Study-in-Smokeless-Tobacco-Products.pdf
SM source puts it at 0.8 for dry weight put you have to double that to get the real numbers. This isn't for any one brand so a little confused on that
GothiaTek® standards - Swedish Match
From my understanding the TSNA numbers have been going down as manufactures refine the process. There has been a large reduction in the last few decades. I have heard Ettan is around 1.1 though I can't find the source of that at the moment.
http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/TSNA-Study-in-Smokeless-Tobacco-Products.pdf
SM source puts it at 0.8 for dry weight put you have to double that to get the real numbers. This isn't for any one brand so a little confused on that
GothiaTek® standards - Swedish Match
From my understanding the TSNA numbers have been going down as manufactures refine the process. There has been a large reduction in the last few decades. I have heard Ettan is around 1.1 though I can't find the source of that at the moment.
- Status
Similar threads
