Breaking the Habit (Smoking)
- Thread starter Paultec
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Paultec
Well-known member
Second off.... I think you need to re-organize your priorities and get your DIY to the top of the list.
Somebody speaks sense...
Px
desol said:
Far be it foo me to question the government, but the several citations on that page that even they say might not be trustworthy, make weaker claims than they do for cigarettes glowing in the dark (unless they are being smoked at the time). One cite was about fallout from chernobyl, etc. Many people have radon in their basement.
Smoking is bad enough we shouldn't need to exaggerate and invent stuff to scare people with.
Quit smoking to show some respect to the corporal vessel you inhabit, and others you may share a living space with.
or not... free will and all that...
JR
Jean Clochet
Well-known member
Unfortunately, I'm still beholden to these things! The longest I've managed in 30 years to be without is 8 months...
Anyway, besides the obvious health and social reasons to stop, just to put the monetary issue into more perpective for US readers - the cost per pack is also higher here in the UK than over there; the average per is £6 which, at the moment, equates to about $9.50 a pack. At a pack a day it's a lot of dosh for DIY or other stuff
Good luck
Anyway, besides the obvious health and social reasons to stop, just to put the monetary issue into more perpective for US readers - the cost per pack is also higher here in the UK than over there; the average per is £6 which, at the moment, equates to about $9.50 a pack. At a pack a day it's a lot of dosh for DIY or other stuff
Good luck
desol
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,128
JohnRoberts said:
I'm not trying to scare people John. Nor am i trying to invent or exaggerate anything. There are obviously some credible sources looking at it, therefore it is worth noting.
"Radioactive carcinogens
In addition to chemical, nonradioactive carcinogens, tobacco and tobacco smoke contain small amounts of lead-210 (210Pb) and polonium-210 (210Po) both of which are radioactive carcinogens. The presence of polonium-210 in mainstream cigarette smoke has been experimentally measured at levels of 0.0263–0.036 pCi (0.97–1.33 mBq),[citation needed][158] which is equivalent to about 0.1 pCi per milligram of smoke (4 mBq/mg); or about 0.81 pCi of lead 210 per gram of dry condensed smoke (30 Bq/kg).
Research by NCAR radiochemist Ed Martell determined that radioactive compounds in cigarette smoke are deposited in "hot spots" where bronchial tubes branch. Since tar from cigarette smoke is resistant to dissolving in lung fluid, the radioactive compounds have a great deal of time to undergo radioactive decay before being cleared by natural processes. Indoors, these radioactive compounds linger in secondhand smoke, and therefore greater exposure occurs when these radioactive compounds are inhaled during normal breathing, which is deeper and longer than when inhaling cigarettes. Damage to the protective epithelial tissue from smoking only increases the prolonged retention of insoluble polonium 210 compounds produced from burning tobacco. Martell estimated that a carcinogenic radiation dose of 80–100 rads is delivered to the lung tissue of most smokers who die of lung cancer.[159]
Smoking an average of 1.5 packs per day gives a radiation dose of 60-160 mSv/year,[160][161][162] compared with living near a nuclear power station (0.0001 mSv/year)[163][164] or the 3.0 mSv/year average dose for Americans.[164][165] Some of the mineral apatite in Florida used to produce phosphate for U.S.A. tobacco crops contains uranium, radium, lead 210 and polonium 210 and radon.[166][167] The radioactive smoke from tobacco fertilized this way is deposited in lungs and releases radiation even if a smoker quits the habit. The combination of carcinogenic tar and radiation in a sensitive organ such as lungs increases the risk of cancer. If the smoker also breathes in the asbestos fibers which commonly occur in urban and industrial environments, the risk of cancer is greatly increased." - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco
I am not accusing you of anything, but when I went to and read the citations at the epa link they were not compelling. It's the government that raises my suspicion.
I am not suggesting that cigarettes are "not" unhealthy. just unsure that radiation is the primary or significant factor for the havoc they wreak.
I lost a father to throat cancer (a pipe and cigarette smoker), a younger sister to brain cancer (a cigarette smoker), and have another brother currently battling gut cancer (a cigarette smoker).
I don't need more evidence to be convinced that smoking is unhealthy. In fact our father died in the 1950s, so I find it remarkable that my brother and sister didn't figure it out decades sooner.
I really pissed off my little sister for years with my constant nagging about her smoking, until I finally gave up. She was my sister and I loved her too much to fight with her every single time we had a family get together. It was a little sad to hear her flip-flop and lecture me about healthy diet and such after she was already in irreversible decline. Saying I told you so, wouldn't have been remotely satisfying. I guess dying tends to focus our thought process, albeit too little too late.
Many still have enough time to stop smoking before it kills them early, and perhaps a smokeless delivery system might deliver less radiation too. But I am not an advocate of that either, mainly as a substitute for burning tobacy.
JR
I am not suggesting that cigarettes are "not" unhealthy. just unsure that radiation is the primary or significant factor for the havoc they wreak.
I lost a father to throat cancer (a pipe and cigarette smoker), a younger sister to brain cancer (a cigarette smoker), and have another brother currently battling gut cancer (a cigarette smoker).
I don't need more evidence to be convinced that smoking is unhealthy. In fact our father died in the 1950s, so I find it remarkable that my brother and sister didn't figure it out decades sooner.
I really pissed off my little sister for years with my constant nagging about her smoking, until I finally gave up. She was my sister and I loved her too much to fight with her every single time we had a family get together. It was a little sad to hear her flip-flop and lecture me about healthy diet and such after she was already in irreversible decline. Saying I told you so, wouldn't have been remotely satisfying. I guess dying tends to focus our thought process, albeit too little too late.
Many still have enough time to stop smoking before it kills them early, and perhaps a smokeless delivery system might deliver less radiation too. But I am not an advocate of that either, mainly as a substitute for burning tobacy.
JR
Paultec
Well-known member
Sorry to hear about your family experience, John.
I'm now at one week....i've cut down the strength of fluid in the eCig, i'm now on the lowest nicotine amount (10mg)...
I have a sore throat and feel achey....but, i'm not giving in...
Thanks for the inspiration guys.
Px
I'm now at one week....i've cut down the strength of fluid in the eCig, i'm now on the lowest nicotine amount (10mg)...
I have a sore throat and feel achey....but, i'm not giving in...
Thanks for the inspiration guys.
P
x
Thanks, I was phishing for sympathy, it is what it is, I just thought it was revealing about how hard it is for people to quit, even when they should know better.
Look for some substitute for the physical act of smoking. maybe get one of those hand exercise devices or a simple rubber ball to squeeze... Smoking is a strong habit to break.
JR
Look for some substitute for the physical act of smoking. maybe get one of those hand exercise devices or a simple rubber ball to squeeze... Smoking is a strong habit to break.
JR
