/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7773087
That meme bothers me.

Nickel & Cadmium are in batteries, shitty ones though. Meme-ion is what all them use now a days.
Butane, lighter fluid? Cool meme.
Methane, sewer gas? It occurs naturally and is even stored in banks of frozen water in places far up north, around Ålesund-north.
Stearic Acid, candle wax? Yeah, but stearic acid is also found in food as a saturated fatty acid, what's wrong?
Ammonia, toilet cleaner? Ammonium Hydroxide is used as an anti-bacterial agent in food, nothing wrong.
Toluene, it's a pretty good organic solvent, but are you actually going to breathe it in? lol no.
Methanol, rocket fuel? Yeah, you're not going to drink methanol, so why are you so worried?

>>7773087
Probably not measurably. Those images are just a scare tactic and somewhat misleading. They don't actually "add" anything to cigarettes besides menthol flavoring (sometimes). All the chemicals they name are just created when the tobacco is burned. The real reason cigarettes are bad is that when you burn things it creates smoke that is actually made of tiny solid floating particles. And those tiny particles clog up your lungs and stop the flow of oxygen, and also cause cancer. Smoking leaves and wood would have the same negative effects.

>>7773101
that makes sense thanks. I don't smoke so I'm just curious about where the problems come from. Is this why vaping is seen as "better"? Because it's just vapor instead of real smoke?

>>7773104
Right. the vapor is tiny liquid particles, so in theory it should not be bad for the same reason that smoking is bad (and so far we have no evidence to suggest that it is). Nicotine itself has not actually been proven to be bad for you either, except for some studies with mixed results about whether or not it causes cancer, but even so we have not observed a higher cancer rate among people taking nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine gum or nicotine-emitting transdermal patch to reduce the craving to smoke).

It is plausible that inhaling a lot of oily liquid from vapes could adversely affect the lungs in an unforeseen way, and it could turn out that commonly used flavorings are carcinogenic to inhale, but both of these seem unlikely. Conspiracy theories aside, the government and anti-drug organizations must be very careful not to endorse something that could possibly be revealed as bad years down the line, because it would be pretty bad for PR.

>>7773087
CO is a carcinogen, and tar (smoke residue) fucks up the ravioli in your lungs

If you vape in below freezing temperatures could that kill you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

>>7773101
Isn't there something in the smoke that paralyses the cilia, which causes shit to build up?

>>7773101
I wouldn't necessarily say that. Tobacco has agents in it that irritate your mouth, throat, and lung tissue. Yes any kind of smoke would be bad, but tobacco is especially bad because it does this.

Believe me I'm not a stoner, but marijuana is actually much better in this regard because it is a soothing agent to these same tissues. In addition, the drug itself has been found to inhibit tumor growth. This is why it is often prescribed to cancer patients in states that support it.

directly breathing in smoke is bad in general

cigarette tar contains hydrophobic compounds which can easily pass the cell and nuclear (and mitochondrial) membranes and react w/ DNA & histones to produce mutations. these mutations can be repaired if "caught" early, but if left unchecked after several rounds of cell divison, they become permanent fixtures that can lead to cancer

there's also inflammatory processes that are inherent to ingesting any foreign particulate matter such as smoke, and these can lead to COPD (this also applies to habitual marijuana smoking btw)

there's also atherosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease (amputations ahoy!), glaucoma, increased heart rate, etc etc

tl;dr don't fucking smoke and find a better way to ingest weed if that's your thing

>>7773211
>In addition, the drug itself has been found to inhibit tumor growth. This is why it is often prescribed to cancer patients in states that support it.
Pull your head out of your popsci ass. This is wrong.

>>7773087
>Nicotine is an insecticide omg nooo!

Kek. So is caffeine lad.

>Where does the health risk for cigarettes come from?
The danger comes from the fact that smoking hot particulates fucks up your lung tissue, chemical contamination is secondary, the worst is the incomplete combustion products which has ionizing degradation reactions on all polymers, not even the stuff people usually bitch about.


These why these weed and hadji smokers are so fucking stupid. Any smoke damages your lungs, cigarettes aren't much more or less damaging.

>>7773358
>Pull your head out of your popsci ass
>posts xkcd shit comic

>>7773373
>"hurrrrr marie J cures cancer xD xDD"
Filthy hippy I hope you die from aids poisoning.

>>7773087
>Where does the health risk for cigarettes come from?

burning plant matter releases a bunch of shitty substances as vapor and smoke. inhaling these fucks up your lung tissue. that's how you end up with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (smoker's lung).

the nicotine is an addictive stimulants, but not toxic in the low amounts you get from cigarettes.
the other things listed in your picture arent a big deal either because they're present in ridiculously low amounts, and stuff like methane, acetic acid, butane, toluene and ammonia arent particularly toxic anyway.

Not a single post mentioning radioactivity, /sci/ worries me sometimes

>>7773413
>>7773372
>ionizing degradation reactions on all polymers

>>7773372
people who smoke weed and cigarettes have fewer incidences of cancer than people who just smoke cigarettes

>>7773411
>>7773216
>>7773118
Okay, how about chewing tobacco? I know the labels say that Smokeless tobacco isn't safer, but how does that have the same effect when you aren't inhaling the particulates?

>>7773888
citation needed