Talk:Smoke constituents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is already a section similar to this in the Cigarette article under the header "contents of a cigarette", I suggest the safest option is to merge what is not POV into that. -- Francs2000 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that first we should ensure the authenticity of the claims in the article by requesting for some references. Once that is established, then only we should go for a merger. I support a merger in the case that the article's authenticity is established. BTW, I feel that the comments after every ingredient are added to achieve a shock factor only. Will this be considered a POV. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

2:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing you need to remember about these lists is that they are only compiled for shock effect - everybody knows that DDT, for example, or cyanide, are deadly chemicals. What this list fails to point out is that a) these chemicals are in trace quantities and b) most of them also occur in trace quantities in the air you breathe or the food you eat. Also, you can't call carbon monoxide an 'additive' as this is produced as a result of incomplete combustion of carbohydrates to carbon dioxide (CO is of course highly toxic - is taken up by red blood cells in place of oxygen and reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the cell for the remainder of its 100 day lifespan).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Staphylococcus (talk • contribs) 16:04, March 12, 2006 (UTC)

IT IS GOOD TO SMOKE>>>>

Contents

[edit] Merge

I am not in favor of merging this page with the other. That page is a list of thousands of ingredients, and frankly I don't see the point in it. This page is a list of the ingredients that are known to be carcinogenic (which is obviously a much more serious issue). If they were merged such that the carcinogenic compounds were at the top, so as to be easily identified, I suppose it would be OK to merge. Zhinz 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Merge

I feel merging these two articles would be counterproductive as more evidence will arrive as to the number of additives in cigarettes (not tobacco) and more research needs to be done on the by-products of combusting these unnecessary additives. Again please refrain from associating pure tobacco with cigarettes. They are completely different products.

+1 Cigarette ingredients and smoke constituents are two very different things. Popo le Chien 08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cigarette or tobacco smoke word choice

wouldn't it be better to say tobacco smoke instead of cigarette smoke? Tkjazzer 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart?

Does anyone think it would make more sense to present the bulk of this material in chart form? Similarly, I would also endorse the idea of creating an introduction, or expanding the introduction, depending on our collective opinion on whether one now exists.

I have already taken the initiative of converting this list to table form. At least it would be presentable for whoever would make the chart for this. :) --Animeronin (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

==

[edit] Headline text

Insert non-formatted text here ==