Talk:Tobacco smoking

src: c8.alamy.com

Video Talk:Tobacco smoking

Smoking in India >75 % as per picture ?

It is 33 % per another wiki article. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.17.175 (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Tobacco smoking

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tobacco smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121112124840/http://books.google.com/books?id=&printsec=frontcover&dq=Smoking,+health+and+personality to https://books.google.com/books?id=&printsec=frontcover&dq=Smoking,+health+and+personality

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.--^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

src: www.thepiperackohio.com

"The most genotoxic cancer causing chemicals in cigarette smoke"

Why is that table included? It is based on a single paper by Cunningham et al. All references given for the chemicals listed are primary sources (contrary to WP:MEDRS), and most only show mutagenic effects in mice, rats, or cell cultures. It's a big leap from observed mutagenic effects in animals and cell cultures to claiming these are "cancer causing chemicals". Some of the chemicals aren't classified as carcinogens by the IARC, EPA and other organisations.

• the first one listed, acrolein, is quite bad, but:

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has not classified acrolein as to its carcinogenicity. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that acrolein is not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans. The EPA has stated that the potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined based on an inadequate database. source

IARC classification: group 3 (The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans). source

• Or take Acrylonitrile, which has a PEL TWA in the US of 2ppm and a recommended exposure limit of 1 ppm. That REL (a level that NIOSH believes would be protective of worker safety and health over a working lifetime) is the equivalent of the acrylonitrile from about 500 cigarettes per day.
• isoprene, a gas produced by most plants, and by humans. The isoprene article even states it is the most abundant (measurable) hydrocarbon in exhaled breath of humans. A (non-smoking) adult weighing 70 kg exhales 17 mg, or the equivalent of 18 cigarettes, per day.

Perhaps (depending on how genotoxicity is defined) these chemicals are indeed the "most genotoxic chemicals", but most readers will interpret that as "the ones that cause the most cancers" (since that is what the text also claims: "... identify the most carcinogenic compounds in cigarette smoke"), and that is by no means established medical fact. The table is more likely to confuse and misinform readers than anything else. There's no reason why Cunningham's A novel application of the Margin of Exposure approach" should figure so dominantly in the article. Unless people can provide reliable secondary or tertiary sources supporting Cunningham's ranking, the table should be removed. I notice that nitrosamines otoh aren't even mentioned in the article... Prevalence 02:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

src: www.tobaccofree.org

Is tobacco smoking addictive?

If it is, the intro should say so. Currently, it states this:

After an individual has smoked for some years, the avoidance of withdrawal symptoms and negative reinforcement become the key motivations to continue.

...which strikes me as a strangely roundabout way to say:

After an individual has smoked for some years, he or she becomes addicted.

GregorB (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually this describes physical dependence. Addiction is positive reinforcement. Dependence is negative reinforcement. Sizeofint (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

NIDA says nicotine is addictive:[1]

Most smokers use tobacco regularly because they are addicted to nicotine. Addiction is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and abuse, even in the face of negative health consequences. It is well documented that most smokers identify tobacco use as harmful and express a desire to reduce or stop using it, and nearly 35 million of them want to quit each year.

If that's so, it should be spelled out clearly in the intro. GregorB (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, nicotine causes both dependence and addiction Nicotine#Reinforcement_disorders. I'm not opposed to a statement saying as much so if you want to add something go ahead. We just don't want to mix up these concepts. Sizeofint (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

History

Walter Raleigh article says Raleigh was "well known for popularising tobacco in England," but gives no details. There must be sources for this. Sca (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia