“The Carcinogenic Effect of Tobacco Smoke Mixed With Air is Greater than Whole Tobacco Smoke”

Rose brought my attention to a new study:


I haven’t had time to read it all yet, if I can be bothered at all, but, very briefly, it purports to show that there is a possibility that the air added to tobacco smoke via more porous cigarette paper or holes in the paper of the filter tip, actually increases the possibility of deep lung cancers, known as adenocarcinomas. But we all know how these things work – in a few months time, if it has not already occurred, this possibility will become hard fact.

I suppose that the continuing occurrence of LC, despite the fall in smoking prevalence over the last few decades, needs to be blamed upon smoking somehow. Easy-peasy – say that mixing air with the tobacco smoke causes smokers to inhale more deeply so that the smoke causes lung cells to become cancerous much more deeply in the lung.

Well, maybe that is true, but as the authors say, the introduction of holes in the paper and filter tips occurred decades ago. It seems unlikely that a physical practice introduced decades ago could bring on adverse events here and now in non-smokers and ex-smokers.

But I have not read the study, so I may be premature.

But let us think. I remember when ‘cig stumps’ (no filter tips) were so brown that they were almost black. I remember also when filter tips were very brown. Today, the filter tip is hardly brown at all. But I also know, from the record, that the Canadian Gov cooperated with TobComs to produce a variety of ‘Nicotianna Tobaccum’ which had very little tar. They succeeded. The tobacco that goes into cigs these days contains very little tar.

But there is also, as Rose pointed out, the method of curing the leaves. The science is complicated, so let us just say that the smoke from fires lit inside the barns to dry the leaves created the ‘nitrosamines’ which are notorious. At some point in time, the fires were lit in ovens outside the barns and the heat was passed through the barns by what were, in effect, chimneys. Thus, the smoke from the fires did not affect the leaves. Nitrosamines were vastly reduced if not completely eliminated.

But what does the study actually say about nitrosamines? I do not know yet.

Words like ‘nitrosamines’ are banded about, and yet few people actually know what they are. If you feel intellectually brave, read this:


In my opinion, the holes in the filter tips and papers were always irrelevant. Did TobComs go along with those ideas for an easy life for a couple of years? I think so. Neither the TobCom cigs that I have nor the empty tubes, have holes. Yesterday’s news.TC is investigating old practices which no longer exist and blathering. The weakness is becoming more and more apparent.

All we smokers have to do is apply ‘constant, gentle pressure’. Let TC be hysterical. Let us be constantly factual but also emphasise pleasure.

Above all, we must not credit them with any sainthood. They are bullies and thieves. They kick and batter smokers with their bans and steal their money via taxes. They are utterly satanic.

But why do we let politicians like Osborne, who did as much as any politician to bully smokers, get away with it? I do not know. I do not know where the bullying begins and ends. But we all know what happened in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It seems to me that the Camerons and Osbornes of this world have taken us closer to fascism than ever before in our history.

“But they do not know what they do”, I hear you cry. The answer to that is that they do not care. They do not give a damn.

And yet I simply do not understand their thinking at all. In a vague sort of way, I see Politicians as absolutely NOT passionate ideally. The worst thing that a politician can be is ‘passionate’.

All smoke is mixed with air. A cig is partially tobacco and partially air. Just squeeze a cig and note how easily it is compressed.

You get sick of these so-called ‘studies’ which are rather comical in real life. Where is the physical evidence that tobacco smoke caused any adenocarcinomas?


8 Responses to ““The Carcinogenic Effect of Tobacco Smoke Mixed With Air is Greater than Whole Tobacco Smoke””

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    It seems there isn’t any actual evidence that tobacco smoke causes these adenocarcinomas (or any cancers, lung or otherwise). Beyond that, ‘light’ cigarettes were once championed by tobacco control. In retrospect, that advocacy appears to have been a temporary concession used to gather momentum for their ultimate total assault on tobacco. If I was a vaper I would beware since that tactic is likely to be used against ecigarettes too.

  2. inisfad Says:

    While I may be incorrect, the holes in filters and papers were designed to create ‘light’ cigarettes. So, it is somewhat amusing that a full flavoured cigarette (without the holes, etc.) is purportedly ‘safer’ than one designed to lessen the health risk.

    • garyk30 Says:

      Such critical thinking will cause the anti-smokers to have headaches.
      Shame on you. 😊😊😊😊

      • michaeljmcfadden Says:

        “it is somewhat amusing that a full flavoured cigarette (without the holes, etc.) is purportedly ‘safer’ than one designed to lessen the health risk.”

        It’s even funnier that the Antis managed to make it ILLEGAL for BigT to tell us WHICH cigarettes are “light” and therefore have those air holes! If they want to run with their new theory they’ll have to rewrite the law they wrote! You can bet yer bunions though that they won’t run their statistics programs to “project” how many deaths they were responsible for with their law!

        The air holes however weren’t designed primarily for carcinogen reduction: I believe they had a greater effect on CO reduction. (I *may* be wrong in that since CO is likely produced in greater proportions at lower burn temperatures… which would be produced by the air holes weakening the strength of the “draw.”)

        – MJM, who mainly stuck with Pall Mall nonfilters, then English Ovals before switching to RYO…

        On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Bolton Smokers Club wrote:

        > garyk30 commented: “Such critical thinking will cause the anti-smokers to > have headaches. Shame on you. [image: 😊][image: 😊][image: 😊][image: 😊] > ” >

  3. Rose Says:

    Wynder’s idea was that people would buy the “light” cigarettes and inhale less “tar” and nicotine.
    But later anti-tobacco people believe that a health concious smoker will deliberately buy cigarettes with visible holes in and then go to all the trouble of trying to block up the holes so that they can breath the smoke that they apparently didn’t want, deep into their lungs and make themselves ill.

    I don’t understand either.

    The low tar, low nicotine cigarettes that the Wynder and NCAB called for were found to taste of nothing and people didn’t want to buy them.
    So the new plan was to fill these lower tar cigarettes with various additives so they could still be sold , making the whole situation worse.


    All this trauma 50 years later is because President Ford called the NCAB’s bluff.

    US Rules on Cigarette Content Urged by Panel. Ford Demurs
    Washington Oct23 1974

    “The National Cancer Advisory Board has called for Federal regulation of tar and nicotine content in cigarettes in the agencies annual report, which was sent to Congress today by President Ford.
    The President disassociated himself from the potentially controversial proposal.

    In a letter accompanying the report, Mr Ford said, “It should be pointed out that there is considerable dispute as to whether there exist adequate scientific evidence on which to base safe levels of tar and nicotine under responsible regulatory action”

    TC seems to be blissfully unaware of it’s own history in this matter and blames the tobacco industry for it’s own mistakes.

    • michaeljmcfadden Says:

      “TC seems to be blissfully unaware of it’s own history in this matter and blames the tobacco industry for it’s own mistakes.”

      If I’m remembering my early researches correctly, the AMA came out in either 1953 or 1956 and declared Kent’s Micronite filter (the one with asbestos I think) was the “healthiest” cigarette!

      – MJM, who never cared for the scent of Kent, or Marlboro for that matter. My favorite cigarette scent has always been Pall Mall nonfilters — a licorice tang.

      • Rose Says:

        I’m not a bit surprised.

        “E. Cuyler Hammond, Vice President of the American Cancer Society, blazed the trail in the 50’s with his study zeroing in on smoking as the cause of lung cancer. He hasn’t stopped since. Regarding another possible cause, he said:. “There is no relationship whatsoever between lung cancer and air pollution.”

        He has said that the danger from asbestos is limited to only those workers who also smoke.”

        Another member of the NCAB, you’ll find the rest of the “hanging jury” in that link.

  4. junican Says:

    Good discussion. I have come round to the idea that TC has degenerated into a purely propaganda agency. FACTS no longer matter. The only thing that matters is to keep the propaganda ball rolling (and the gravy train).
    This latest study DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL! Prior studies, years ago, which must have shown that air holes in cigs reduce the potency of the smoke,can be disregarded as though they never existed.
    The studies do not matter one jot or tittle. What matters is persecution of smokers. That is the only important thing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: