|
|
Post by OziRiS on Apr 21, 2014 22:43:35 GMT
I've been thinking about this for a while now. How about doing myths about smoking? I'm thinking of all those things smokers say to themselves (and others) to convince themselves it's not actually as unhealthy as "they" say or that there are things that are worse than smoking. Some seem to make at least a little sense, while others are just plain silly.
One that comes to mind that I've always wondered about is the, "Yes, smoking is bad for me, but so is inhaling all the crap in the air from cars and factories and other stuff" argument. So, how much bad stuff actually comes out of the exhausts of motorized vehicles, and is what comes out of them really as bad as, or worse than, what's in a cigarette in terms of the damage it does to the body? (Factories would be difficult to get reliable numbers on, since what they produce and expell differs greatly.)
We all know for a fact that sitting in a small, closed garage with the car running for an hour will kill you if there's no ventilation, but sitting in a closed room full of smokers for hours on end won't. It'll be uncomfortable and even nauseating, but it won't kill you. Why is that? If tobacco smoke is as toxic as "they" say it is, why doesn't it kill us as fast as car exhaust does? And could it kill you if you sat in there long enough? How small a room, how many smokers and how many hours would that actually take? Would the smokers themselves become sick and have to stop smoking before that even happened?
Another one that comes to mind is the conspiracy theorist smoker's argument of choise: "The figures on what's in a cigarette are wildly exaggerated to scare us straight." So, are they?
Another one is the argument of what you smoke. Pipe smokers will often gladly proclaim that what they smoke is less unhealthy than cigarettes for different reasons. One argument is just that the composition of pipe tobacco isn't the same as cigarette tobacco. Another one is that pipe smokers don't smoke as much, as the pipe goes out if you're not using it. They also use that "reason" to argue that they're not as bad as cigarette smokers when it comes to producing second hand smoke.
Some cigar smokers also claim that cigars are less unhealthy than both pipes and cigarettes, because their product is processed less and, therefore, "more natural".
For cigarette smokers there's the argument that unfiltered cigarettes are more unhealthy than filtered cigarettes.
So, is there really a difference in what comes out of each type of tobacco, or is it just something each type of smoker says to make themselves feel better?
And how about these E-cigs? The manufacturers claim that besides the nicotine, there's nothing in the liquid that's bad for you, meaning that it's a lot healthier than smoking regular tobacco. Is that true or is it just a sales gimmick?
ADDENDUM: I realize that some of these things may not be testable in as visually stimulating a way as we'd normally like, but I'm hoping some of you feel (as I do) that this could be important enough to test that we might collectively come up with ways that would make it interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 22, 2014 5:28:09 GMT
I've been thinking about this for a while now. How about doing myths about smoking? I'm thinking of all those things smokers say to themselves (and others) to convince themselves it's not actually as unhealthy as "they" say or that there are things that are worse than smoking. Some seem to make at least a little sense, while others are just plain silly. One that comes to mind that I've always wondered about is the, "Yes, smoking is bad for me, but so is inhaling all the crap in the air from cars and factories and other stuff" argument. So, how much bad stuff actually comes out of the exhausts of motorized vehicles, and is what comes out of them really as bad as, or worse than, what's in a cigarette in terms of the damage it does to the body? (Factories would be difficult to get reliable numbers on, since what they produce and expell differs greatly.) We all know for a fact that sitting in a small, closed garage with the car running for an hour will kill you if there's no ventilation, but sitting in a closed room full of smokers for hours on end won't. It'll be uncomfortable and even nauseating, but it won't kill you. Why is that? If tobacco smoke is as toxic as "they" say it is, why doesn't it kill us as fast as car exhaust does? And could it kill you if you sat in there long enough? How small a room, how many smokers and how many hours would that actually take? Would the smokers themselves become sick and have to stop smoking before that even happened? Another one that comes to mind is the conspiracy theorist smoker's argument of choise: "The figures on what's in a cigarette are wildly exaggerated to scare us straight." So, are they? Another one is the argument of what you smoke. Pipe smokers will often gladly proclaim that what they smoke is less unhealthy than cigarettes for different reasons. One argument is just that the composition of pipe tobacco isn't the same as cigarette tobacco. Another one is that pipe smokers don't smoke as much, as the pipe goes out if you're not using it. They also use that "reason" to argue that they're not as bad as cigarette smokers when it comes to producing second hand smoke. Some cigar smokers also claim that cigars are less unhealthy than both pipes and cigarettes, because their product is processed less and, therefore, "more natural". For cigarette smokers there's the argument that unfiltered cigarettes are more unhealthy than filtered cigarettes. So, is there really a difference in what comes out of each type of tobacco, or is it just something each type of smoker says to make themselves feel better? And how about these E-cigs? The manufacturers claim that besides the nicotine, there's nothing in the liquid that's bad for you, meaning that it's a lot healthier than smoking regular tobacco. Is that true or is it just a sales gimmick? ADDENDUM: I realize that some of these things may not be testable in as visually stimulating a way as we'd normally like, but I'm hoping some of you feel (as I do) that this could be important enough to test that we might collectively come up with ways that would make it interesting. a human breathing at 50% lung capacity and a resting rate of 20 breaths per minute (about average for sitting around) breathes 6 liters of air every 4 seconds. in comparison, my Jeep, at idle, "breathes" 400 liters of air every 4 seconds. so if you had 66 smokers in a room the size of a garage, it would probably be at least as bad for you as leaving your car running. as far as pipes and cigars, the primary difference between them and cigarettes is that the average cigarette smoker inhales the smoke into their lungs, while the average pipe and cigar smoker does not. if a pipe or cigar smoker smokes the same volume, and inhales the smoke, the unfiltered smoke will be worse for them than cigarette smoke. as far as E-cigs - the primary toxin in cigarette smoke is the nicotine - so the e-cigs do not have the tertiary combustion by products, and they don't deliver the hot smoke, but they still deliver nicotine, which, point of fact, is the active ingredient in at least one popular insecticide. unfortunately, I can't think of any good tests other than drawing smoke through filters and looking at the results... |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Apr 22, 2014 10:34:22 GMT
as far as pipes and cigars, the primary difference between them and cigarettes is that the average cigarette smoker inhales the smoke into their lungs, while the average pipe and cigar smoker does not. if a pipe or cigar smoker smokes the same volume, and inhales the smoke, the unfiltered smoke will be worse for them than cigarette smoke. as far as E-cigs - the primary toxin in cigarette smoke is the nicotine - so the e-cigs do not have the tertiary combustion by products, and they don't deliver the hot smoke, but they still deliver nicotine, which, point of fact, is the active ingredient in at least one popular insecticide. unfortunately, I can't think of any good tests other than drawing smoke through filters and looking at the results... I think it's well worth remembering here that nicotine, while having been proven to be the component in tobacco that causes addiction, isn't actually the one that's most dangerous. The claim I've heard from anti-smoking campaigns is that burning tobacco supposedly releases around 6,000 different chemicals, of which nicotine is only one and not even remotely as dangerous, in the concentrations found in tobacco, as many of the 5,999 others. This is also, supposedly, the reason why nicotine patches and gum is seen as a healthier alternative when trying to quit smoking. Actually, nicotine has become an increasing subject of study in healthcare for medicinal purposes, showing some beneficial effects against things like clinical depression, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease when administered correctly. These studies have been launched after phycisians have discovered what they call "smoker's paradoxes", where smoking, for certain patients, has turned out to actually help them with specific problems, in spite of the detrimental properties of smoking. The paradox, of course, being that as a phycisian you should always discourage your patients from smoking, yet are now faced with a situation where if you do and are succesful, you might actually make your patient's overall health status worse. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 22, 2014 13:30:58 GMT
as far as pipes and cigars, the primary difference between them and cigarettes is that the average cigarette smoker inhales the smoke into their lungs, while the average pipe and cigar smoker does not. if a pipe or cigar smoker smokes the same volume, and inhales the smoke, the unfiltered smoke will be worse for them than cigarette smoke. as far as E-cigs - the primary toxin in cigarette smoke is the nicotine - so the e-cigs do not have the tertiary combustion by products, and they don't deliver the hot smoke, but they still deliver nicotine, which, point of fact, is the active ingredient in at least one popular insecticide. unfortunately, I can't think of any good tests other than drawing smoke through filters and looking at the results... I think it's well worth remembering here that nicotine, while having been proven to be the component in tobacco that causes addiction, isn't actually the one that's most dangerous. The claim I've heard from anti-smoking campaigns is that burning tobacco supposedly releases around 6,000 different chemicals, of which nicotine is only one and not even remotely as dangerous, in the concentrations found in tobacco, as many of the 5,999 others. This is also, supposedly, the reason why nicotine patches and gum is seen as a healthier alternative when trying to quit smoking. Actually, nicotine has become an increasing subject of study in healthcare for medicinal purposes, showing some beneficial effects against things like clinical depression, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease when administered correctly. These studies have been launched after phycisians have discovered what they call "smoker's paradoxes", where smoking, for certain patients, has turned out to actually help them with specific problems, in spite of the detrimental properties of smoking. The paradox, of course, being that as a phycisian you should always discourage your patients from smoking, yet are now faced with a situation where if you do and are succesful, you might actually make your patient's overall health status worse. yes, the toxin from many poisonous plants is used medicinally. but yes, the primary hazard in smoking is smoke inhalation, which causes most of the lung damage. other nicotine delivery systems do so with much less lung damage. |
|
|
|
Post by chriso on May 13, 2014 20:44:30 GMT
A medical myth I seem to recall is that artificial sweeteners can actually make you fatter. The theory behind it is that the calorimeter in your brain is confused by the sweetness with no nutrition, and as a result causes you to crave more food to deal with the fact that your food no longer has as many calories as it used to. Net result being you seek out more calorie laden treats and food then you would otherwise.
Also, on the subject of diet, has anyone brought up glucose yet?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 14, 2014 17:16:26 GMT
A medical myth I seem to recall is that artificial sweeteners can actually make you fatter. The theory behind it is that the calorimeter in your brain is confused by the sweetness with no nutrition, and as a result causes you to crave more food to deal with the fact that your food no longer has as many calories as it used to. Net result being you seek out more calorie laden treats and food then you would otherwise. Also, on the subject of diet, has anyone brought up glucose yet? this thread is pretty drawn out, but I don't recall mention of sugar and sugar substitutes. I have also heard the "artificial sweetener leads to sugar cravings" theory. the whole "my sugar is better than your sugar" scenario is well worth testing, though I don't know if Mythbusters could test it effectively. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 14, 2014 20:12:26 GMT
Keep in mind here that some artificial sweeteners are also laxatives. In order to test this in the time they have they would need to more or less consume high levels of sweeteners, which might be...unpleasant for all involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 29, 2014 8:45:00 GMT
Now you tell me?.....
Ok, I used to take sugar in coffee. I switched to sweeteners to help me give up, as I dont like the taste of too many sweeteners...
I do not use them any more, but, I do/always have consumed vast amounts of the stuff....
Just what is ["high levels of sweeteners"} that you quote?.....
How much is too much?....
Considering maybe a gallon of coffee or tea a day may be an underestimate?.. and thats a UK 8pint gallon....
I used to take maybe 2 or 3 sweeteners in coffee, 16 times a day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 29, 2014 15:05:19 GMT
Like all medicines the amount needed to have an effect will vary from individual to individual and on the dosage - which will vary from product to product in the case of foods.
It should also be noted that not all sweeteners have this effect, but the most common ones (certainly the ones used for sugar-free gum) can have a laxative effect. There is a type of sweetener that is basically a type of sugar that the body can't process that as far as I'm aware has no ill effects. But this stuff is (or was last time I checked, which was a while ago) expensive to produce and therefore not suitable for most products that use sweeteners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on May 29, 2014 15:28:14 GMT
Ok I've seen this several times times on Facebook & thought it sounded like total & utter BS. But it's one of those things that I see on my feed at least once a month. So I'm guessing that due to it's constantly being reposted that lots of people believe it to be true.  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 29, 2014 16:00:49 GMT
Ok I've seen this several times times on Facebook & thought it sounded like total & utter BS. But it's one of those things that I see on my feed at least once a month. So I'm guessing that due to it's constantly being reposted that lots of people believe it to be true. chemical one: plausible. it IS associated with alcohol and hangovers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetate"Intraperitoneal injection of sodium acetate (20 or 60 mg per kg body mass) was found to induce headache in sensitized rats, and it has been proposed that acetate resulting from oxidation of ethanol is a major factor in causing hangovers. Increased serum acetate levels lead to accumulation of adenosine in many tissues including the brain, and administration of the adenosine receptor antagonist caffeine to rats after ethanol was found to decrease nociceptive behavior.[6][7]" chemical two: not so much. if Sprite converts Acetaldehyde to Acetate, it should make the hangover worse... |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on May 30, 2014 20:39:36 GMT
I think this one is interesting, but there might be that small problem of this thing being product specific. It's not "soda". It's Sprite.
Testing it would mean either endorsing or condemning that specific product, depending on the results, and we all know how they feel about doing that sort of stuff on the show.
|
|
