Cigarettes bad...?

[Isaac Sauvage]

Bad cigarettes... bad!
http://bluelivingideas.com/topics/freshwater-ecosystems/cigarette-butts-kill-fish-study/

 

[sleepy]

I can't buy it Nic.
The 'non-biodegradable butts' in the glass tubes in the still picture with the Start arrow for the video have been packed into the tube dry before carefully adding distilled water. I can verify this fact by the clarity of the water in the tubes and the fact that every cigarette butt that I have ever dropped into the toilet falls apart within minutes.

The paper around the butts in the glass tubes hasn't even separated from the filters. Cigarette papers and filters are only held together by water-soluble glue. How long does it take for a sealed postage envelope to fall open after falling in water or getting wet?
I mean the kind that you lick or wet to seal.

Another intriguing question is the use of this display at all. It's certainly damn ugly to look at, but I don't smoke like that myself, coupled with the fact that cigarette papers and the fibers in the filter are enforced (held together) by oxidation, as in "cellulose acetate", an oxide salt of cellulose and acetic acid, and as such will not fall apart in a solution of oxides provided by the smoke in distilled water, except for the paper around the butt separating from the filter almost immediately.

It takes cations like sodium to break up the butts, but they are not found in the smoke.
The cations are plentiful in soils and sands, but the guy with the big nose won't tell you that part because he is making big money on the anti-smoking lecture circuit.

Another method of breaking a compound like acetate is to use a component of the acetate as a solvent, in this case, acetic acid, common vinegar which is more than plentiful in the soils as provided by the same bacteria which is used to culture dairy products like yogurt and sour cream. It is the acetic acid (vinegar) produced by the bacterial cultures that give yogurt and sour cream their taste.

As for the nicotine in the butts killing fish, that's a lie too. Nicotine is neutralized by atmospheric oxidation, though the ash components of the butt represent carbonate salts and they will kill fish, though carbonates are not exclusive to tobacco. Dumping the charcoal from the BBQ or any ash products will do the same to the fish, as will powdered detergents containing sodium or potassium carbonate.

 

[sleepy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose_acetate#Cellulose_acetate_film

Cellulose acetate film was introduced in 1934 as a replacement for the cellulose nitrate film stock that had previously been standard. When exposed to heat, moisture or acids in the film base begin to deteriorate to an unusable state, releasing acetic acid with a characteristic vinegary smell, causing the process to be known as "vinegar syndrome." Acetate film stock is still used in some applications, such as camera negative for motion pictures. Since the 1980s, polyester film stock (sometimes referred to under Kodak's trade name "ESTAR Base") has become more commonplace, particularly for archival applications. Acetate film was also used as the base for magnetic tape, prior to the advent of polyester film.

When I was working at Image Transform, I was sent over to Warners to pick up old film stock from "Jack Warner's Bomb Shelter" at the studio and it was a heavy-duty concrete fortress built for preservation of these film stocks, to keep them from exposure to the elements. Many of these films were suffering from "vinegar syndrome" in the film cans, and this was under controlled conditions.

So I'm wondering what is different about cigarette butts that they are also cellulose acetate (made from wood pulp: also known as Rayon) and not subject to the same "vinegar syndrome"? They are combustible, so they have to decompose over time as any combustible does. Only non-combustibles are truly non-biodegradable.

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

The 'non-biodegradable butts' in the glass tubes in the still picture with the Start arrow for the video have been packed into the tube dry before carefully adding distilled water. I can verify this fact by the clarity of the water in the tubes and the fact that every cigarette butt that I have ever dropped into the toilet falls apart within minutes.

arne, what makes you think the tubes are filled with water?

next, it seems clear that when the article says "cigarette butts are not biodegradable", it's specifically referring to filters. i trust that we've all seen filters that have been tossed into the environment and are still intact weeks, months, or even years afterwards.

and yes, i don't see how anybody in their right mind could argue that shredded cured chemically-treated tobacco enclosed by a thin layer of paper wouldn't easily break up in water, but whether or not it does hardly matters as far as i can see. either way, a deadly mix of chemicals and radioactive material is going to leech into the available environment.

and yes, we already know know about the radioactivity and the chemical additives from studies conducted since probably the 50's, so i doubt anybody in their right mind would argue against that, either.

Another intriguing question is the use of this display at all. It's certainly damn ugly to look at, but I don't smoke like that myself ...

er, sorry... you don't smoke like what exactly?

...skipping a bunch that i don't see as relevant...

As for the nicotine in the butts killing fish, that's a lie too.

i looked again at the original article, and i don't see where it specifically says that nicotine in the butts is killing fish. i do see that nicotine is mentioned in the secondary article, probably because it's the single most identifiable component of tobacco, but nicotine is just one out of hundreds of culprits.

i do see where it says that toxic waste in the butts harms the environment, however, and that seems to be the real point.


...skipping some more interesting statements that i don't see as relevant...

When I was working at Image Transform, I was sent over to Warners to pick up old film stock from "Jack Warner's Bomb Shelter" at the studio and it was a heavy-duty concrete fortress built for preservation of these film stocks, to keep them from exposure to the elements. Many of these films were suffering from "vinegar syndrome" in the film cans, and this was under controlled conditions.

So I'm wondering what is different about cigarette butts that they are also cellulose acetate (made from wood pulp: also known as Rayon) and not subject to the same "vinegar syndrome"? They are combustible, so they have to decompose over time as any combustible does. Only non-combustibles are truly non-biodegradable.

again, interesting, but i don't see this as being of any relevance. so what if it cellulose acetate degrades moderately slowly, slowly, or not at all? either way, in the case of a smoked cigarette, i would guess that a significant proporation of the chemicals and radiation trapped in the filter would leech back out in the presence of water or weather. how could it not?

what exactly do you propose that would somehow bind all the original toxins into the filter, making it safe for the environment? not to mention the toxins in the remnants of the tobacco in the rest of the butt...

 

[sleepy]

The site is attacking butts for being "non-biodegradable". All that "non-relevant stuff" is exactly the stuff that disputes the contention. Cations like sodium and potassium definitely will break down the cellulose acetate which is exactly what the butts are made of.
Without the smoke, they are simply constructions of wood pulp.

The nicotine statements are in the video, but again, its the carbonates in the ash that kill fish. And again, carbonates are found in the ashes of all burnt organics (carbon-based).

As for nicotine itself, again, it is quickly neutralized by atmospheric oxidation.
Not only is it no longer dangerously toxic, on oxidation it then becomes Nicotinic Acid, also known as Niacin. Nicotinic acid is present in high concentrations in tomatoes.
That doesn't mean it is safe. In excess, Niacin is also toxic, but at much higher levels.
The U.S. RDA for niacin is 20 milligrams per day which is roughly the same amount as two packs of cigarettes a day in terms of Nicotine oxidized to Nicotinic Acid. That is for the smoker, not the bogus SHS issues which hardly register more than 50 ppm (parts per million).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinic_acid#History

History

Niacin was first described by Hugo Weidel in 1873 in his studies of nicotine.[4] The original preparation remains useful: the oxidation of nicotine using nitric acid.[5] Niacin was extracted from livers by Conrad Elvehjem who later identified the active ingredient, then referred to as the "pellagra-preventing factor" and the "anti-blacktongue factor."[6] When the biological significance of nicotinic acid was realized, it was thought appropriate to choose a name to dissociate it from nicotine, in order to avoid the perception that vitamins or niacin-rich food contains nicotine, or that cigarettes contain vitamins. The resulting name 'niacin' was derived from nicotinic acid + vitamin.
Carpenter found in 1951 that niacin in corn is biologically unavailable and can only be released in very alkali lime water of pH 11.[7] This process is known as nixtamalization.[8]
Niacin is referred to as Vitamin B3 because it was the third of the B vitamins to be discovered. It has historically been referred to as "vitamin PP."

The radioactivity is from the soil quality. Tobacco, tomatoes, corn, potatoes, none of them have the radioactivity when grown in good soil and all of them do when grown in radioactive soils.

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

WP cites the source of the radiation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#Cultivation

In the United States, tobacco is often fertilized with the mineral apatite, which partially starves the plant of nitrogen to produce a more desired flavor. Apatite, however, contains radium, lead 210, and polonium 210 — which are known radioactive carcinogens.

and there's a list of all the additives:

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

This is the list of 599 additives in cigarettes submitted to the United States Department of Health and Human Services in April 1994. It applies, as documented, only to American manufactured cigarettes intended for distribution within the United States by the listed companies. The five major tobacco companies that reported the information were:

* American Tobacco Company
* Brown and Williamson
* Liggett Group, Inc.
* Philip Morris Inc.
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

One significant issue is that while all these chemical compounds have been approved as additives to food, they were not tested by burning. Burning changes the properties of chemicals. More than 4,000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette.[1]

and there's a list of the known carcinogens produced (only 33?!) when the treated tobacco and the additives are combusted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_constituents

Acetaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
4-Aminobiphenyl
o-Anisidine Hydrochloride
Arsenic
Benzene
.
.
.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
o-Toluidine
Vinyl chloride

so it seems pretty simple to me-

before smoking, an american cigarette is full of additives and usually radioactive. after smoking, a butt is still radioactive and full of a cocktail of poisons left in the filter and the residual tobacco.

then when people toss the butts aside and they get swept into local waters, what happens to the cocktail? is it going to stay hermetically sealed in the butt or is it going to dispurse over time? surely you're not going to tell me that every one of those carcinogens somehow undergoes a benign transformation and harmlessly rejoins the environment?

come on now, arne... you wanna talk fish stories?

 

[sleepy]

Pretty much, yes. Matter is never destroyed, only converted. The anion salts produced in the burning of any material recombine in the soils and can be predicted by the Electromotive Series based on both elemental and compound +/-valences. In nature anion compounds are either stable or yield to cations. Free radicals like polonium tend to combine with minerals and the stronger the radioactivity, the stronger the bonding action to the mineral complex. It usually only makes hard rocks except when leached by burning or by the presence of strong alkalies displacing the cations in the available anion compounds.

Arsenic? That's not produced by smoking. Arsenic is an element.

 

[mrschultz]

Arsenic? That's not produced by smoking. Arsenic is an element.

The list is (a small subset of) what's known to be in the smoke, doesn't say it is produced by the reactions of burning. Not surprising the leaves would have arsenic considering the type of soil tobacco likes to grow in.

There was a senior project group last semester that studied the gasses coming out of a home coffee bean roaster. Good thing I don't like coffee, if I had one of those I'd make sure it was used with the windows open. Funny, caffeine sublimes so easily there's lots of it in the hot air coming out of the roaster.

Later,
Marty

 

[sleepy]

I have to admit that I am bugged by some of the outstanding claims against tobacco, such as "nicotine is a deadly insecticide".
I happen to know that a cockroach will not die in a jar of cigarette smoke at a density of zero visibility, as if that were a standard of measurement. I know it because I checked it last night.
The smoke eventually dissipated to a typical sticky brown residue clinging to the glass.
The cockroach survived.

As for coffee at room temperature, a cockroach will die in under a minute, I assume from the caffeine, though it might actually be the carbonates from the roasting, or from the carbonates releasing hydrogen from the water.
In water at room temperature a cockroach can easily survive, crawl out of it and run away, however, in water at approx. 96 F. a cockroach will die in under a minute.

 

[Rick2007]

Smoking Cigarettes possibly saved my life!
That is an outragious statement,,,,,,,or maybe not.

When I was about 17 I started to smoke quite heavily. I smoked at least
2 packs of Newports each day.

I was also a car mechanic at that time and I used to work on replacing
brake pads several times per week. We had to run the brake shoes through
a machine that sanded the brake shoes to the correct diameter. The brake dust
from that machine was a huge smelly bad cloud of asbestos. We did not know
that it was a health hazard at the time.

Here is the twist,,,, I smoked so many cigs that my lungs were coated with
a gooy Phlem. When I coughed, the asbestos dust came out on top of the
Cig Goo. I quit both the repair business and Smoking about 6 years later.
35 Years later and I think I dodged the asbestos bullet.

Rick

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

I happen to know that a cockroach will not die in a jar of cigarette smoke at a density of zero visibility, as if that were a standard of measurement. I know it because I checked it last night.

interesting. any idea what animals you think might be killed rather instantly by dense cigarette smoke?
ever try an ant, fly, moth or mosquito in that experiment?

btw, arne- sorry to be so pressing on the cigarette issue. i do understand that nobody likes to be harassed over a minor personal habit.

a big part of the problem, no doubt, is the way human overpopulation turns minor human habits into global issues. as one example out of thousands, take the way humans have always liked to burn their rubbish- at small population densities the earth is probably able to deal with it quite nicely. at our current population density, it's a significant source of air carcinogens and lighter-than-air carbon molecules, among other things. probably not in the top 15 of man-made problems that are currently impacting us and the environment, but still significant.

if tobacco smokers were using leaf the way that natives did, without the potassium-rich fertilisers and laundry list of additives that we americans do, then i would be a lot easier about all this.

EDIT: holy smokes, rick... it's the oprah show for you!

 

[sleepy]

Are they still burning the trash and leaves in Pennsylvania Nic?
My family used to do that when we lived in Allegheny County because there was no organized trash collection by the local government. When we had trash, we had to dispose of it ourselves while the closest public dump was many miles away, I think near Slate Lick/Beaver Creek, Pa..

The last time I was in Penn., in 1999, I saw some folks staging a huge bonfire with a 12 ft. ring, probably the leaves and fallen branches in the back yard, and the folks in attendance were seated in their lawn chairs around the fire, roasting dogs and marshmallows.

Is there a movement to ban autumn bonfires in Pennsylvania? I think I heard that burning trash is now illegal.

Btw, is there a reason for the more unusual names of boroughs back there, I mean like "Beaver Creek, Pa.", "Cranberry Township, Pa.", or how about "Cupid, Pa."?

 

[Isaac Sauvage]

i rarely see people burning it in the city and burbs, probably because there's no particular need.
according to the link below, state-wide it's legal for a residence to burn ordinary waste. municipalities may regulate further, however:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...burning+trash"+legal&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

i doubt that many citizens and cops care, however, so the regulations are probably almost meaningless.

dunno about the borough names- i know that "intercourse, PA" and "paradise, PA" are in the state.
when some pending issues get cleared up in my life i'd love to get back to taking regular road trips in order to do further research in this area. :)

EDIT: not sure if that link will show up for you. it's the HTML version of:
http://www.cleanair.org/Air/DEP Open Burning Fact Sheet.pdf

 

[sleepy]

Well, if you do the research Nic, look out for the shotguns.

 

[mrschultz]

I go out to Lancaster at least once a year, never looked into why the town names are so provocative, considering the ultra conservative religious people that named them, east of Lancaster there is:

Bareville
Bird in Hand
Blue Ball
Intercourse
Paradise
Fertility

 

[sleepy]

I think in those areas and, according to local customs, Fertility requires marriage.
Either that or a shotgun.