ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/23/2018 02:35 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.033 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/04/2012 11:37 AM ID: 91325 Permalink   

Scientists Make New Cigarette That Is Less Toxic

 

Scientists at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. say they were able to make a cigarette less toxic by putting lycopene and grape seed extract into it.

The natural antioxidant extracts were found to lower the amount of cancer-causing substances in the filter.

"Practically, this research could lead to an alternative type of cigarette filter with a free radical scavenging additive. It could lead to a less harmful cigarette," researcher and co-author Kolski-Andreaco claims.

 
  Source: www.upi.com  
    WebReporter: edie Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  8 Comments
  
  Anything to do with smoke...  
 
is carcinogenic, even incense.
 
  by: captainJane     01/04/2012 03:02 PM     
  @CaptainJane  
 
Do what?!?!?

Specific chemicals are carcinogens. Burning those chemicals makes those carcinogen airborn. Obviously, not all products contain carcinogens.

I should add that most of the carcinogens in cigarettes are not a part of the natural product "tobacco." but are inherently added by the manufacturers during cleaning of and/or processing of tobacco.

So until you can prove without a reasonable doubt that every chemical burned; for which generates smoke, also generated carcinogens, ... I´ll have to disagree with you entirely...
 
  by: jeffillinois   01/04/2012 05:03 PM     
  Sorry but..  
 
I would have to agree with Jeff, just because there is smoke doesn´t necessarily mean there is fire this time..
 
  by: Allanthar     01/04/2012 06:51 PM     
  Missing the point...  
 
I think the point is that perhaps we shouldn´t be working on making smoking less dangerous. Maybe people should just stop smoking.
 
  by: gbestwick   01/04/2012 11:12 PM     
  Carcinogens are just that  
 
OK so smoking lycopene and grape seed extract is better than tobacco?

Did they do a study of 10 years or more on smoking this crap?

What is a carcinogen?

Cancer is caused by changes in a cell´s DNA – its genetic "blueprint." Some of these changes may be inherited from our parents, while others may be caused by outside exposures, which are often referred to as environmental factors. Environmental factors can include a wide range of exposures, such as:

•Lifestyle factors (nutrition, tobacco use, physical activity, etc.)
•Naturally occurring exposures (ultraviolet light, radon gas, infectious agents, etc.)
•Medical treatments (chemotherapy, radiation, immune system-suppressing drugs, etc.)
•Workplace exposures
•Household exposures
•Pollution
Substances and exposures that can lead to cancer are called carcinogens. Some carcinogens do not affect DNA directly, but lead to cancer in other ways. For example, they may cause cells to divide at a faster than normal rate, which could increase the chances that DNA changes will occur.

Carcinogens do not cause cancer in every case, all the time. Substances labeled as carcinogens may have different levels of cancer-causing potential. Some may cause cancer only after prolonged, high levels of exposure. And for any particular person, the risk of developing cancer depends on many factors, including how they are exposed to a carcinogen, the length and intensity of the exposure, and the person´s genetic makeup.

How do researchers determine if something is a carcinogen?

Testing to see if something can cause cancer is often difficult. It is not ethical to test a substance by exposing people to it and seeing if they get cancer from it. That’s why scientists must use other types of tests, which may not always give clear answers.

Lab studies
Scientists get much of their data about whether something might cause cancer from lab studies in cell cultures and animals. There are far too many substances (both natural and man-made) to test each one in lab animals, so scientists use what is already known about chemical structures, results from other types of lab tests, the extent of human exposure, and other factors to select chemicals for testing. For example, they can often get an idea about whether a substance might cause a problem by comparing it to similar chemicals that have already been studied.

Although lab studies alone can´t always predict if a substance will cause cancer in people, virtually all known human carcinogens that have been adequately tested also cause cancer in lab animals. In many cases, carcinogens are first found to cause cancer in lab animals and are later found to cause cancer in people.

Most studies of potential carcinogens expose the lab animals to doses that are much higher than common human exposures. This is so that cancer risk can be detected in relatively small groups of animals. It is not always clear if the results from animal studies will be the same for people as they are normally exposed to a substance. For example, the effects seen in lab studies with very high doses of a substance may not be the same at much lower doses, or the effects of a substance when it is inhaled may not be the same as if it is applied to the skin. Also, the bodies of lab animals and humans don´t always process substances in the same way.

But for safety reasons, it is usually assumed that exposures that cause cancer at larger doses in animals may also cause cancer in people. It isn´t always possible to know how the exposure dose might affect risk, but it is reasonable for public health purposes to assume that lowering human exposure will reduce risk.

Studies in people
Another important way to identify carcinogens is through epidemiologic studies, which look at human populations to determine which factors might be linked to cancer. These studies also provide useful information, but they have their limits. Humans do not live in a controlled environment. People are exposed to many substances at any given time, including those they encounter at work, school, or home; in the food they eat; and in the air they breathe. It´s very unlikely they know exactly what they´ve been exposed to or that they would be able to remember all of their exposures if asked by a researcher. And there are usually many years (often decades) between exposure to a carcinogen and the development of cancer. Therefore, it can be very hard to definitely link any particular exposure to cancer.

By combining data from both types of studies, scientists do their best to make an educated assessment of a substance´s cancer-causing ability. When the evidence is conclusive, the substance is labeled as a carcinogen. When the available evidence is compelling but not felt to be conclusive, the substance may be considered to be a probable carcinogen. But in some cases there simply isn´t enough information to be certain one way or the other.

 
  by: smgordon1259   01/05/2012 12:40 AM     
  This is why I quit  
 
Fungicides and pesticides -- Cause many types of cancers and birth defects.
Cadmium -- Linked to lung and prostate cancer.
Benzene -- Linked to leukemia.
Formaldehyde -- Linked to lung cancer.
Nickel -- Causes increased susceptibility to lung infections.

There are more than 4,000 ingredients in a cigarette other than tobacco. Common additives include yeast, wine, caffeine, beeswax and chocolate. Here are some other ingredients:

Ammonia: Household cleaner
Angelica root extract: Known to cause cancer in animals
Arsenic: Used in rat poisons
Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber
Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid
Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas
Cadmium: Used in batteries
Cyanide: Deadly poison
DDT: A banned insecticide
Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals
Lead: Poisonous in high doses
Formaldehiyde: Used to preserve dead specimens
Methoprene: Insecticide
Megastigmatrienone: Chemical naturally found in grapefruit juice
Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics
Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs
Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India in 1984
Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element

 
  by: smgordon1259   01/07/2012 09:39 AM     
   
 
I always thought carbon monoxide was carcinogenic, and thus all smoke was carcinogenic. Maybe it´s something that was taught in England, but has since been disproved?

Certainly, when Googling around I couldn´t find any particularly credible sources stating CO was carcinogenic, not even its Wiki. The only pages that did were ones that lumped them in with other carcinogens from cigarettes.
 
  by: TWeaKoR   01/09/2012 08:51 PM     
  CaptainJane is Correct  
 
Nearly all combustible matter is carcinogenic as smoke.

And I quote Jens Peter Bork, M.D., Internal Medicine, Erlangen University Hospital:

"Yes, almost all combustible matter produces carcinogens when burned."

Edit, here´s the link: http://www.madsci.org/...

[ edited by Questioning_Answers ]
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     01/13/2012 11:24 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com