|
|
General
Started by Anonymous at 11-29-2007 11:02 PM. Topic has 3 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 11-29-2007, 11:02 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
|
If you look around the internet you'll find that most anti-tobacco sites claim ST contains 28 carcinogens like Hydrazine, Polonium-210, Arsenic, and Nickel (to name a few). According to your research, is this true? The research contained in this PDF shows that there are indeed several cancer-causing agents in smokeless tobacco, and even the concentration: http://adr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/3/322.pdf
I listened to the radio interview you have on tobaccoharmreduction.org and you mentioned that many men in Sweden switched to ST and tobacco-related disease plummeted thereafter. I have heard that Swedish snus is cured much differently than we do it here in the US (copey, skoal, kodiak, etc) and that the result is far less TSNAs in the Swedish snus. Is this true? If so, how much _more_ harmful is snuff in the US?
I'm also curious if there any documented studies that show thousands of snuff users dipping a certain amount of snuff a day for many years and how many died from oral cancer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2007, 9:27 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
|
|
|
We accept that if you analyze smokeless tobacco you will find these elements. Our point is not that smokeless tobacco is clear of all harmful elements, it is not, but that it is healthier to use than smoking. Carcinogens can be found in almost anything including some in the vegetables you eat. What matters is how the product as a whole actually effects your health. Vegetables, in general, are healthier to eat than not to, despite the presence of carcinogens. The point we keep reiterating is that the dangerous thing about smoking is the smoking itself, not the tobacco. If you smoked those vegetables you should be eating, they would be very bad for you. (For more, see our [3.7] under Smokeless tobacco and your health in our FAQ).
As to your second question we have addressed this in some detail already in other questions under product differences. To summarize: there are some product differences but they are too small to make much of a difference; the important difference is that the use of any Western smokeless tobacco has at least less than 5% and maybe less than 1% of the health risk associated with smoking.
As to the third, there are fewer studies than those of smoking simply because so fewer people use smokeless tobacco. However, the evidence is nicely summarized, with references in the Rodu and Godshall paper. But, if you have read our materials, or looked at the literature, oral cancer is a disease most closely associated with smoking. As with most smoking related cancers, if you cannot or will not quit using nicotine, the best way to reduce your risk of these cancers is to switch to using smokeless tobacco.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2007, 10:00 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
|
|
...but just what concentration of carcinogens are in broccoli as compared to tobacco? I believe broccoli has carcinogens in it, but I'd think it's probably many times less than what is in tobacco. Is this true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2007, 9:49 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
|
|
|
It would be difficult to compare them precisely since part of the answer depends on which components have been already tested and identified as carcinogens. Whether broccoli has fewer carcinogens is beside the point. If you read through our materials, you will see that the one thing we keep coming back to, the critical issue in regards to health, is that it is the burning and smoking of it that creates the health risk.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
TobaccoHarmRedu... » Administrators » General » Carcinogens in ST
|
|
|
|