How does smoking affect so many systems at once? What's the pathway between lung damage and nicotine in the bloodstream...

I don't think it was studied or show, it can affect the fibroblasts that synthetise the collagen.

trough cascade signaling, same way arsen kills in small quantities.

>How does smoking affect so many systems at once?
Why does OP always start 3-5 threads on the same subject?
I know he's a fag and all, but is it something about all the semen he gargles?
Or maybe the pressure of so many cocks on his prostate?

Since the other thread appears to be deleted, thought I'd post this here.

monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/mono83-7.pdf

This is supposedly supposed to prove secondhand smoke is harmful. So far from what I can tell the science cited in this is overblown, and uses scientists who are actually saying the opposite.

And regarding the asthma/smoking connection that people think is so common, that's also false.

These studies cited in this article show smoking can help asthma symptoms, not make it a reality.

thecommentator.com/article/2596/want_to_cure_your_asthma_start_smoking

>Hey kid are your lungs fucked up due to Asthma? Why not smoke?! Because that'll fix it.
Jesus Christ could you be any more retarded?

Evidence is right fucking there in that link you dolt. If you won't accept it thats your problem.

Do you have asthma? Have you ever tried smoking? Tobacco smoke is a bronchial dialator.

You're basically rejecting science in favor of idealology at this point. You should reconsider what you post on this board.

Funny, there was a guy on here about a month ago who said smoking helped his asthma, too bad he doesn't fit the "smoking=bad" narrative.

OP here.

For the record, I'm not the guy starting the other smoking threads - but I think his questions are interesting ones. I'd love to see a more in-depth treatise on it.

its lies!
smoke till you die

>Do you have asthma? Have you ever tried smoking? Tobacco smoke is a bronchial dialator.

Why don't you just take theobromine instead?

industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/results/#q=theobromine&h={"hideDuplicates":true,"hideFolders":true}&subsite=tobacco&cache=true&count=6429

You're not going to get anything in depth from anti-smoking people. They can't even refute basic information about the corruption of the EPA/WHO and the faulty science that promotes the alleged dangers of smoking or secondhand smoke.

>They can't even refute basic information about the corruption of the EPA/WHO and the faulty science that promotes the alleged dangers of smoking or secondhand smoke.

>the science keeps giving me answers I don't like that means the system is corrupt not that I'm wrong.

The only thing keeping the smoker's position alive are washed-up industry shills whose egos won't let them admit that they were wrong and the hippies were right.

Fuck you for even suggesting that. Fuck smokers who think that their smoke isnt setting my asthma off to the point that I need my inhaler. Fuck smokers for thinking that carcinogens and what amounts to soot isnt harmful.

>science

Funny how you could even have the gall to call it that. It's clear that shitty studies that utterly fail at controlling risk factors and considering past and future fluctuations in their awful data could even qualify as """science""".

rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2012/11/secondhand-smoke-and-mirrors.html?m=1

rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2011/09/state-wide-smoking-bans-little-to-no.html?m=1

I genuinely hope nobody here believes smoking isn't bad for your health

Isn't bad? On some level it very well could be considered bad, just not nearly as bad/health wreckingly awful as popular opinion suggests. And the idea that it has zero benefits is asinine.

Secondhand smoke is the bigger problem because it's harmless, yet people act like it is harmful, on a science board.

the fumes got toxins
you inhale those unfiltered toxins
they stick to your lungs

it's not so hard to follow

That's a very simplistic way of putting it. Ever consider what that does neurologically? Ever consider looking at the overall health of smokers vs non smokers and consider the differences, if any? Because on the long run there are less than the average government health group would like people to believe.

members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

Ever consider that in secondhand form its nonexistent as a health risk?

smokescreens.org/chemistry.htm

> blogposts
0/10
I told you how your lungs get effected just above. Wanna counter to that ?

>pushed by pharmaceutical companies
Lrn2corporate-pharmacology

nicotine harms your blood vessels.

your lung gets full of smoke and tar.

cigarettes are also addicting as hell so you will be sucking them every day. No matter if your body tries to resist.

>cigarettes are also addicting as hell so you will be sucking them every day.
True dat. I got some complimentary disposable nicotine vape pens. They gave me the shakes and made me throw up. I wanted more of dat shit in my body so bad. I'll stick to weed because I can stop cold-turkey after smoking 2oz in a week.

I bet you didn't even fucking read them. Stay ignorant.

That is false, nicotine is harmless.

electroniccigaretteconsumerreviews.com/is-nicotine-bad-for-you/

>IARC
>overblown
>misquoting scientists
laffo

IARC panels are comprehensive, international affairs composed of academic scientists, not industry reps

they're pretty much literature review gold-standards

>electroniccigaretteconsumerreviews
funny how you're perfectly fine with industry-sourced information when it fits your preferred narrative

is it safe to have kids with long-time smokers? How big is the risk of having an anormal baby?

No, they're government trash. There are tons of breakdown analyses of why these meta study based rags are misinterpreting what's actually going on in their own studies or flat out falsifying information. The EPA faced that problem in the 1990's when they were laughed out of court (and no, I don't care that they appealed it either, they're an incompetent government group.

When did anyone have a problem with industry source information?

I would say the risks are, again, widely overblown, but that's just because of personal experience and not fact in this specific case. I knew people who smoked throughout their pregnancies and their kids are fine. There's also this link, which is interesting:

sott.net/article/268159-The-myth-of-smoking-during-pregnancy-being-harmful

From OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). Anti-smokers are looking more and more foollosh with Shs/ete fears.

>OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

>Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

>This sorta says it all

>These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

>So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

>OSHA SAFE LEVELS

>All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

>For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

>"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

>"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

>Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

>"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

>For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

>The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

>So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

>Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Source:

cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/10/air-quality-testing-of-secondhand-smoke.html?m=1

osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602

More sources regarding OSHA. I'm surprised nobody brought this up before.

nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html

nycclash.com/OSHAaction.html

You inhale the chemicals. It is in your lungs. Alveoli take it in along with oxygen and trade the chemicals and oxygen with the Co2 that is being exhaled. Blood is transported all throughout your body, heart, lungs again, kidney, liver, everywhere.

Let's get one other thing out there - Big Tobacco is not the omnipotent nemesis that people in this thread wish it was, not since the Master Settlement anyway.

Have you read their fucking trade journals? It's pretty dismal:

tobaccojournal.com/Current_issue.21128.0.html?&no_cache=1

The problem is the "science" behind secondhand smoke is completely false and the scientists hired by tobacco companies don't seem competent enough to fight against the accusations.

Additionally, the scientists who are actually good that work for tobacco companies seem to be dismissed on principle anyway. Veeky Forums won't trust somebody if they get money from RJ Reynolds.

Ronald Fisher, arguably the father of modern statistics, was an outspoken critic of Richard Doll's initial lung cancer epidimiology. He was theoretically paid as an "industry shill", but I couldn't find much to verify that.

If Fisher isn't good enough, I don't know who is.

Blood, you retard.

I have come to learn that tobacco soaks up Lead-210 and Polonium-210 and deposits them into the lung tissue. These are radioisotopes of those elements.

Yeah but one of the greatest statiscians of all time likes TOBACCO, that makes him a TOBACCO SHILL by default, don't you get it yet, shill?

Jeez

york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/smoking.htm

If this and doesn't convince these idiots that smoking isn't a big deal then I guess nothing will at this point.

>If Fisher isn't good enough, I don't know who is.
That personality cult. Your inability to think for yourself is showing.

That's you accusing anyone supporting a viewpoint you don't like as being the enemy. The fact that you'd do this of Fisher, who has more brainpower than you ever possibly could, is astonishing.

Fisher is revered for his abilities and experience, and in the link one post above yours he puts up a highly convincing argument that you probably won't even bother reading because you won't understand it.

>That's you accusing anyone supporting a viewpoint you don't like as being the enemy. The fact that you'd do this of Fisher,
This is me recognizing that every single human being on the planet is flawed in some way, and being intelligent about one thing does not make every view you hold automatically the word of God.

And this is me telling you that you're dismissing him on the grounds he's pro tobacco. The letters he sent to the British Medical Jiurnal in the link you've refused to read york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/smoking.htm is compelling and deconstructed the initial study the began the demonization of smoking tobacco as an action.

>I can stop cold-turkey after smoking 2oz in a week.
If you can smoke that much in a week then ur addicted. Id llike to see u quit cold turkey for a year bud.

>If you can smoke that much in a week then ur addicted.
It's called tolerance buddy. Should learn the difference.

>Id llike to see u quit cold turkey for a year bud.
Been six months, my old card expires in two. Kind of irrelevant, actual addiction is most difficult during the first couple of weeks.

*journal

I was responding to
>If Fisher isn't good enough, I don't know who is.
I don't give a fuck about the topic of this thread. I was just highlighting the insanity of that statement. Personality cult. Every person on the planet has their own prejudices that cloud their judgment, even in their field of expertise. That is all I'm saying. Think what you want, using studies is good, just don't throw around a big name like it means anything.

Alright, fine.

Fisher makes good points though, that is undeniable.

Is poisin like snek no good 4 u

This is how breathing works: air goes into lungs, goes into alveoli which disperse oxygen into blood cells, oxygenated blood travels through body everywhere.

Now replace the air with dangerous chemicals. That's smoking.

>what are synergistic effects
the individual PELs are much higher, for sure, but the concern over SHS is that you're not exposed to each chemical one at a time

So, all of them at once, at safe levels, aren't safe?

The OSHA also says ETS is at safe levels in the last paragraph. Maybe you skipped over that part. It would take thousands of cigarettes at once to hurt a nonsmoker, something that's impossible.

>So, all of them at once, at safe levels, aren't safe?
Potentially. That's the point of synergistic effects - their potential toxicity is more than the simple sum of the exposures. Identifying synergistic effects is difficult and there's a lot we don't know about them.

>Maybe you skipped over that part
I think you might have skipped over that part. They say specifically that they only base their regulations on a subset of all the potentially harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke.

It's also possible that those OSHA guidelines predate research on SHS indicated potential harm, which would make using them as points against SHS plausibility a faulty argument.

Not much at all, cigarettes aren't really ionizing, I would say the blood vessel dilation and atherosclerosis is more dangerous to the mother than the baby, the baby will get its blood and nutrition one way or another

>Potentially. That's the point of synergistic effects - their potential toxicity is more than the simple sum of the exposures. Identifying synergistic effects is difficult and there's a lot we don't know about them.

But their toxicity is outlined in a "dose makes the poison" fashion, and all doses are at safe levels unless going over a certain number of cigarettes.

smokescreens.org/chemistry.htm

Having all of the chemicals together at once doesn't seem like a considerable difference.

Besides, multiple studies have shown no increase in risk to nonsmokers anyway, like the ones mentioned here.

yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

>I think you might have skipped over that part. They say specifically that they only base their regulations on a subset of all the potentially harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke. It's also possible that those OSHA guidelines predate research on SHS indicated potential harm, which would make using them as points against SHS plausibility a faulty argument.

The OSHA information in that greentext was released some time in the late 90's, after the EPA report that was done in 1993.