Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gatech.CSNET
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gatech!carter
From: carter@gatech.CSNET (Carter Bullard)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.bio
Subject: Re: in search of a safer cigarette
Message-ID: <279@gatech.CSNET>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 22:55:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: gatech.279
Posted: Wed Jun 12 22:55:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 06:39:29 EDT
References: <123@SCINEWS.UUCP> <678@bbnccv.UUCP>
Reply-To: carter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard)
Distribution: net
Organization: School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Lines: 54
Xref: watmath net.med:1624 net.bio:217
Summary: 

In article <678@bbnccv.UUCP> sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) writes:
>> I have heard that carbon monoxide poisoning is the most dangerous
>> result of cigarette smoking.  If this is true, would it be possible
>> to make cigarettes with filters that contain a substance (like hemoglobin)
>> that would absorb the carbon monoxide before it's inhaled?  Do such
>> subtances exist and, if so, would they be effective and safe when used
>> in this manner?
>
>How about a miniature catalytic converter! :-)  Actually, I believe that
>carbon monoxide "poisoning" is probably not most dangerous side-effect
>of cigarettes: chronically, the carcinogenic and irritant tars are probably
>the worst, followed by, of course, the cardiovascular effects of nicotine.
>
	Actually from a chronic standpoint, the carbon monoxide effects 
     are very significant.  It accounts for the above normal hematocrit
	values in smokers, and is the cause of the primary phase of cigarette
	withdrawl.  

	It is the irritant properties of the CO that have also been suggested as
	a likely carcinogen in conjunction with the tars.  Indeed, even 
	exposure to very very high quantities of tars and benzo-a-pyrene do
	not increase the incidence of cancer in road pavers or roofers,
	unless they are also smokers. The risk of acquiring cancer from 
	the alfalotoxin in peanut butter is statistically equivalent to
	what you see from the tars and benzo-a-pyrene in cigarettes, 
	strictly speaking from a pharmacological standpoint.

	The largest health threat posed by cigarettes is still emphysema,
	where CO has been shown to have a contributing factor.  

	Also, the cardiovascular effects of nicotine in chronic smokers is
	not that "traumatic" as tolerance to the ganglionic blocking action
	comes rather quickly and is very prolonged.  Not to say that it is
	insignificant, but an arguement could be made that the CO is as
	traumatic or more, as the CO causes an acute anoxia that really packs
	a bang so to speak on cardiac capacity.

	But back to the original question, Tareyton (sp?) cigarettes have
	an activated charcoal filter which removes a good amount of the CO
	produced.  There have of course been no statistics on whether a
	particular brand of cigarette is more benificial than another.

	Lets us point out however, that the use of the word poisoning
	is inappropriate with regards to CO and cigarette smoking.  You will
	definately die of nicotine poisining before CO poisoning becomes 
	a problem.

-- 
Carter Bullard
School of Information and Computer Science
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia 30332
CSNet:Carter @ Gatech	ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa
uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carter