[quote=PhysOrg]
[img]http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2011/gkjhlkha.gif[/img]
(PhysOrg.com) -- While current cigarettes are made with a filter created from cellulose acetate which absorbs things like nicotine, tar, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Chinese researchers have discovered that nanomaterials from titanium dioxide (TiO2) can be used to reduce the harmful chemicals.
For many years, researchers have been looking at adding nanomaterials to current cigarette filters and have tried carbon nanotubes and mesoporous silica. These have worked well; however, they are expensive and like are known about possible health risks.
Mingdeng Wei, from Fuzhou University has teamed with colleagues at the Fujian Tobacco Industrial Corporation and has discovered that titanate nanotubes and nanoshets can be used to filter tobacco smoke and greatly reduce the harmful effects. Nanomaterials can be easily synthesized with titanium dioxide at a relatively inexpensive cost. Since TiO2 is currently on the market and found in products such as cosmetics, sunscreens, and even food, there is no possible health risk.
The team created both titanate nanosheets and nanotubes to compare them when added to the tips of cigarettes. Using a machine to smoke them and the use of high performance liquid chromatography and ion chromatography to measure the amount of captured chemicals, Wei and his team discovered that the tubes were twice as efficient as the sheets.
While their research is currently looking at the benefits of the TiO2 nanomaterials with cigarettes, their hope is it could also be used in other filtering devices such as air purification systems and gas masks.
More information: Significant reduction of harmful compounds in tobacco smoke by the use of titanate nanosheets and nanotubes, Qixin Deng, Chaozhang Huang, Wei Xie, Jianping Zhang, Yiqiang Zhao, Zhensheng Hong, Aiying Pang and Mingdeng Wei, Chemical Communications, 2011, Advance Article DOI: 10.1039/C1CC10794A
Abstract
Titanate nanosheets and nanotubes have first been introduced into cigarette filter, a great range of harmful compounds including tar, nicotine, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, selected carbonyls and phenolic compounds can be reduced efficiently.
[/quote]
Source:
[url]http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-titanate-cigarette-filter-safer.html[/url]
[QUOTE=imadaman;29627196]Somewhat worse idea: eCigs[/QUOTE]
How so?
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627204]I think this is the first time and hopefully the last time Im ever going to say this
Waste of science[/QUOTE]
Nope.
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
It's applicable to a range of other things, not just cigarettes.
Hard science is rarely useless.
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
Besides, if people want to pay more for the chance to not be as likely to get cancer, while still smoking, let them.
I'd support technology that allows people to have reduced - if any - hangovers, or PCP users not to go nuts and stab 20 children.
[QUOTE=Contag;29627218]
Nope.
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
It's applicable to a range of other things, not just cigarettes.
Hard science is rarely useless.[/QUOTE]
No matter what filters you smack on cigarettes they will always be lethal. I said its a waste in regards to cigarettes not in regards to its other practical uses.
[QUOTE=Contag;29627218]How so?[/QUOTE]
You'd still be wasting money on something that you shouldn't be wasting money.
[QUOTE=imadaman;29627270]You'd still be wasting money on something that you shouldn't be wasting money.[/QUOTE]
It's not wasting money because people will pay for the R&D.
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627255]No matter what filters you smack on cigarettes they will always be lethal. I said its a waste in regards to cigarettes not in regards to its other practical uses.[/QUOTE]
I would argue that with sufficient filtering cigarettes aren't lethal. However, it's debatable whether it even constitutes cigarette smoke containing nothing but purified nicotine and 'normal air'.
I would prefer this went into something like breast or prostate cancer, or space exploration, but as long as it isn't government funded people can research what they want.
[QUOTE=Contag;29627283]It's not wasting money because people will pay for the R&D.[/QUOTE]
Encouraging bad behavior no matter how much money you throw at it is still a waste of time, money, and resources.
[QUOTE=imadaman;29627270]You'd still be wasting money on something that you shouldn't be wasting money.[/QUOTE]
Oh, you mean e-cigs? Sorry. I agree that it's generally a waste, but nicotine has at least [I]some[/I] utility, as opposed to $5000 designer bags. I'd rather people spend money on shit than be forced to do what some bureaucrat deems 'right', and remain free.
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627309]Encouraging bad behavior no matter how much money you throw at it is still a waste of time, money, and resources.[/QUOTE]
By that logic, we should put cyanide in random packets of cigarettes and alcohol/
harm mitigation is not a waste of time. Other than outright banning, most ways to discourage it have already been done.
What i hate about cigs is the smoke, unless you change them like cigars and have a broad smell like those multiple incense, I won't mind the smell.
[QUOTE=Contag;29627329] most ways to discourage it have already been done.[/QUOTE]
Sure but trying to make it safer, even minimally, tells people its ok to smoke. I dont have a problem with people smoking, I have a problem when its an encouraged behavior. Whether or not these filters are meant to make it less lethal that doesnt detract from the fact they do more harm than good. When you put something onto a lethal product with the intentions of making it less dangerous you indirectly imply its safe to do that activity.
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627375]Sure but trying to make it safer, even minimally, tells people its ok to smoke. I dont have a problem with people smoking, I have a problem when its an encouraged behavior. Whether or not these filters are meant to make it less lethal that doesnt detract from the fact they do more harm than good. When you put something onto a lethal product with the intentions of making it less dangerous you indirectly imply its safe to do that activity.[/QUOTE]
Then I would argue that, in tandem with this technology, the cigarette company should be forced to give money to fund a campaign showing how it is not more safe than normal.
(Oh god, I can't imagine what the result would be if they were allowed the run the campaign themselves!)
[QUOTE=Contag;29627392] showing how it is not more safe than normal.
[/QUOTE]
Well the thing is, it is safer. Thats why I said its useless science. This is like the whole Low Fat craze. You tell people on a diet a food is low in fat so they end up eating more thus they gain no benefit from the low fat food. You tell someone the cigarettes are safer and they end up smoking more on the deluded thought that because of some flimsy nanofilter its obviously safer. You have to take into account how ridiculously stupid the common consumer is.
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627423]Well the thing is, it is safer. Thats why I said its useless science. This is like the whole Low Fat craze. You tell people on a diet a food is low in fat so they end up eating more thus they gain no benefit from the low fat food. You tell someone the cigarettes are safer and they end up smoking more on the deluded thought that because of some flimsy nanofilter its obviously safer. You have to take into account how ridiculously stupid the common consumer is.[/QUOTE]
My point is that the government run campaign should lie.
Things like acute exposure to secondary smoke is questionable, but has been used a fair bit, so it's not out of the ordinary.
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627204]Waste of science[/QUOTE]
Yeah, we shouldn't go wasting our already-depleting non-renewable science reserves.
We might have to invade Japan for their science.
[QUOTE=Contag;29627449]My point is that the government run campaign should lie.
Things like acute exposure to secondary smoke is questionable, but has been used a fair bit, so it's not out of the ordinary.[/QUOTE]
Secondary smoke is harmful. Standing next to someone on the street and getting a a puff of smoke in your face now and again isnt going to kill you. The dangers of second hand smoke are blown way out of proportion. The real danger comes from living in a house with a smoker and breathing it in day after day.
All the Government need do is put a label on these cigarettes stating that no matter what filter is placed on them they are still lethal. No lying required, but people should be informed that safe cigarette doesnt really mean safe.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;29627484]Yeah, we shouldn't go wasting our already-depleting non-renewable science reserves.
We might have to invade Japan for their science.[/QUOTE]
Definitely
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627502]Secondary smoke is harmful. Standing next to someone on the street and getting a a puff of smoke in your face now and again isnt going to kill you. The dangers of second hand smoke are blown way out of proportion. The real danger comes from living in a house with a smoker and breathing it in day after day.
All the Government need do is put a label on these cigarettes stating that no matter what filter is placed on them they are still lethal. No lying required, but people should be informed that safe cigarette [/QUOTE]
I agree with all of that (also that's why I said acute exposure, not chronic).
On that note, people who smoke in their houses 24/7 are disgusting. At least open a bloody window.
[QUOTE=imadaman;29627196]Somewhat worse idea: eCigs[/QUOTE]
eCigs eliminate the need to breathe harmful ash residue, they pass CO2 vape through a nicotine filter, it's a really brilliant thing.
Bottom Line: You're still lighting something on fire and inhaling it.
[QUOTE=Dr. Punchgroin;29627606]Bottom Line: You're still lighting something on fire and inhaling it.[/QUOTE]
And no matter how you look at it or what plant/substance it is, is a bad idea.
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627309]Encouraging bad behavior no matter how much money you throw at it is still a waste of time, money, and resources.[/QUOTE]
You're dumb
If people want to smoke let them smoke, making it safer can't possibly be a bad thing
Neat. And I'll never see these on the market and I'll keep buying the one's that will give me cancer in 20 years. Aw yeah
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29627667]You're dumb
[/QUOTE]
Thats cool cause I was going to say the same thing about you. You know for not reading.
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627674]Thats cool cause I was going to say the same thing about you. You know for not reading.[/QUOTE]
I read
You said "low fat" foods are also bollocks based on some asinine presumptions about human behaviour and it reinforced my belief that you are, in fact, dumb
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29627740]
dumb[/QUOTE]
Yeah you are.
I never said low fat foods were bollocks I said the general populous assumes low fat means they can eat more of it. If you need me to start grabbing studies about this I can easily link those. The same thing will happen with "Safe" cigarettes.
Hey, militant anti-smokers, fuck you. When I spend 6.50 on my smokes I pay the taxes to support your schools and playgrounds.
[QUOTE=Ca5bah;29627770]Hey, militant anti-smokers, fuck you. When I spend 6.50 on my smokes I pay the taxes to support your schools and playgrounds.[/QUOTE]
There are other, less harmful ways to pay for taxes in that sense.
Buying a fucking shitload of chewing gum would achieve the same thing with slightly less unhealthiness.
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627762]Yeah you are.
I never said low fat foods were bollocks I said the general populous assumes low fat means they can eat more of it. If you need me to start grabbing studies about this I can easily link those. The same thing will happen with "Safe" cigarettes.[/QUOTE]
Still leads back into my original argument that if someone wants to harm themselves you really have no right whatsoever to tell them they can't
By the way people eating more "low fat" foods isn't the fault of the foods themselves or the companies producing said foods but of the consumer
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;29627843]There are other, less harmful ways to pay for taxes in that sense.
Buying a fucking shitload of chewing gum would achieve the same thing with slightly less unhealthiness.[/QUOTE]
cigarettes are taxed more than gum
[editline]5th May 2011[/editline]
burning gasoline is immensely harmful to the environment and I try to minimize my gas consumption as much as possible but you don't see me blathering on and on about how terrible gas users are and how efficient vehicles are encouraging people to just burn more
so anyone doing the same thing with smoking has to stop
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29627928]Still leads back into my original argument that if someone wants to harm themselves you really have no right whatsoever to tell them they can't
By the way people eating more "low fat" foods isn't the fault of the foods themselves or the companies producing said foods but of the consumer
[/QUOTE]
As I said
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627375]I dont have a problem with people smoking, I have a problem when its an encouraged behavior. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=superdinoman;29627375]When you put something onto a lethal product with the intentions of making it less dangerous you indirectly imply its safe to do that activity.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
