ned@SCINEWS.UUCP (Ned Robie) (06/07/85)
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? I'm not a chemist or a biologist, so please excuse me if this idea is ridiculously impractical. -- Ned Robie
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (06/11/85)
> 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. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
carter@gatech.CSNET (Carter Bullard) (06/13/85)
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