Visionary
Posts: 178 
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
October 17th, 2005, 08:53 AM
Tobacco Chemicals
(Canada)
Ever wonder where all those cancer causing chemicals come from that the government always tells us are in tobacco?
Well so did I. So I suspected that these chemicals are not natural to this organic plant. When I was working on my Uncles farm, he was showing and explaining to me about all the precautions that had to be taken in applying such on food plants. He explained that he had to be licensed by the government to use these dangerous chemicals.
I found out that his son went to southern Ontario to pick tobacco plants every summer. So out of curiosity I asked him. Do you know if there are any restrictions or regulations on the chemicals that are allowed to be applied on tobacco plants? To my astonishment he said that there were no restrictions.
Now I knew I was onto something. I also later found out that the tobacco farms are so contaminated by chemicals, that when a farm stops producing tobacco. They can not grow food items on this farm for at least 50 years (by government order)
Another thing I suspect is that over the years all the chemicals that were produced and found later to be hazardous to human health, were applied to tobacco plants. They had a large stock pile of banned chemicals. They thought it would be a great way to get rid of the excess chemicals.
Since I felt that cigarettes like food were consumed by humans, I thought that something was very wrong with this situation. So I wrote a letter to the federal health minister. Hon Minister Allan Rock of health Canada March 17, 2001 I mentioned to him my concerns.
It took some time to get a response, and when I did he did not deny by points. I was very dissatisfied with his response. And I sent a copy of my letter to many tobacco companies. I later received a phone call from a very interested major tobacco company executive. The executive was amazed at my findings. So I took this opportunity to ask the tobacco executive a few questions. I asked do the tobacco companies have anything to do with the growing of tobacco. The answer was NO. I asked if they added any chemicals to tobacco, the answer was NO. So I then said that its amazing to me how the Government knows that they are adding cancer causing chemicals to the plants and that the government was guilty of hiding this information from the public.I had heard the govern in a trial of the tobacco companies, that the tobacco companies were wilfully hiding information from the smokers. When in fact it was the government doing that.
At the time of my communication with the tobacco company. They were losing their cases in courts and being penalized with huge fines. This was all over the news. The tobacco companies went back to court with my information. And all of a sudden all the penalties seemed to disappear. I haven't heard, that there has been another judgement against the tobacco companies since.
Ever wonder why cancer for smokers is highest in developed countries. Because undeveloped countries (such as Cuba) do not use chemicals on their plants.
Daniel J Towsey Oct 2005
Tobacco Chemicals
(Canada)
Ever wonder where all those cancer causing chemicals come from that the government always tells us are in tobacco?
Well so did I. So I suspected that these chemicals are not natural to this organic plant. When I was working on my Uncles farm, he was showing and explaining to me about all the precautions that had to be taken in applying such on food plants. He explained that he had to be licensed by the government to use these dangerous chemicals.
I found out that his son went to southern Ontario to pick tobacco plants every summer. So out of curiosity I asked him. Do you know if there are any restrictions or regulations on the chemicals that are allowed to be applied on tobacco plants? To my astonishment he said that there were no restrictions.
Now I knew I was onto something. I also later found out that the tobacco farms are so contaminated by chemicals, that when a farm stops producing tobacco. They can not grow food items on this farm for at least 50 years (by government order)
Another thing I suspect is that over the years all the chemicals that were produced and found later to be hazardous to human health, were applied to tobacco plants. They had a large stock pile of banned chemicals. They thought it would be a great way to get rid of the excess chemicals.
Since I felt that cigarettes like food were consumed by humans, I thought that something was very wrong with this situation. So I wrote a letter to the federal health minister. Hon Minister Allan Rock of health Canada March 17, 2001 I mentioned to him my concerns.
It took some time to get a response, and when I did he did not deny by points. I was very dissatisfied with his response. And I sent a copy of my letter to many tobacco companies. I later received a phone call from a very interested major tobacco company executive. The executive was amazed at my findings. So I took this opportunity to ask the tobacco executive a few questions. I asked do the tobacco companies have anything to do with the growing of tobacco. The answer was NO. I asked if they added any chemicals to tobacco, the answer was NO. So I then said that its amazing to me how the Government knows that they are adding cancer causing chemicals to the plants and that the government was guilty of hiding this information from the public.I had heard the govern in a trial of the tobacco companies, that the tobacco companies were wilfully hiding information from the smokers. When in fact it was the government doing that.
At the time of my communication with the tobacco company. They were losing their cases in courts and being penalized with huge fines. This was all over the news. The tobacco companies went back to court with my information. And all of a sudden all the penalties seemed to disappear. I haven't heard, that there has been another judgement against the tobacco companies since.
Ever wonder why cancer for smokers is highest in developed countries. Because undeveloped countries (such as Cuba) do not use chemicals on their plants.
Daniel J Towsey Oct 2005
Visionary
Posts: 178
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
October 17th, 2005, 10:22 AM
Ask the tobacco companies or ask any tobacco farmer...You can even ask the ministry of health (federal)...Its not really hard to find out. Its just something the government does not want you to know...Can you imagine what that would mean to their claim of raising tobacco taxes. They claim its for our health but mean while they don't protect us when the tobacco is grown.
Ask the tobacco companies or ask any tobacco farmer...You can even ask the ministry of health (federal)...Its not really hard to find out. Its just something the government does not want you to know...Can you imagine what that would mean to their claim of raising tobacco taxes. They claim its for our health but mean while they don't protect us when the tobacco is grown.
Executive Member
Posts: 9,222 
October 17th, 2005, 10:54 AM
Quote:
Your paranoid delusions aside, the above statement is idiotic and childish. Tobacco is regulated just like any other agricultural product. While I think the product is bad for our health without any chemicals, dreaming up fictitious goblins is not productive. I don't say there aren't any chemicals in tobacco but the scenario you describe is nonsense.
Another thing I suspect is that over the years all the chemicals that were produced and found later to be hazardous to human health, were applied to tobacco plants. They had a large stock pile of banned chemicals. They thought it would be a great way to get rid of the excess chemicals.
Member
Posts: 123
Location: somewhere between moncton and londo
Location: somewhere between moncton and londo
October 17th, 2005, 01:19 PM
I disagree, when my grandfather first immigrated to canada, he worked harvesting tobacco. The juice of the tobacco gave him terrible rashes on his hands and arms.
there are lots of plants that are full of naturally occouring toxins. Ever heard of poison ivy? or deadly nightshade?
And perhaps smoking related cancer deaths in teh third world are lower because they don't have a sedentary lifestyle like us? Or because they're more likely to die of something else before they get a chance to get cancer?
And despite what you'd like to believe, tobacco companies don't want to kill their customers. If they kill their customers, then they'll have to replace them somehow. Why would they want to make the death rate higher? It would only make it more difficult for them to find enough new smokers to keep their profits up.
For tobacco to grow, it takes a lot of fertilizer. so much that other plants will have dificulty growing for the next few seasons. My mother once told me how they rotate cantaloup after tobacco, because cantaloup likes lots of fertilizer, but she said that the melons would taste like tobacco. Perhaps Tobacco fixes it's toxins in the soil like legumes fix nitrogen into soil?
I hate to take the side of the tobacco companies, but I think you're way off base.
I disagree, when my grandfather first immigrated to canada, he worked harvesting tobacco. The juice of the tobacco gave him terrible rashes on his hands and arms.
there are lots of plants that are full of naturally occouring toxins. Ever heard of poison ivy? or deadly nightshade?
And perhaps smoking related cancer deaths in teh third world are lower because they don't have a sedentary lifestyle like us? Or because they're more likely to die of something else before they get a chance to get cancer?
And despite what you'd like to believe, tobacco companies don't want to kill their customers. If they kill their customers, then they'll have to replace them somehow. Why would they want to make the death rate higher? It would only make it more difficult for them to find enough new smokers to keep their profits up.
For tobacco to grow, it takes a lot of fertilizer. so much that other plants will have dificulty growing for the next few seasons. My mother once told me how they rotate cantaloup after tobacco, because cantaloup likes lots of fertilizer, but she said that the melons would taste like tobacco. Perhaps Tobacco fixes it's toxins in the soil like legumes fix nitrogen into soil?
I hate to take the side of the tobacco companies, but I think you're way off base.
Visionary
Posts: 178
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
October 17th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Well opinions are just opinions.........And as far as toxins go...I've never once heard the government mention any toxins in tobacco.They only speak of the thousands of chemicals that they find in tobacco. And for the one whos asking"are the tobacco companies after me" I think they are looking to give me a reward...hahahhahahahhaha
Well opinions are just opinions.........And as far as toxins go...I've never once heard the government mention any toxins in tobacco.They only speak of the thousands of chemicals that they find in tobacco. And for the one whos asking"are the tobacco companies after me" I think they are looking to give me a reward...hahahhahahahhaha
Super Genius
Posts: 1,274
December 8th, 2005, 03:20 PM
Great post , first hand knowledge, thanks.
Would you know what the names of any of those chemicals is/are?
I have believed this about the artificial stuff in cigs that causes the cancers. There might even be biological stuff in cigs that causes cancers.
Great post , first hand knowledge, thanks.
Would you know what the names of any of those chemicals is/are?
I have believed this about the artificial stuff in cigs that causes the cancers. There might even be biological stuff in cigs that causes cancers.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 651
December 8th, 2005, 06:06 PM
I grow tobacco for personal use. I smudge with it. I offer it as gifts. I mark special occasions by smoking with others. Natural tobacco is a very complex plant with a number of toxic properties. Many things are Yin/Yang. It is, by itself a carcinogen (?) and has a level of addictiveness. As well, tobacco can be a mild stimulant and, on smoking, increases blood-pressure, heart rate, but (remember its complexity) brings a psychological feeling of calm. It is a "good times" drug.
While priming in my youth, I got some of the juice in an open cut. My hand swoll huge and my wrist went numb. Couldn't pick for 3 days. It is a potent plant and should be respected for its properties.
Tobacco ceases to be an agracultural product after auction, or direction toward a cigarette plant. The manufacturers of cigarettes add over 200 chemical substances for various reasons from; colour-correction / consistency, stabilization, preservation, flavour enhansement, or other marketing considerations (including addition of substances to increase manifold, its initial addictiveness, activation or calmness effects). Many of the additional substances have carcenogenous effects. Then the tobacco gets wrapped in 'cigarette' paper, some of the most adultarated products in the world. To the original chemically complicated paper stock are added a brew of chemicals to colour the paper, help it burn, keep it burning evenly, strengthen it ect. Many of these chemicals cause cancer, emphasema, athsma, double vision, dizziness, drooling and on and on, but many are products of the petroleum industry so are not being controlled under the food and drug acts.
Natural tobacco would be unlikely to cause cancer. Genetically engineered tobacco, more so, but the stuff that comes out of the cigarette manufacturers is so adultarated that its producers anticipate a client l/d50 of under 40 years. When the manufacturing of cigarettes moves to Mexico from Ontario, the consumer can anticipate that the few restraints on the manufacturing end will be removed and the addictiveness will be further boosted. Meanwhile the stuff will be brought in without proper oversight because the distributers are still Canadian. These are the same corporate entities that smuggled millions of cigarettes into Canada and then couldn't get charged or sued for it.
I grow tobacco for personal use. I smudge with it. I offer it as gifts. I mark special occasions by smoking with others. Natural tobacco is a very complex plant with a number of toxic properties. Many things are Yin/Yang. It is, by itself a carcinogen (?) and has a level of addictiveness. As well, tobacco can be a mild stimulant and, on smoking, increases blood-pressure, heart rate, but (remember its complexity) brings a psychological feeling of calm. It is a "good times" drug.
While priming in my youth, I got some of the juice in an open cut. My hand swoll huge and my wrist went numb. Couldn't pick for 3 days. It is a potent plant and should be respected for its properties.
Tobacco ceases to be an agracultural product after auction, or direction toward a cigarette plant. The manufacturers of cigarettes add over 200 chemical substances for various reasons from; colour-correction / consistency, stabilization, preservation, flavour enhansement, or other marketing considerations (including addition of substances to increase manifold, its initial addictiveness, activation or calmness effects). Many of the additional substances have carcenogenous effects. Then the tobacco gets wrapped in 'cigarette' paper, some of the most adultarated products in the world. To the original chemically complicated paper stock are added a brew of chemicals to colour the paper, help it burn, keep it burning evenly, strengthen it ect. Many of these chemicals cause cancer, emphasema, athsma, double vision, dizziness, drooling and on and on, but many are products of the petroleum industry so are not being controlled under the food and drug acts.
Natural tobacco would be unlikely to cause cancer. Genetically engineered tobacco, more so, but the stuff that comes out of the cigarette manufacturers is so adultarated that its producers anticipate a client l/d50 of under 40 years. When the manufacturing of cigarettes moves to Mexico from Ontario, the consumer can anticipate that the few restraints on the manufacturing end will be removed and the addictiveness will be further boosted. Meanwhile the stuff will be brought in without proper oversight because the distributers are still Canadian. These are the same corporate entities that smuggled millions of cigarettes into Canada and then couldn't get charged or sued for it.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 651
December 8th, 2005, 07:09 PM
[quote="p106_peppy"]I disagree, when my grandfather first immigrated to canada, he worked harvesting tobacco. The juice of the tobacco gave him terrible rashes on his hands and arms.
Answer - True. I got tobacco juice in an open cut when I was priming in my youth. My hand swelled huge and my wrist went numb. Couldn't pick for 3 days. Tobacco is a very powerful plant and deserves respect.
[quote="p106_peppy"]I
And despite what you'd like to believe, tobacco companies don't want to kill their customers. If they kill their customers, then they'll have to replace them somehow. Why would they want to make the death rate higher? It would only make it more difficult for them to find enough new smokers to keep their profits up.
Answer - totally false. This crap was the pandering of the tobacco industry on the first accusations that their product was harmful. This industry is made of corporate entities whose credo is to maximize profit. To this end the product requires a consumer. So you (the tobacco industry) advertize cigarettes as a lifestyle choice and promote sport activity. You hire chemists to ensure that the product is very addictive and that the faithful consumer will smoke at a high rate. You hire scientists who advise you that the product is likely to cause cancer, but most of the cancer will not be evident for 30 years and half of the consumers will die from the product in 40 years. You find these rates to be acceptable and continue to adjust the product's addictiveness while maintaining those 'tolerances' and bury the research that included the information. It's a market decision similar to the car industry resisting the manditory installation of seatbelts as 'it would increase the cost to the consumer'. You spend less than 10% of your profit on mamouth ad campaigns to promote the use of your product as a lifestyle choice and target youth to replace those dying of your product. And your ad campaigns are very effective at attracting new recruits and in promoting 'cross-product' migration. Though this is a huge amount of money, it is 'a drop in the bucket' to the tobacco industry and besides, advertizing is a business expense that can be applied to taxes.
[quote="p106_peppy"]I
For tobacco to grow, it takes a lot of fertilizer.
Answer - total crap. Tobacco grows very well in marginal soil. It is an extremely vigourous plant. It is sprayed to prevent disease, mildeu, insect control, and molds to the very profitable crop. You guessed it, many of these sprays are toxic to humans.
[quote="p106_peppy"]I
For tobacco to grow, it takes a lot of fertilizer. so much that other plants will have dificulty growing for the next few seasons.
Answer - also untrue. As you suggested about other plants producing toxins, natural tobacco produces a herbacide to kill off other plants that would compete with it. This genetic defence has been enhansed through crossbreeding for centuries.
With all of the information available it is astounding that anyone would remain ignorant. It must be by choice.
[quote="p106_peppy"]I disagree, when my grandfather first immigrated to canada, he worked harvesting tobacco. The juice of the tobacco gave him terrible rashes on his hands and arms.
Answer - True. I got tobacco juice in an open cut when I was priming in my youth. My hand swelled huge and my wrist went numb. Couldn't pick for 3 days. Tobacco is a very powerful plant and deserves respect.
[quote="p106_peppy"]I
And despite what you'd like to believe, tobacco companies don't want to kill their customers. If they kill their customers, then they'll have to replace them somehow. Why would they want to make the death rate higher? It would only make it more difficult for them to find enough new smokers to keep their profits up.
Answer - totally false. This crap was the pandering of the tobacco industry on the first accusations that their product was harmful. This industry is made of corporate entities whose credo is to maximize profit. To this end the product requires a consumer. So you (the tobacco industry) advertize cigarettes as a lifestyle choice and promote sport activity. You hire chemists to ensure that the product is very addictive and that the faithful consumer will smoke at a high rate. You hire scientists who advise you that the product is likely to cause cancer, but most of the cancer will not be evident for 30 years and half of the consumers will die from the product in 40 years. You find these rates to be acceptable and continue to adjust the product's addictiveness while maintaining those 'tolerances' and bury the research that included the information. It's a market decision similar to the car industry resisting the manditory installation of seatbelts as 'it would increase the cost to the consumer'. You spend less than 10% of your profit on mamouth ad campaigns to promote the use of your product as a lifestyle choice and target youth to replace those dying of your product. And your ad campaigns are very effective at attracting new recruits and in promoting 'cross-product' migration. Though this is a huge amount of money, it is 'a drop in the bucket' to the tobacco industry and besides, advertizing is a business expense that can be applied to taxes.
[quote="p106_peppy"]I
For tobacco to grow, it takes a lot of fertilizer.
Answer - total crap. Tobacco grows very well in marginal soil. It is an extremely vigourous plant. It is sprayed to prevent disease, mildeu, insect control, and molds to the very profitable crop. You guessed it, many of these sprays are toxic to humans.
[quote="p106_peppy"]I
For tobacco to grow, it takes a lot of fertilizer. so much that other plants will have dificulty growing for the next few seasons.
Answer - also untrue. As you suggested about other plants producing toxins, natural tobacco produces a herbacide to kill off other plants that would compete with it. This genetic defence has been enhansed through crossbreeding for centuries.
Quoting
Answer - then you should do some reading on the subject. There are the Congressional records. Independent research in many of the medical journals, personal testimony in a great number of law suits including the government sponsored suits.
I
I hate to take the side of the tobacco companies, but I think you're way off base.
I hate to take the side of the tobacco companies, but I think you're way off base.
With all of the information available it is astounding that anyone would remain ignorant. It must be by choice.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 651
December 8th, 2005, 07:17 PM
Isn't it odd how tobacco is grown as a 'crop', that the farmers get agricultural subsidies and insurance, but the product is not tested or controlled as a food. Now that is government conspiracy.
Quoting
Bush has now severely limited 'class action' suits. Primarily he did so to protect the big pharma, but it also benefits the petroleum, small arms and tobacco industries.
At the time of my communication with the tobacco company. They were losing their cases in courts and being penalized with huge fines. This was all over the news. The tobacco companies went back to court with my information. And all of a sudden all the penalties seemed to disappear. I haven't heard, that there has been another judgement against the tobacco companies since.
Isn't it odd how tobacco is grown as a 'crop', that the farmers get agricultural subsidies and insurance, but the product is not tested or controlled as a food. Now that is government conspiracy.
Visionary
Posts: 178
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
December 26th, 2005, 06:24 AM
Thanks for your responces, they are food for thought...But remember...the tobacco companies claim they do not add chemicals to tobacco...they have been winning all their cases and previous judgements against them appear to have been ended....It would be good if someone could come up with an official list of (found) chemicals in tobbacco.....
Thanks for your responces, they are food for thought...But remember...the tobacco companies claim they do not add chemicals to tobacco...they have been winning all their cases and previous judgements against them appear to have been ended....It would be good if someone could come up with an official list of (found) chemicals in tobbacco.....
