Talk:List of cigarette smoke carcinogens

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Additive Free Tobacco Smoke vs. Commercial Tobacco Smoke

I added the word "commercial" to the beginning of the article to differentiate between natural unadulterated tobacco smoke, which has a much different composition. In the interest of impartiality, shouldn't we include a table of carcinogens found in natural tobacco? I find it odd that this distinction isn't even noted in the article.

Thoraxcorp (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section similar to this in the Cigarette article under the header "contents of a cigarette", I suggest the safest option is to merge what is not POV into that. -- Francs2000 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that first we should ensure the authenticity of the claims in the article by requesting for some references. Once that is established, then only we should go for a merger. I support a merger in the case that the article's authenticity is established. BTW, I feel that the comments after every ingredient are added to achieve a shock factor only. Will this be considered a POV. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing you need to remember about these lists is that they are only compiled for shock effect - everybody knows that DDT, for example, or cyanide, are deadly chemicals. What this list fails to point out is that a) these chemicals are in trace quantities and b) most of them also occur in trace quantities in the air you breathe or the food you eat. Also, you can't call carbon monoxide an 'additive' as this is produced as a result of incomplete combustion of carbohydrates to carbon dioxide (CO is of course highly toxic - is taken up by red blood cells in place of oxygen and reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the cell for the remainder of its 100 day lifespan).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Staphylococcus (talkcontribs) 16:04, March 12, 2006 (UTC)


I am not in favor of merging this page with the other. That page is a list of thousands of ingredients, and frankly I don't see the point in it. This page is a list of the ingredients that are known to be carcinogenic (which is obviously a much more serious issue). If they were merged such that the carcinogenic compounds were at the top, so as to be easily identified, I suppose it would be OK to merge. Zhinz 21:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Merge

I feel merging these two articles would be counterproductive as more evidence will arrive as to the number of additives in cigarettes (not tobacco) and more research needs to be done on the by-products of combusting these unnecessary additives. Again please refrain from associating pure tobacco with cigarettes. They are completely different products.

+1 Cigarette ingredients and smoke constituents are two very different things. Popo le Chien 08:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cigarette or tobacco smoke word choice

wouldn't it be better to say tobacco smoke instead of cigarette smoke? Tkjazzer 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone think it would make more sense to present the bulk of this material in chart form? Similarly, I would also endorse the idea of creating an introduction, or expanding the introduction, depending on our collective opinion on whether one now exists.

I have already taken the initiative of converting this list to table form. At least it would be presentable for whoever would make the chart for this. :) --Animeronin (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Benzo[a]pyrene to the list?

The Wikipedia page on benzo[a]pyrene stated that cigarette smoke is one of its sources. Should it be added to the list? Mysteyk (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that, yes, it should be included. There is actually a list that should be merged with this. It is the _ Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products and Tobacco Smoke; Established List_, produced by the FDA in 2012. See

It lists things that have other dangers, no just carcinogens. But it does not include amounts. This would probably vary per brand, though.

Would it make sense to add to this page:

  1. the other things that are carcinogens that are on the FDA list?
  2. the other things that are either Respiratory Toxicant (RT), Cardiovascular Toxicant (CT), Reproductive or Developmental Toxicant (RDT), or Addictive (AD)?

RayKiddy (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another list of carcinogens in cigarette smoke. National Cancer Institute

Harms of Cigarette Smoking and Health Benefits of Quitting. National Cancer Institute. From the article:

Yes. Tobacco smoke contains many chemicals that are harmful to both smokers and nonsmokers. Breathing even a little tobacco smoke can be harmful (1-4).

Of the more than 7,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, including hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and ammonia (1, 2, 5).

Among the 250 known harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 69 can cause cancer. These cancer-causing chemicals include the following (1, 2, 5):

    Aromatic amines
    Beryllium (a toxic metal)
    1,3–Butadiene (a hazardous gas)
    Cadmium (a toxic metal)
    Chromium (a metallic element)
    Ethylene oxide
    Nickel (a metallic element)
    Polonium-210 (a radioactive chemical element)
    Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
    Tobacco-specific nitrosamines
    Vinyl chloride

Maybe someone with more time than me can incorporate any missing chemicals into the article. Also, the link can be used as a reference. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cigarette smoke carcinogens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]