It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bacteria in tobacco

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:51 AM
with the amount of crap in our food and drink, not to mention the crap in the vaccines you have to have whether you like it or not, and people are worried about a few bacteria in a cigarette, Like it was said, you probably burn the bacteria in a cigarette, you cant burn the mercury in your vaccine, or take out the aspartame from you diet food and drink, can you? This is scaremongering nothing more, besides WTF do scientists know any more? apart from how to be puppets for the NWO and lie for them.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 05:13 AM
I think the op just posted this for informational purposes & interest sake. I really don't think it's a fear mongering tactic

So, thanks for the info op, but I will still be smoking...I've just quit make up & the pill so ciggs will have to wait until next year!

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by jinx880101

Originally posted by jinx880101
I think the op just posted this for informational purposes & interest sake. I really don't think it's a fear mongering tactic

So, thanks for the info op, but I will still be smoking...I've just quit make up & the pill so ciggs will have to wait until next year!

I guess my fear mongering didn't work.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Yummy Freelunch
your toothbrush has more bacteria than my cigarette..guaranteed!

Anyway..if i quit smoking I'll just shoot up heroine..sighs

My toothbrush contains guaranteed less bacteria then the tested cigarrettes, since after rinsing the brush i dip it in a fairly strong colloidal silver solution before placing it to dry up. Easy, cheap, hygienic.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:03 AM
where does this bacteria come form, and how does it get into the ciggarettes? I belive they reffered to it, as pathogens, specifically....
ide imagine only place it could come form is the manufacture, as all boxes of cigarrettes are plastic wrapped.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:20 AM
I also don't think the op was posting this as a fear mongering tactic. However, I have huge doubts about the scientists who did the study. What was the purpose of it? To scare smokers and provide "another reason to quit smoking".

Is there some epidemic of smokers with respiratory infections caused by these common bacteria? And no information was provided about the concentration of bacteria in smoke - that is that it usually requires exposure to some X concentration of a particular bacteria to cause disease. One lone organism can't do it all as it would be swiftly overwhelmed by the immune system and the bodies natural defenses.

Was it to scare the public about second hand smoke exposure (now it can cause pneumonia).

Or perhaps it was just to provide one more opportunity to have a press release and keep the public nice and juiced up against smokers

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:38 AM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Or perhaps it was just to provide one more opportunity to have a press release and keep the public nice and juiced up against smokers

Tired of Control Freaks

Against smokers or smoking?

I'm curious why documenting a fact has to be interpreted as 'control freak'?

Maybe with this discovery, additional studies will now be pursued to determine how meaningful of an additional problem it is to smokers. Maybe it even spawns efforts to prevent these pathogens from being in the product in the first place. Wouldn't that be a 'pro-smoking' thing?

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by DOADOA

Need a smoke break?!
*cough cough!!

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 11:52 AM
Oh, once again the life of a smoker is doomed

Exchange of money is one of the worst. Cellphones are full of them. They are all over all the time. Some are usefull.Some are not. Only thing to do is to freeze the cigarettes so the bacterias "sleep" and put them in the oven 75 degrees kills most of them and then FIRE

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:02 PM
Reply to Loam

I see your meaning. Studies are often done simply in the hope of gaining further knowledge that might contribute to something further down the line.

However, anti-smoker (and yes I mean anti-smoker) junk science is a highly politicized affair funded with billions of dollars from Big Pharma and government.

In fact, it was a few years of research into the anti-smoker science that lead me to sites like ATS and means of seeking alternative knowledge.

In this case, the scientists left out information extremely pertinent to the value of the study. That is the concentration of the bacteria that was found. All of the bacteria named are certainly capable of causing disease but all of them are also very very common in the environment. The study would have required the scientist to cultivate the growth of the bacteria and it is standard practice to do an organism count.

Why was this information not provided in the press release?

Let me give you an example why anti-smoker science is for the most part - junk-science

Here is a link discussing a press release for a study done by the Mississipi State University showing the incidence rate of heart attacks in a small town are decreasing after a smoking ban.

The writer of the blog is a long-time anti-smoking advocate but even he can't stomach the perversion of science that anti-smoker science has begun.

Imagine a press release announcing the results of a study that has not yet been conducted?

That is NOT science - that is anti-smoker campaigns.

This is another link showing that smoking bans have absolutely no effect on the incidence of heart attacks.

I have read about 70 or 80 anti-smoker studies and for the most part - they are complete and utter garbage that a 2 year old wouldn't buy into and are completely refuted by real world circumstances.

Smoking causes lung cancer - then why do the countries with the highest rate of lung cancer? Why do smokers who inhale smoke suffer less lung cancer than smokers who don't? Why is there a difference in the rate of lung cancers among smokers who live in urban centres as compared to rural centres and most of all - why hasn't the rate of lung cancer subsided with the decrease of smoking in the general poplulation that occured 40 years ago?

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:20 PM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

I realize that sufficient politicization on the subject exists. But it is equally erroneous to discount all such studies.

Did you even read the actual study?


I did, and I disagree with your conclusion this study represents just another political hit job.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by loam]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:33 PM
When smoking, tobacco is burning. So, you aren't inhaling live cultures, you are inhaling the fumes of the charred and dead bacteria, no? Just another chemical to add to the arsenal of bad stuff included with smoking...

But...also, not what it seems?

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by Demoncreeper

Can bacteria present in cigarettes survive the burning/smoking
process, be inhaled by smokers and other exposed individuals, and colonize the lungs? In a study by Eaton et al. (1995), the authors recovered Mycobacterium avium from smoked cigarette filters, providing evidence that these microorganisms can survive in the presence of high temperatures and gases generated by a lit cigarette (Eaton et al. 1995).

Thus, it is possible that other organisms, particularly the hardy endospore-formers including Bacillus spp. and Clostridium spp. that were identified in the present study, also could survive the harsh conditions of the cigarette burning/smoking process. However, beyond the Eaton et al. (1995) study, no researchers to our knowledge have investigated the survival of other bacterial species in smoked cigarettes.

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by loam

There is bacteria in everything. Literally, bacteria coats the world we live in. It's no surprise, and no concern that there are bacteria in tobacco products. It's on the fruit and vegetables you eat, in the meat, on your body, in your carpet, everywhere. They are eating other bacteria, peeing, and crapping all around and in you.

Just much ado about nothing.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by SpacePunk]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:11 PM
Yes, it may be true. But I wonder who funded the research? I'm sure this will soon be followed by a tobacco company sponsored study that will show that either the studies are faulty or that milk, chocolate, yoghurt and cheese contains exactly the same amount of bacteria or even more. It always depends on which hat you're wearing when conducting a study. Or at least - it depends on the person that paid for the hat.

That said - bacteria aren’t always a bad thing... War of the Worlds?
And if a person smokes up to 60 cigarettes a day, bacteria is probably the least of his problems...

Just my opinion. Only because I'm a smoker.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Gemwolf]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 01:56 PM
It's true what they say about the food. Bacillus spp. and Clostridium spp. You will find in the ground. One of the worst "hosts" for some bacterias are soil. So you can find them in vegetables, herbes but also in chicken,fish and meet. Plus if you water (bacterias live very well in water) with less clean water, so you have double trouble. Tobacco is a plant right ?
They must be right about the cigarettes, but as you can find the same bacterias in the food you eat, so we should not eat either

Sorry i can't explain better cause of language

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 02:18 PM
I bet if you test all the plants and fruit you find the same bacterie as in tabacco especially if the crops are biological grown....

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 03:25 PM
Just another reason to not be ignorant and smoke.

I don't want to hear anyone whine about greedy corporations and then pull out a cig.
You have been duped because your mind is weak.

Not only do they want to be a slave to the tobacco industries, they will argue in favor of them until the day they die.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by The_Zomar]

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:23 PM

I have provided strong evidence of corrupted science and a politicized process.

Your sole response is to agree with me that what I say is true and then to assert that you "believe" the study to be "different"

Are we talking science or religion here? Please explain why you think this study is different or are you basing your belief simply on faith.

Ps I have been unable to examine the study because of problems with the site. However I will provide this link showing that tobacco smoke is anti-microbial

Tobacco is of the Solancea family of vegetation

Medicinal smokes
All through time, humans have used smoke of medicinal plants to cure illness.
To the best of our knowledge, the ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care have not been studied.
Mono- and multi-ingredient herbal and non-herbal remedies administered as smoke from 50 countries across the 5 continents are reviewed.

Most of the 265 plant species of mono-ingredient remedies studied belong to Asteraceae (10.6%), followed by Solanaceae (10.2%), Fabaceae (9.8%) and Apiaceae (5.3%).

The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production.
This review highlights the fact that not enough is known about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form.

Furthermore, this review argues in favor of medicinal smoke extended use in modern medicine as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients" sci...16f60593537320c

Further - the press release indicates that hundreds of bacteria were found in tobacco. This is stated over and over again to create a feeling of panic but careful reading shows that only one species of bacteria was actually found in the smoke.

This would be the equivilent of saying vegetables and fruit are contaminated with bacteria when you pick it up off the ground of the tree, therefore there is a potential of disease. However this risk is greatly decreased because people WASH the fruit or vegetable before they eat it. Smokers are not exposed to the bacteria in tobacco - they are exposed to the smoke!

Further - nothing was said about the health of the bacteria found in the smoke. Was it vigorous and alive. These bacteria tend to thrive in warm dark environments. But the bacteria found alive in the smoke was put through a burning process before being airborne. Is it ameliorated and weakened.

But my biggest reason for rejecting the study - if respiratory bacteria in smoke were vigorous and healthy enough to cause respiratory infections and present in sufficient number to cause such disease then smokers would routinely get those diseases - over and over again. That is not the case.

There was insufficient information in relation to the concentration of the bacteria or the relative health of the bacteria to conclude that exposure to smoke could cause disease. But the feeling of panic was still generated wasn't it?

Again - the study results do NOT match real world circumstances.

These are my reasons for rejecting the study as simply another politised - don't smoke its bad for you message.

What are your reasons for believing that its not?

Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Nov, 26 2009 @ 04:52 PM
I wish people would stop worrying so much about living longer and just LIVE.

It seems that modern life, for many people, is all about constantly fretting about what might kill you. For heaven's sake, the second you're conceived you are on the road to dying. It's how much you enjoy yourself in the meantime that counts.

I'm sick and tired of the doom and gloom merchants and all their studies... Live people, LIVE!!!

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in