What's in tobacco?

Oxidized tobacco is nicotinic acid or Niacin. Niacin is one of the 91 Essential Nutrients. Typically we only hear of about 41 nutrients, apparently because the other 50 have never had RDA values placed on them. Why? We can only guess. Niacin is vitamin (B3) because it was the third of the B vitamins to be discovered. It was first discovered from the Oxidation of Nicotine to form Nicotinic Acid. When the properties of nicotinic acid were discovered, it was thought wise to choose a name to dissociate it from nicotine, in order to avoid the perception that vitamins or niacin-rich foods contained nicotine. The resulting name Niacin was derived from nicotinic acid + vitamin. It was historically referred to as Vitamin PP, a name derived from the term pellagra-preventing factor.

Vitamin B3 (Niacin) was used to save hundreds of thousands of lives from Pellagra and other diseases throughout the world in the early 20th century. Most green leaf plants naturally contain Nicotine such as potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, cauliflower etc. Nicotine is found naturally in the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae). Where is the warning on how many tomatoes we can safely consume?

Can anyone think of a better way to Oxidize natural nicotine to form nicotinic acid (Niacin B3), than to burn it ?

The chemical formula for Nicotine is C10 H14 N2. That is, 10 carbon atoms, 14 hydrogen atoms and 2 nitrogen atoms.

Here is the chemical formula for Niacin (vitamin B3) C6 H5 N O2.

In tobacco, among all the other chemical entities, there are lots of independent molecules of nicotine mixed in with everything else, like H2O  (Water).

Can we see the significant difference? Apart from the number of atoms of each element, what is different is the addition of "O" (Oxygen). So,  Niacin consists of the basic elements of nicotine plus  oxygen. How does the oxygen get into the molecule and how is the original molecule of Nicotine broken up?

On exposure to ultraviolet light or various oxidizing agents such as burning, nicotine is converted to nicotine oxide, nicotinic acid (vitamin B3), and methylamine.

As far as the Methylamine is concerned, too much of it is not likely great for one's health.

In  the chart below, our government agency OSHA shows a safe limit on methylamine of 5.0 ppm. The amount of  methylamine in a cigarette they show as 0.1 mg. It would take 13,000 cigarettes to reach the unsafe limit. We have all heard, the poison is in the dose.
We all know that  arsenic is a deadly poison - Right?  However, arsenic is among the 91 human essential nutrients - Go figure - Yep, the poison is in the dose.

Arsenic is a metalloid - Trace quantities of arsenic are an essential dietary element in rats, hamsters, goats, chickens, and presumably many other species, including humans. However, arsenic poisoning occurs in multicellular life if quantities are larger than needed.

ETS Component	ETS Output (mg/cigarette)	Threshold Limit (ppm)	Cigarettes Required
2-Toluidine	0.003	2	290,000
Acetaldehyde	1.26	111	14,285
Acetic acid	1.5	10	1,666
Acetone	1	500	118,700
Benzene	0.24	1	1,290
Benzo[a]Pyrene	0.00009	0.02	222,000
Cadmium	0.0007	0.002	1,430
Catechol	0.14	5	15,700
Dimethylamine	0.036	10 (7)	25,555
Formic acid	0.525	5 (8)	1,790
Hydrazine	0.00009	0.01	14,444
Hydroquinone	0.16	0.4	1,250
Methylamine	0.1	5	13,000
Methylchloride	0.88	50	11,170
Nickel	0.0025	0.4	40,000
Phenol	0.25	5	7,600
Polonium 210 (9)	0.4pCi	na	750,000
Pyridine	0.39	5	4,100
Toluene	0.000035	50	1,000,000

Methylamines are used in countless products and manufacturing. It is used in pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, personal care products, resin manufacturing, paper products, fuel additives, animal foods and the list goes on and on.
All of course approved by our government agency the FDA. 

 Nicotine and Tar?

Nicotine in cigarettes is addictive?

Nicotine is not a drug. It's not even listed as a carcinogen, only stated by certain anti-tobacco non-profits as such. If it was, shouldn't it be listed by our government in the chart above. It is not addictive like a drug. Smoking is a habit. People smoke for relaxation and enjoyment just like consuming alcohol, drinking coffee or perhaps having a strong craving for a bowl of chili or a hot dog.

No one wakes up in the middle of the night shaking in a cold sweat, convulsing  and vomiting needing a cigarette.

The idea that nicotine is addictive like a drug was pushed by Big Pharma in the 1970's to sell nicotine patches. And now, countless smoking cessation products make billions of dollars throughout the world for Big Pharma and their legal prescription drug pusher Big Medical.$  Patches were shown to have as much as a 98+% failure rate. Most people that used nicotine patches or other cessation drugs quit smoking because of psychological reasons like a placebo, will power and a real desire to quit. The nicotine in the patch or drug had little if anything to do with quitting.

If nicotine was an addictive drug, they would be hooked on the various smoking cessation drugs that contain nicotine, and that enters directly into the blood stream. Isn't that common sense?

The 1964 Surgeon General's Report validated the notion that smoking is habitual rather than an addiction. But then, who ever read the report? Certainly NO elected representative of the people in Washington ever would have read it anymore than they read the recent Obamacare legislation. It is also doubtful that a hundred  in a million American citizens ever read a single page.  I personally have read many pages, and trust me - it does not say what most people thinks it says.

The idea that nicotine is addictive like an illegal drug, is among the countless lies pushed by the multi-million dollar anti-smoking movement non-profits,  government agencies and the medical and pharmaceutical industry since the beginning.$

Think about it. If nicotine was an addictive drug or a known carcinogen, how could it be legal in numerous smoking cessation drugs such as nicorette, nicotine gums and patches etc.? $

Further, if it was a drug, how could cigarettes be legal?$ Taxes perhaps?$

The typical amount of nicotine in a cigarette is said to be between 0.5 and 0.9 mg according to most estimates. 0.9 mg is less than a thousandth of a gram. The amount of nicotine in a typical nicotine based smoking cessation drug is said to be 2.0 to 4.0 mg per dose.

The TAR in cigarettes is bad? What TAR?

If there was actual TAR in cigarettes, everyone who smokes would be dead.

 If your lung was coated with actual TAR, the oxygen would not make it to your blood stream and you would die from suffocation in short order. The pictures we've all seen years back of a black lung supposedly from a smoker was a 100% lie. How could TAR in the inside of the lung turn the outside of the lung black? Inhaled smoke goes to the inside of the lung last time I checked. Think about it. A rare black lung is said to be in most cases particulates from a long time worker in coal mines or sometimes though rarely, a cancerous lung. The pictures shown years ago of a black lung was apparently removed because of threats of legal action. The pictures were totally bogus shown by a fanatical big money non-profit anti-smoking group.

Let's think for a moment. The first place this alleged TAR would come in contact with would be a smokers mouth, tongue and throat. Anyone ever notice a lifelong smoker with a black tongue and mouth? Whatever possibly coats a smokers lung is definitely not actual TAR. But TAR  sounds very scary. I worked with actual TAR for a short time as a young man. You need a strong solvent and scrub brush to remove it from your hands or clothing.

In mid evil times, a person was put to death by coating their bodies with TAR. The largest human organ, the skin, could not breath, and they suffocated to death.

A look at only a couple of old studies that of course would never be seen by the general public.

 

#1 - Lung cancer among non-smokers has been increasing while those among smokers has been decreasing. Possibly because of filters which nearly every study consistently shows decreases the risk by as much as 20 to 30 percent. A very old study

Study in tobacco related cancers  1982 - 1985.
Funded by: National cancer institute (NCI) (of the department of health and human services)
Apparently this government institution didn't get the memo? You can bet they have long since changed their mind.$

#2 - Asbestos and smoking:

Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers.
Ever hear of this study?

Institute of immunology and experimental therapy, (Poland)

Asbestos and cancer

Relative risks of lung cancer for asbestos workers was highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and death from mesothelioma. 
Perhaps the scientists that did this study never got the memo from Big Anti-Tobacco?

University of London school of hygiene and tropical medicine.

#3 - Coronary heart disease (CHD)

No statistically significant association was found in either community between smoking and coronary heart disease, hypertension or somatic complaints.

University of Texas, school of Allied health science.

 The list of studies through the years could go on for dozens of pages.

- They never see the light of day -

Who would have the nerve?

$$ - Anti-Tobacco & Fat is very big business - $$

END PAGE