Archive for March, 2010
Smoking Opinion?
what is your opinion on smoking. i hate it and will not go near a ciggiratte ever and i think the smoking ban was fantastic as my local pub smells better and you can actually go in there without choking on the fumes and when i found out that this is in a ciggy:
Acetic Acid (Corrosive to respiratory tract)
Acetone (used in nail polish removers.)
Ammonia. (Used in floor and toilet cleaners)
Arsenic (a poison)
Cadmium (Car battery Fluid)
Carbon Monoxide (interferes with the supply of oxygen in the blood to the rest of the body)
DDT/ dielderon (Insecticides)
Ethanol (Alcohol)
Formalin (used in preserving human tissue and fabric)
Hexamine (used in explosive compounds)
Hydrogen Cyanide (Poison)
Methane (Petroleum Gas)
Naphthalene (used in moth balls)
Nicotine (Schedule 6 Poison)
Nitro Benzene (a petrol additive)
Phenols (used in disinfectants)
Stearic Acid (used in candle wax)
Toluene (Industrial solvent)
Vinyl Chloride (used in PVC)
sorry i ran out of words
but any way every time a smoker walked p[assed me i thought a) i was gonna die
b) how can these people live
c) no wonder it kills you
I like that you don’t like to smoke. But you can’t just READ something and say you know everything on it. I personally hate smoking and alcohol because of family members who have abused the two substances and made my life a living hell and still to this day. I also gag when I smell smoke, and pissed off when I see liquor.
Which of the following obey Raoult’s law?
3. Which of the following pairs of molecules are expected to obey Raoult’s law?
a. CCl4, C6H6 (benzene)
b. CCl4, H2O
c. HF, H2O
d. CH3OH, H2O
the answer is a, c, and d..i m sure…jst got it rite…lol!
Cannabis Addiction?
The Independent on Sunday has opted out of its 1997 decriminalize cannabis support campaign on account of new findings on “super strength skunk” that show a correlation between cannabis use and psychosis and schizophrenia. The IoS denounces that today’s availability and strength of the new drug variety is proportionately higher than 10 or 20 years ago. Assuming that cannabis is a causal factor for schizophrenia, Hickman and colleagues argue (Journal Addiction) that there will be an increase in the number of this mental illness if we let prevalence and incidence of cannabis use increase over time.
From a sociological point of view, if we take into account the flow and stock data Hickman’s thought experiment is based on, this increase of schizophrenia in the population groups is the most likely outcome, but here we should not forget the model is also based on assumptions. So far, the medical statement has not been faced yet with a situation where cannabis has been the cause of permanent brain damage or incurable schizophrenia, so it is rather difficult to say whether an increase in prevalence and incidence to new super strength skunk will necessarily mean an increase of incurable mental health problems.
Regarding the study of human flows or social sciences in general it is rather difficult to point out causal links. Association between variables does not necessarily mean some of them must be the cause or have a knock-on effect upon the rest. Other difficulty to pinpoint casual links shows its ugly face when not all the relevant variables are included in the sociological model. There seems to be a correlation between cannabis and the surge of violent crime but so far we have not a relevant study yet on cannabis resin use, as a likely variable operating on its own, and the incidence of violent crime.
Cambridge University Professor Peter Jones’ chart on cannabis use is withdrawal symptoms is rather surprising since an explanatory reduction to chemical compounds and the activity of the brain has not been possible yet in this sense. Even if we concede Professor Jones the occurrence of these variables, the account is still problematic as it cannot include those cases where withdrawal from this substance did not show withdrawal symptoms at all. In the Lancet report, cannabis appears as the third less addictive substance, only surpassed by steroids and LSD (1st and 2nd less addictive substances respectively).
Due to the chemical properties of THC, one of cannabis’ main active ingredients, since it remains in the body after a month of its ingestion, UN representative Antonio Maria Costa’s claim that users should be treated as those arrested for driving under the influence might seem to have some support. If not as dangerous as alcohol is, driving after its use is still just as problematic as driving while speaking on the phone. The medical establishment is aware of cases where studying or other tasks that require concentration have been achieved under the influence of cannabis resin, but there’s also an increment in the amount of time needed to fulfill those tasks as distraction and other factors are very likely to lead users away from it every now and again. This does not necessarily mean “distraction”, as a consequence of cannabis use, is a permanent damage difficult to avoid once it settles in since withdrawal from it always improves concentration levels, but it does underline the fact that laziness and apathy are always important factors that break in when users recur to it.
Even though THC lacks a nitrogen atom in its molecule it can be safely included in those psychotropic compounds’ list that build up upon benzene or indolic rings if we take on board the effect upon the body. The schizoid episodes to be found in cannabis users are of a lesser importance and intensity than those commonly associated with substances such as LSD but this can be explained just recurring to the way this substance breaks in into the body. An ingestion of cannabis resin, instead of its usual use in water pipes or rollups, would put users certainly closer to those psychotic episodes so characteristic, for instance, in indolic compounds. However, any psychiatrist or psychologist worth its salt knows how easy it is to get rid of these symptoms with proper psychological help in case there were not a latent physiological predisposition to develop schizophrenia or psychosis prior to cannabis use. And once the problem has been sorted, it is very unlikely users will go back to previous stages or positions.
Here it seems sensible to underline the importance of proper technical vocabulary to better give account for these social phenomena. There is of course a margin in everything to defend ones’ personal preferences or inclinations, but the data we draw our conclusions from must be accurate. The IoS states that super strength variety skunk is 10 times stronger than cannabis resin (25 for The Daily Mail, 19th March 2007), but this datum is not accurate at all. Cannabis resin is far stronger than cannabis itself since “resin” is one of cannabis’ by products. Even the oily stuff of regular plants will still yield the highest concentrations of THC as plant and resin work out on a ratio of 100kgms/1grm. Super strength skunk can only be stronger than cannabis resin if the latter means “adulterated resin”, which is still available today. The new variety of the plant’s higher concentration levels can be seen here as the user’s ultimate attempt to avoid cheat and provide with a better product for himself in a world dominated by gangs and criminal mafias. Super strength skunk seems to sell well because there is a social demand for it.
Correlations between higher concentrations of THC and addiction, even if these variables seem to go hand in hand, should not lead us to think there is a casual link between them. “Cannabis addiction” is a sociological term and it should not be used in medical explanations if its use beguiles readers into thinking there are physical and physiological factors that can give account for addiction itself in this sense. It is obvious social activities such as biting your fingers or gamming on line can be treated as addictions as well-and surely there are endogenous chemical compounds and molecules that must be involved in them (perhaps as a source of dopamine or other endorphins)-but all of these cases always present readers with weak individuals and soft characters, which exemplify extremes that cannot be helped or prevented with proper medical care.
I’ve been dependent on cannabis (in particular, skunk) for a number of years. I don’t think it is a physical addiction, rather a psychological one that I use to deal with mental health problems, and this is supported by the fact that since it has stopped helping me feel better, I have had no trouble staying off it.
My brother also used it for two years before he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, but the doctors involved believed the cannabis to be a form of self medication rather than the cause of such a profound mental illness.
Out of the people I know who have developed psychotic illnesses, including my brother, they have all smoked pot, but they have all taken pills, lsd and god knows what else. They also all come from difficult and sometimes traumatic backgrounds. And certainly within my family there seems to be a clear genetic predisposition.
I think that the idea that cannabis can cause psychosis that lasts beyond the use of it is not only ridiculous but irresponsible. Too many parents ignore psychotic symptoms in their children because they think they’re on drugs. And it’s not just parents, I’ve seen a 17 year old manic depressive turned away from a mental ward because they believed his psychosis to be purely caused by cannabis. This was not the case and it took him a further year to get a proper diagnosis and be treated.
Lastly, I have never in my life met a violent stoner. I know there was a case in the news recently, but he seemed to be quite clearly psychotic, whether it was drug induced or not, this is hardly the norm, for psychosis or cannabis use.
What product is it that people use have all of these and more in them?
Acetone: – nail polish remover
Ammonia: Household cleaner
Angelica root extract: Known to cause cancer in animals
Arsenic: Used in rat poisons
Benzene: Used in making dyes, synthetic rubber
Butane: Gas; used in lighter fluid
Carbon monoxide: Poisonous gas
Cadmium: Used in batteries
Cyanide: Deadly poison
DDT: A banned insecticide
Ethyl Furoate: Causes liver damage in animals
Formaldehiyde: Used to preserve dead specimens
Hydrazine: – rocket fuel
Hydrogen Cyanide: – rat poison
Lead: Poisonous in high doses
Methoprene: Insecticide
Megastigmatrienone: Chemical naturally found in grapefruit juice
Maltitol: Sweetener for diabetics
Methyl isocyanate: Its accidental release killed 2000 people in Bhopal, India in 1984
Napthalene: Ingredient in mothballs
Nicotine: – a poison used to kill cockroaches
Polonium: Cancer-causing radioactive element
Additives in manufactured & processed cigarettes.
(Which is different than plain tobacco.)
For the complete list on 599 additives see…
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotineinhaler/a/cigingredients.htm
Scroll down looking at left side of page for a total of 3 pages.
can benzene harm the unborn baby?
my father in law left the benzene in the garage and i smelled it for a couple of minutes.could that do any harm to the baby.i am 35 weeks pregnant.
I read about this on March of Dimes website and it said it is very dangerous but usually only if you are exposed to it often and for very long periods of time. Only smelling it for a couple of minutes probably didnt do anything, but if you want just call up your doctor to ask about it.
Did you know burning incense, may be a health risk?
Long-Term Exposure To Incense Raises Cancer Risk
MONDAY, Aug. 25 (HealthDay News) — Exposure to burning incense over long periods of time raises the risk of developing cancers of the upper respiratory tract, a new study shows.
Interestingly, the practice did not increase the overall risk of lung cancer.
"Given that our results are backed by numerous experimental studies showing that incense is a powerful producer of particulate matter and that incense smoke contains carcinogenic substances, I believe incense should be used with caution," said study author Dr. Jeppe Friborg, of the department of epidemiology research at Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark. "That is, frequent use in rooms where people live should be minimized, or at least sufficient ventilation should be secured. In our study, we find the increased risk of cancer to be present in individuals reporting frequent use of incense for many years, thus, repeated exposure for years should probably be avoided."
Others echoed the thought.
"The American Lung Association is going to add it as a risk factor," said Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the association. "It’s not nearly the danger of smoking a pack a day for 20 years, but it’s a danger."
Not only is incense burned regularly as part of daily life in large swaths of Asia, the practice is also popular among certain segments in the West.
Incense burning produces particulate matter and is known to contain possible carcinogens such as polyaromatic hyodrcarbons (PAHs), carbonyls and benzene.
There have also been reports linking the burning of incense with cancer but the results have been inconsistent.
For this study, researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with more than 61,000 Singapore Chinese aged 45 to 74 who were cancer-free at the beginning of the study.
Incense burning almost doubled the risk of developing squamous cell upper respiratory tract carcinomas including nasal/sinus, tongue, mouth and laryngeal. There was an increased risk both in smokers and in nonsmokers, pointing to an independent effect of incense smoke.
There was no overall increased risk of lung cancer, but it did heighten the risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.
Will incense go the way of tobacco? Not necessarily, said some experts.
"Certainly I think bathing yourself in particles is probably not the smartest thing in the world . . . but I think very few people fill up their room with incense," said Dr. Arthur Frankel, a professor of medicine at Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine and director of the Cancer Center, Cancer Research Institute and Division of Hematology/Oncology at Scott & White in Temple.
The findings, which are in the Oct. 1 issue of Cancer, might also point researchers toward other household practices that should be investigated.
"It’s a population-based study, which means that you can make an association but not necessarily a conclusion," said Dr. Erin Fleener, a clinical assistant professor in internal medicine at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine and an oncologist at the Bryan-College Station Cancer Clinic. "It probably promotes more work in the area of routine household items and things we need to be looking at more prospectively to make a clear cause-and-effect relationship."
In general, though, it’s not a bad idea to avoid environmental pollutants of various types.
"Anything that affects air quality negatively is not a good thing," said Dr. Len Horvitz, a pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "Burning in general and the release of smoke, these things are certainly to be avoided. At the very least, chemical irritants will set off asthma, and that’s reversible. Cancer is not reversible."
"This is not unlike the type of risk that one experiences from secondhand tobacco smoke," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. "At the end of the day, people who use incense casually, I don’t think that’s a cause for major concern, but those cultures which embrace incense as part of their daily lifestyles have to consider this has a real potential risk for cancer."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080825/hl_hsn/longtermexposuretoincenseraisescancerrisk;_ylt=AgTQT4Gkj.RpB6wNuLTUOPUDW7oF
wow didn’t know that, thanks for sharing. I don’t burn them but my dad does. this info will come in handy.