3 ms·

It's interesting that it's basically just the filters left at the end. Do the filters actually help enough to justify their existence and environmental impact?

by donatj 3y ago

WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
It's not just the filter, it's also the chemicals in the tobacco https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/whats-in-a-cigarette-0 https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc... The whole thing is toxic for the environment
- slothtrop 3y ago
  Your link pertains to health not environment. Most of the ingredients listed are in smoke. Inhaling any burnt plant matter isn't healthy. I'm not sure how a decomposing plant in itself can harm the environment. I could imagine that synthetic additives are, but these seem to be overstated.
  - worik 3y ago
    > Inhaling any burnt plant matter isn't healthy. That feels that it should be true. But epidemiological studies of pure cannabis smokers (hard to find) do not bear it out. Lungs seem to cope
    - Jarwain 3y ago
      Cope doesn't inherently mean is Great. My understanding of this effect is in part that cannabis smokers just don't end up smoking as much mass that tobacco smokers do.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  > toxic for the environment Not sure how true this is. The chemicals from the tobacco (aside from additives which I'm sure they're negligible in this context as the plant is not combusted) are.. from the environment? Nicotine is a pesticide so that would make it more toxic for certain parts of the environment, but I'm sure the environment will be fine consuming cigarettes. Way better than say a piece of plastic... (some) cigarette filters do contain plastic, so that's not ok, but the tobacco part should be fine.
  - nvy 3y ago
    >The chemicals from the tobacco (aside from additives which I'm sure they're negligible in this context as the plant is not combusted) are.. from the environment? PFAS, phosphates, CFCs, carbon monoxide, and BPA are all "from the environment", too.
    - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
      What a weird comment. Especially calling out carbon monoxide, which is emitted only if the cigarette burns in this context but otherwise it is ubiquitous in nature and even used as a signaling mechanism by living organisms.
      - nvy 3y ago
        That's my point. Just because things are "from the environment" doesn't mean they aren't toxic or pollutants.
pstuart 3y ago
We need to have cigarettes use bio-degradable filters and then they'll be totally cool!! edit: /s
philipkglass 3y ago
The filters are made of cellulose acetate, which also biodegrades (though more slowly than paper and tobacco): "Degradation of Cellulose Acetate-Based Materials: A Review" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10924-010-0258-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10924-010-0258-0
- myshpa 3y ago
  Estimates for the degradation time of cellulose acetate filters vary widely, but they can range from several months to more than a decade, depending on environmental conditions. It's important to note that even though cellulose acetate might break down over time, it doesn't truly biodegrade in the same way that organic materials like food waste do. Instead, it fragments into smaller pieces called microplastics, which can persist in the environment for much longer and have their own set of environmental and health concerns.
  - philipkglass 3y ago
    The end state of biodegradation is "mineralization" where complex molecules are fully broken down to simple ones like water and carbon dioxide. Cellulose acetate will mineralize as fully as food waste does, but it takes longer than food waste. See e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/app.1993.070501009 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/app.1993.070... for a discussion of microbial cellulose acetate mineralization (full article accessible through sci-hub).
dmbche 3y ago
"Considering the harmful potential of PM, our findings note that the filter-tipped cigarettes are not a less harmful alternative for passive smokers. Tobacco taxation should be reconsidered and non-smoking legislation enforced." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4847091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4847091/
mrguyorama 3y ago
Cigarette "Filters" are marketing. They have never made cigarettes safer, and in the early days they were often asbestos, so that's fun.

It's interesting that it's basically just the filters left at the end. Do the filters actually help enough to justify their existence and environmental impact?

by donatj 3y ago

It's interesting that it's basically just the filters left at the end. Do the filters actually help enough to justify their existence and environmental impact?

WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago

It's not just the filter, it's also the chemicals in the tobacco https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/whats-in-a-cigarette-0 https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc... The whole thing is toxic for the environment

slothtrop 3y ago
Your link pertains to health not environment. Most of the ingredients listed are in smoke. Inhaling any burnt plant matter isn't healthy. I'm not sure how a decomposing plant in itself can harm the environment. I could imagine that synthetic additives are, but these seem to be overstated.
- worik 3y ago
  > Inhaling any burnt plant matter isn't healthy. That feels that it should be true. But epidemiological studies of pure cannabis smokers (hard to find) do not bear it out. Lungs seem to cope
  - Jarwain 3y ago
    Cope doesn't inherently mean is Great. My understanding of this effect is in part that cannabis smokers just don't end up smoking as much mass that tobacco smokers do.
maximinus_thrax 3y ago
> toxic for the environment Not sure how true this is. The chemicals from the tobacco (aside from additives which I'm sure they're negligible in this context as the plant is not combusted) are.. from the environment? Nicotine is a pesticide so that would make it more toxic for certain parts of the environment, but I'm sure the environment will be fine consuming cigarettes. Way better than say a piece of plastic... (some) cigarette filters do contain plastic, so that's not ok, but the tobacco part should be fine.
- nvy 3y ago
  >The chemicals from the tobacco (aside from additives which I'm sure they're negligible in this context as the plant is not combusted) are.. from the environment? PFAS, phosphates, CFCs, carbon monoxide, and BPA are all "from the environment", too.
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    What a weird comment. Especially calling out carbon monoxide, which is emitted only if the cigarette burns in this context but otherwise it is ubiquitous in nature and even used as a signaling mechanism by living organisms.
    - nvy 3y ago
      That's my point. Just because things are "from the environment" doesn't mean they aren't toxic or pollutants.

pstuart 3y ago

We need to have cigarettes use bio-degradable filters and then they'll be totally cool!! edit: /s

philipkglass 3y ago

The filters are made of cellulose acetate, which also biodegrades (though more slowly than paper and tobacco): "Degradation of Cellulose Acetate-Based Materials: A Review" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10924-010-0258-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10924-010-0258-0

myshpa 3y ago
Estimates for the degradation time of cellulose acetate filters vary widely, but they can range from several months to more than a decade, depending on environmental conditions. It's important to note that even though cellulose acetate might break down over time, it doesn't truly biodegrade in the same way that organic materials like food waste do. Instead, it fragments into smaller pieces called microplastics, which can persist in the environment for much longer and have their own set of environmental and health concerns.
- philipkglass 3y ago
  The end state of biodegradation is "mineralization" where complex molecules are fully broken down to simple ones like water and carbon dioxide. Cellulose acetate will mineralize as fully as food waste does, but it takes longer than food waste. See e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/app.1993.070501009 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/app.1993.070... for a discussion of microbial cellulose acetate mineralization (full article accessible through sci-hub).

dmbche 3y ago

"Considering the harmful potential of PM, our findings note that the filter-tipped cigarettes are not a less harmful alternative for passive smokers. Tobacco taxation should be reconsidered and non-smoking legislation enforced." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4847091/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4847091/

mrguyorama 3y ago

Cigarette "Filters" are marketing. They have never made cigarettes safer, and in the early days they were often asbestos, so that's fun.