Talk:Cigarette filter

Added Environmental cigarette information
Hello,

For a My college Environmental Chemistry class we have to add Environmental information to a Wikipedia page. For my project i choice to add information on Cigarette filters degradation. We have to "go live" with our additions and then we will be graded on the page and our interaction with people on wikipedia and how our addition grows over time. Thus if you have a problem with my information please edit or talk to me about it, instead of just deleting it all.

Thanks

Benjamin Haywood (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ultra Fine Fibers
This section seems kind of confusing. Is it talking about two different things? And contradicting itself?

69.155.105.2 23:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

ultra fine fibres
i agree, this section contradicts itself somewhat. "fibres are considered much to large in diameter to inhale" then the sentence after talks about inhaling fine fibres? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.229.170 (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

sharp as a marble
Sorry for the series of minor edits. Nothing that existed before was particularly 'grammatical'; this is only a slight improvement, and it adheres to the facts from brisk internet research. Strange that what billions of lips (with or without replacement) touch each day is so neglected here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fm7939 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do they work?
Is there any evidence that filters actually work? in other words, do they increase the ratio of nicotine to tar and other cancerous substances? Gregcaletta (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering about this and if there's study to the reduction of harmful effect (percentages). DynV (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Results section of this JAMA journal article (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2753257) states "unfiltered cigarette smokers were nearly 40% more likely to develop lung cancer and nearly twice as likely to die of lung cancer compared with those who smoked filtered cigarettes.". That does sound like they work. 91.110.153.169 (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This probably is the #1 most important question about cigarette filters, and as written, the article is very confusing. Some positive results are cited, but alongside a claim (about smoking machines) that raises doubts about ecological validity. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't for editorializing, but surely we can find sources that summarize the consensus or lack thereof. JustinBlank (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Vectronn (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)The problem is that cigarette smoking causes many different cancers. The evidence is the filters change the types of cancer people are more likely to contract (e.g. Between squamous and epadenocarcinoma), but there is no definitive evidence of an overall reduction in risk.Vectronn (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The safety of "smoking" the filters themselves
I think a short note about that should be talked about on the article. I can't find info anywhere whether it is safe or not. --Cabbage9 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you ever done so you'd know by the filter awful smell that it's very likely worse than stopping before. DynV (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cigarette filters increase the risk of centriacinar emphysema. This is because the filters increase the total inhaled content of smaller particles that penetrate deeper into the lung. -- mattycoze 14 April 2015

floor sweepings???
Come one man... WTF??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.100.126 (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Charcoal filters
Any information on charcoal filters, like in the Parliament or certain Pall Malls? Does charcoal cigarette filter make any difference as compared to the usual non-charcoal filter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autismal (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Filter non-biodegradability proof?
This article is the first I have ever heard of filters being non-biodegradable. Online I am trying to find out the half-life of Cellulose Acetate? Can anyone point to a reliable source? There are many sites re-stating the 'non biodegradable' line, but there is no evidence from any I've looked at that they are not just quoting Wikipedia. This reminds me of the "Plutonium is very radioactive" affair. 203.217.73.250 (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)



Is there fiberglass in the filters?
A simple web search for "glass cigarette filters" gives up many results. Some sources even claim the glass is designed to cut the smoker's lungs, causing increased absorption of nicotine, but harming the smoker. Is it true?

Could someone please address this, with a reputable source?

68.83.236.212 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't fiberglass in cigarette filters. You don't find "many results" - the most you'll find is [an article] that pretty clearly states that they onyl found glass fibers in an experimental type of cigarette, the Eclipse, which is probably not even sold anymore, and absolutely 0 (zero) glass fibers in conventional cigarettes. Everything else is actual trash from the likes of Natural News, who go on to quote Yahoo Answers as a reputable source. I'm sure the idea of Big Tobacco knowingly doping their filters with fiberglass to cause internal bleeding in smokers so that their bodies absorb more nicotine and therefore become more addicted and smoke more sounds very exciting (tobacco is deadly enough, why companies would want to kill their customers even faster is beyond me), but it doesn't make sense or stand up to more than 15 seconds of scrutiny. This level of quackery doesn't even deserve a mention in the article. Kloick (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Bird nest and cigaret filters






cork?
It is a common misconception that filters were once made of cork. Actually, it was a strip of cork to prevent paper sticking to the lips, not a filter. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)