What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
97 Comments
- dBLiSS, on 10/11/2007, -2/+53You don't buy the packages that can harm babies silly. Get the ones that cause throat cancer or something.
- CatalystDM, on 10/11/2007, -9/+43What? You mean it's bad to smoke? Rubbish. A pack a day keeps the cancer away!
/sc - Hayaemsay, on 10/11/2007, -4/+38Who cares if you have cancer, you're a man now.
- SonnyW, on 10/11/2007, -3/+36If you consider cancer a super power, then yes.
- masgrada, on 10/11/2007, -9/+38Most horrific? Wow. I would think genocide or nuclear war might be a little higher on ones list.
- Pic0, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25next time someone blows their smoke on me when i go outside a building, i will report them as a terrorist with a dirty bomb
- LavaHot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23Yeah, as if the lung/tongue/mouth cancer wasn't a big clue.
- acdcfanbill, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20Man I love digg, 'LEGALIZE POT.' Next day, 'PUNCH A TOBACCO USER IN THE FACE!'
- Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -19/+35Unconceived =/= A Baby
Unless you consider a single cell without even the right number of chromosomes a human. - aryo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15any time anyone blows their smoke on my face deliberately, i kick them in the face.
- KMye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14This headline is inaccurate, but I can see it being an easy mistake to make. What they're saying, if I'm reading it right, is that the naturally-occurring radiation in the leaves is far greater than the radiation spread to those SAME leaves by fallout from Chernobyl, thousands of miles away and over two decades ago. Maybe I'm wrong, though..
- theMurdocVolta, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15I'm going to tell you all the same thing Fred Flintstone told me,
"Winston tastes good like a cigarette should!"
Tell me, how can you argue with that logic, huh? - wacki, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14The heavy metals in tobacco aren't natural. It's due to dirt cheap phosphate fertilizer being sprayed on the farms. It has an easy fix yet the mainstream media and even the anti-tobacco lobby seem to ignore it. Kinda cool how small time news outlets and a user driven news service finally brings this to the masses attention.
- MannyDR, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Do you know any smokers who would change their habits after reading this? I bet this story would make some of them so nervous they go out for a quick puff to calm themselves.
- shark615, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Tell what to a pregnant woman?
Pregnant women have concieved. If it is UNconcieved it is still an egg which women lose at the rate of one a month. - zcrazyfly, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Does this mean i'll get super powers?
- evilregis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Smoking is bad. We get it. The thing is, it doesn't matter how bad you say it is, it's not going to make a smoker quit. I could send this story to each of my smokin' friends and not one would think, "Gee, I need to quit." I saw all the warnings on the cigarette packs and I've seen relatives pass away from smoking and I kept on going. And going. 25-30 cigarettes a day.
I quit when I decided I was ready to quit. People rarely quit because of what some research, scare tactic or friends/family say. Smokers keep smoking despite tearful pleas from their own children. They quit when they're good and ready to do so. And when they choose the time/place for their quit, they're far more successful than when one is forced upon them.
4.5 months smoke-free. $1200 not-spent on smokes. Over 4000 unsmoked cigarettes. And happy as hell that I did it. But I had to do it on MY terms. - Silencer7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11"The Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated that radioactivity, rather than tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancers. The Center for Disease Control concluded "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source." "
http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/Po-en.htm
The above link is a pretty good description of why and how Polonium concentrates on tobacco leaves. This next one's not bad either: http://www.acsa2000.net/HealthAlert/radioactive_tobacco.html - dylanrush, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9What? Smoking is bad now? Since when?
/sarcasm
I don't give a *****. I smoke anyway. - KMye, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I think I'm right, though...
http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/1/68 - TEMM, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Smoking and hot can only go together when used as "Smoking hot". Girls that smoke and are hot wont stay that way for long if they dont kick the habit.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14"Leave us smokers alone. We know the danger in smoking. Why can't you go ***** with someone else? Its bad enough we absurd tax's on a tobacco in the U.S. And I'm sure in Greece tobacco leaves' are tainted. Do your studies all over the world before you start spouting off your ***** mouths. Oh by the way. I still don't care. I'm still going to smoke.
Oh and I will do more jumping jacks, run futher AND work harder then some jack ass that gets winded walking up stairs."
Get the ***** off my health insurance, and dont smoke places that I have to smell it, and then we have a deal. Your piss poor, moronic "choice" costs the rest of us billions in wasted healthcare. - hobophobe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7"'Many scientists believe that cancer deaths among smokers are due to the radioactive content of tobacco leaves and not to nicotine and tar,' he says."
You'd think with evidence like this that the big focus would be on providing safe delivery for nicotine use. There are gargantuan crusades against tobacco users, but there is little or no real push by the general public to shift the delivery of nicotine to a safer system.
The cost of gum or patches is much greater than the cost of cigarettes even with the taxes they have. If you roll your own cigarettes the taxes are far lower as well. Shouldn't the emphasis be placed on providing safe alternatives to smoking rather than on what amounts to a witch hunt on smokers?
What do you think? - jiggawoot, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Bloody everything is radioactive...
Yeah, I get it smoking will kill me. But if they're going to attempt to get everyone out there to hate smoking (and smokers for that matter), they could at least come up with some decent propaganda.
From TFA
"Though the radiation dose from smoking was only 10 per cent of the average dose anyone receives from all natural sources."
So, if I smoke, I get a slightly higher dosage of radiation over a lifetime than someone who doesn't smoke? - Tolzmaniac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5In the headline i read "tobacco" as "Taco Bell". Boy was i worried!
- CogitatorX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6The anti-smoking weenies like the ones here on Digg and the turds in those Truth.org videos make me want to smoke Camel filterless cigs and blow smoke in people's faces just to provoke you little *****. Your health is being damaged a hell of a lot more by car exhaust than the 2nd hand smoke you may encounter on rare occasion. Look up the links between prostrate cancer and car exhaust yourselves.
Your health insurance rates are going up due to bad investments by corrupt insurance corperations not the SMALL minority of people in the health care system due to tobacco use.
And don't fool yourselves or insult the rest of us by pretending you give a ***** about the public health. If you did everything from beer to fast food to video games would be illegal.
Besides, your reactions are programed from growing up in the Clinton era's anti-tobacco propaganda. - Dracura, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2: Shadows of Tobacco
- dylanrush, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8We're all going to die some day. To say that smokers deserve it more than nonsmokers is ignorant and assanine.
- Jowitz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4What they don't tell you is that the most radioactive consumable in the world is the...
Brazil Nut. - positron, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I found out about this over a year ago and I did change my habits. I now smoke 100% organic tobacco, made without the toxic fertilizer cocktail which is the source of radioactivity.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4...And what's the deal with CANCER?
hey! I have cancer!
...
Oh, tough crowd. - Plinkotic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Smoke tobacco through a vaporizer. Or better yet, forget tobacco and move to weed. Hell, mix and match.
- Schmidtopolis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You can't be serious. Native smokes are the worst thing you could ever smoke. Beyond the filler and the "crackling" sound they make when you smoke them, who do you think is making them. I mean, seriously, would you buy alcohol made on the reserves... HELL NO.
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3There would still be tobacco smoking without the tobacco industry. It is smoked all over the world.
- dylanrush, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think we should sell candy to people when they turn 18, because with childhood obesity as it is, it's obvious that children are too irresponsible to deserve candy. Candy is linked to diabetes, obesity, heart disease and death. Heart disease is the #1 killer in the US! People who eat candy just deserve to die!
- Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You can be anti- something but still not think it should be outlawed. This is a concept that simpletons across the nation have failed to grasp.
- Spankov, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I'm sure I read once that the reason there is so much radioactivity in tobacco leaves is because of the fertilisers used in their production.
- shark615, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4What about this comment then?
"Though the radiation dose from smoking was only 10 per cent of the average dose anyone receives from all natural sources," - parax, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@strafefire
Inhaling any burning material increases the risk of cancer. It doesn't matter if it's cigarettes or marijuana. Marijuana when smoked does not cure/prevent/reduce the likelihood of cancer. THC has been used in research to reduce the size of tumors, not smoked marijuana. Don't cherry pick.
There's also a reason that tobacco companies don't do research to use elements of tobacco to cure disease. Current legislation prevents tobacco companies from advertising any health improvements in their product. Tobacco companies aren't going to spend money on R&D to make a healthier cigarette if the law says they're not allowed to tell anybody about it. It's a kind of a shoot-ourselves-in-the-foot law.
Smoking marijuana or inhaling any other burning material is in no way healthier or safer than cigarettes. I know a lot of pot smokers want to believe that, but wishing it to be true doesn't make it so. - inactive, on 02/25/2009, -2/+45 years ago, when I was in the UK, I bought something called Niquitin, it contained 20 chewing gums, and I paid 10 pounds plus tax and after consuming more or less than 13 gums, I was able to entirely forget about smoking. When one really wants to give up smoking by heart, makes a final promise that no matter what happens to his life he aint going to smoke or even think about buying a pack, he is surely going to give it up wheather or not he has access to nicotine gums, patches and whatever. Will power is the greatest power in human beings God has provided us with. Without it, we wouldn't exist. So, my point is that he who really wants to quit smoking wouldn't necessarily need to spend money on alternatives.
Once upon a time I saw this ad on thinkgeek.com about an artificial cigarette that doesn't contain nicotine but would make consumers feel like they are really intaking nicotine. It was too expensive though, about 150 dollars per pack containing 20 cigarettes.
Isn't it hassle-free, healthy and inexpensive to just give up smoking rather than looking for or trying to innovate another alternative way of doing the same harm to yourself? Is life really worth dying slowly and steadily? What do you think?
I, for one, started smoking at the age of 18 and gave up at 22. And sometimes I still try to find out what sort of damages I have done to my health by smoking in those 4 years. - Rhino2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4""unconceived babies.""
what the hell does that mean? It kills sperm and eggs before they even come in contact with each other?
um.
Anyways. I used to smoke. I quit because it's not good, radiation or not; common sense told me it was bad for my lungs (would get winded walking up stairs).... but oh! I still love a nice cigar once in awhile! - bincoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2mmmm radiation!
Don't tell Iran about this, they will no doubt corner the market on cigs and horde them for later treatment in centrifuges in order to get more nuclear fuel.
This would raise the price per pack even more. - elsJake, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Care to argument that ? I don't smoke around non-smokers and usually move if requested (unless I'm in a smoking zone and the restaurant has a non-smoking section).
- meshman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2B-b-but how will the anti-smoking tards support their overblown propaganda now?
- sm1l3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Thus the take away from this is smoke more, thus giving the smoker preemptive radiation treatments for the inevitable cancer.
- cypher303, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Damn, people actually smoke 30 cigarettes a day?! That's a pack and a ***** half! Back when I smoked cigarettes I would smoke maybe 3 a day... 30 is just crazy talk!
Anyways, I've been trying to get my mom to stop smoking, so I'll send her the link I suppose. - katanaswordfish, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@masgrada: "Most horrific? Wow. I would think genocide or nuclear war might be a little higher on ones list."
Ironically enough, the success of the early tobacco industry in the colonial Americas contributed greatly to the genocide of the Native American tribes, as well a large increase in demand for African slave-labor. Aside from cotton, tobacco was one of the largest slave-labor requiring crops of the time.
And at that time, the tobacco companies didn't even have as much demand, because people could not afford it. The only people who could afford to smoke were the upper-crust Europeans. That was an early contributer to the fame of smoking. As soon as became less expensive and the lower-middle class could actually afford it, they all began to smoke, as it made them feel as if they were higher in social status. It seemed elegant and noble to smoke cigars and cigarettes back then. Did i mention that the refined cigarettes back then weren't half as addictive or harmful?
Flash forward to the present day, and the tobacco companies are still using unethical tactics to push their addictive, poisonous product to the masses. The tobacco industry is one of the highest spending industries on congressional lobbying. Which, just in case you don't know about the US system of government, basically means that these rich and powerful businesses pay congressmen large amounts of money to vote a certain way. Unfortunately it happens more than it should, in the USA i guess you can buy a vote if you want. =*(
On top of that, the health concerns of smoking are off the charts. Do cigarettes need to half all that crap in them? Nope. They do it to make you addicted, and they do it to increase their profit margin. See, they could sell you cigs without half that crap in them, but then you might not smoke as much. Or maybe they would have to put more actual tobacco in there... that means that they would make less money! oh golly gosh no!
It baffles me that so many people smoke, especially college-age and high school-age kids. I realize that is has a 'cool' factor, and a 'rebellious' factor (which it HAS HAD for 500 years now). I just find it ironic that out of the so-called "liberal college students" of my state (Oregon), many of these kids are outside their dorms smoking packs and packs a day. Supporting a company and an industry that has done nothing good. An industry that has induced genocide, slavery, mass death, suffering and addiction, congressional lobbying (which is essentially legal bribery and corruption) and greed at the expense of human lives.
I definitely agree with you though masgrada, genocide and nuclear war are horrible. But I think it's really important to review the gruesome history of this atrocious industry. Because, they have contributed massively to many things including genocide. I just wish people wouldn't smoke, especially people who consider themselves left-wing, because if you look at the CONTEXT of the action of smoking, it suggests that you support that industry, and you have no problem with funding the horrible actions against humanity that they have cooperated in. I for one, am a leftist, and these greedy, murdering bastards won't see a penny from me.
That's just my opinion on it though... - katanaswordfish, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Though the radiation dose from smoking was only 10 per cent of the average dose anyone receives from all natural sources"
There are many types of radiation. Please take a physics class or something. Humans are bombarded with a ton of environmental radiation coming from everything. However, just because you get a bigger dose of that radiation in your lifetime, does NOT mean that it is more harmful. It's similar to in chemistry, you can have two acids that have similar pH, but if one is highly concentrated, it takes much less of it to cause harm to you. - The_Dude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm personally for outlawing the damn coffin-nail, cancer stick, wasting vast amounts of money things, immediately. All you tobacco farmers---tough s h i t---get a new job. Maybe comforting cancer victims in a hospice, or giving smoking cessation programs.
- Monk22, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1those farmers are so horrible for trying to make a living growing things that are in demand. how rude.
in case you didnt catch the sarcasm there @the Dude your a mongloid. why should a farmer take care of someone else for the choices they make. -
Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is