Notes from a new snusser.

[Dave***t]

Note that snus isn't free from TSNAs (shorthand for nitrosamines), it's just very, very low compared to other forms of tobacco. Certain brands are claimed to be lower in TSNAs than others, too. But it's hard to be certain as a consumer.

[Zero]

Swedish Match brands all use the Gothiatek process, which is designed to minimise TSNAs, and Skruf brands (including Knox) are also very low in TSNAs.

A british study showed that General (portion) had about ten times less TSNAs (NNK+NNN+NAB) and also a tenth as much BaP (benz(alpha)pyrene) compared to Copenhagen. Other non-snus products had even higher levels of these compounds.

http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/15/1/64

There's also the J-curve idea, or what is called "Hormesis" - the idea that low doses of otherwise "dangerous" things can have beneficial effects by stimulating the immune system. In the case of radiation or carcinogens, this comes in the form of stimulating the cells' natural gene repair functions and many studies have shown that very low doses of radiation or carcinogens can actually reduce the incidence of cancers. In some places where natural background radiation is higher than average it has been found that the population suffers fewer cancers than in a standard population, for example. It could be the case that snus has the same effect - that the levels of TSNAs are low enough to put it into the beneficial region of the dose-response curve. It could explain sweden's very low levels of mouth cancers, for example, in spite of their very high consumption of snus. Regardless of the mechanisms, though, you can't debate the numbers when they're based on the entire population - clearly something the swedes are doing is causing them to have very low incidence of cancers. It could be something else in the environment, diet, or the lifestyle, of course, which is depressing the numbers, but something up there seems to be working alright.

Granted, the acceptance of the hormesis theory in scientific circles is at least publically quite low, but it was a colleague of mine - a professional doctor of medical physics who worked in an oncology department at a cancer treatment center - who first introduced me to the concept, and although he remained healthily sceptical, he didn't outright dismiss the idea and certainly suggested that it was within the realm of possibility. There is a big risk, of course, in the medical community of showing outward support of such a theory since the implications are rather weighty - the anti-tobacco and anti-nuclear lobby would be screaming and such a theory could easily be abused by lobbyists to further dangerous agendas. Naturally, the medical community remains on the safe side of the fence.

[Craig de Tering]

You mean like folks living on top of soil with higher concentrations of Radon having less pulmonary "problems"? (E.g. cancer, asthma etc.)

[Zero]

Well, radon is special because it decays into atomic particles of lead, which is terrible for you. But I do recall one study of a building in taiwan, though the name of it escapes me, which was built with structural steel that had abnormally high levels of radioactive isotopes and long-term occupants were tracked down, in fear that they may have had health complications, and it was found that they actually had lower incidences of cancers. Other studies have shown things like (and I'm paraphrasing here - these aren't exact results) - one cigar a month lowers your risk of cancer, for example (but more is patently bad for you!). Again, it's controversial, but some studies seem to support the idea. I'm sure there are more, although I'm sure they also have their detractors. Hard to say. Again, though, the swedish numbers don't lie - people just don't seem to be getting cancer there.

[Zero]

here we are....this at least refers to the study, you can look up the references if you like.

http://www.radscihealth.org/rsh/Docs...36/BLCcmts.htm

[Craig de Tering]

Jeez, I think I'll pass. After reading three lines my head felt like it was gonna explode already. Also Firefox isn't rendering the whole page correctly and some paragraphs get tangled up into eachother (prolly a problem om their end)

[nzkiwi]

How do we know it is the tsna's that cause the cancer. I know tsna's have been proven carcinogenic(spelling). Could exposing the oral cavity(gums) to high ph cause dna damage.

Perhaps it isn't the tsna's that are the danger but something else.

Food for thought.

[Dave***t]

Putting the (very interesting, I'd not heard of that phenomenon before) discussion of carcinogen doses to one side, and setting down next to it the question over what's actually the active carcinogen...

Swedish Match brands all use the Gothiatek process, which is designed to minimise TSNAs, and Skruf brands (including Knox) are also very low in TSNAs.

Skruf, Swedish Match, Gotland and Wise snus all claim to have significantly lower levels of TSNAs than other brands/use methods to minimise the same in their products.

Given especially the prominence of Skruf's claim to this effect (specifically the former portion of it), when taken in contrast with Swedish Match's market dominance - well, they can't all be right, surely?

[Zero]

Nitrosamines are well-known carcinogens - there is a wealth of medical study to prove this and there really is no debate at all that they cause cancers. There is some chemistry needed to understand why, but if you are anything of a chemist, basically the nitosamines attack DNA by alkylating its bases - pH alone is not something that can cause cancers and, in fact, the pH of snus is usually below 8. It can't cause cancer any more than, say, putting an acid like vinegar on your food can cause cancer. By contrast, nicotine itself is just an alkaloid and it found in several other species in the nightshade family (other than tobacco) like tomatoes, potatoes, aubergine, and green peppers. Nicotine on its own has not been shown to have any mutagenic (carcinogenic) properties although it does somewhat inhibit apoptosis, which is a cell's pre-programmed method of suicide should its DNA become damaged, and so nicotine has been theorised to be, at worst, something of an accomplice in contributing to cancer formation in that it reduces the chances that rogue cancer cells will kill themselves automatically. Nevertheless, nicotine has not been classified by the IARC (international association for research of cancers) as a carcinogen - it's really not much different than caffeine or cocaine in that respect, it's an alkaloid stimulant, but not a cancer causer.

[Zero]

Given especially the prominence of Skruf's claim to this effect (specifically the former portion of it), when taken in contrast with Swedish Match's market dominance - well, they can't all be right, surely?

All swedish snus is made by a similar process, mind you - namely a pasteurising/sweating rather than a fermenting, so I think many of their claims are comparing snus to other forms of smokeless tobacco. While there may be some debate of Skruf vs Swedish Match in terms of who is lower in TSNAs, I think that compared to, say, american brands like Skoal or Copenhagen, they are all significantly lower and punching, so to speak, in an entirely different weight class...if that makes any sense.

[SouthTexas]

Well I hope you and the sweeds are right, Zero. I'm betting my life on it. :lol:
Nothing can be as bad as inhaling a lung full of smoke all day long. Doesn't take a scientist for that to make sense! :idea:

[Dave***t]

Given especially the prominence of Skruf's claim to this effect (specifically the former portion of it), when taken in contrast with Swedish Match's market dominance - well, they can't all be right, surely?

All swedish snus is made by a similar process, mind you - namely a pasteurising/sweating rather than a fermenting, so I think many of their claims are comparing snus to other forms of smokeless tobacco. While there may be some debate of Skruf vs Swedish Match in terms of who is lower in TSNAs, I think that compared to, say, american brands like Skoal or Copenhagen, they are all significantly lower and punching, so to speak, in an entirely different weight class...if that makes any sense.

Yeah, makes sense. So we're all featherweights? Haha.

I don't think the messages given out by Skruf are as US-centric as that implies though. Skoal and Copenhagen aren't particularly widespread outside the US/Americans afaik - I'd never heard of them before looking at snus forums used by Americans.

The Northerner site has this statement - The tobacco leaf selection and the top modern production fascilities at Skruf gives lower levels of the poisoning TSNA than other leading brands (according to Svenska Livsmedelsverket - the Swedish National food Administration). So it's other brands rather than other forms.

This would seem to indicate that relative levels across brands are in fact known of and quantified, and that Skruf is lower than Swedish Match products (given that 'other leading brands' is most likely to mean brands made by SM with their huge market share) - even if it's only by a negligible amount.

As General is easily the most popular brand, and presumably higher in TSNA than Skruf, then the disease figures show that it's unlikely the difference between brands is enough to matter much - whatever brand you use it's unlikely to do all that much damage in comparison to other forms of tobacco use. But I'm just curious

[SouthTexas]

Does a new user of snus that has never smoked feel like throwing up and turn green? Just curious. I remember when I was 12 I tried a pinch of Copenhagen and lost my lunch and turned green. Then later on after I had smoked I tried it and was able to handle it a little better. A few years later I could swallow Copenhagen after a few spits with a good size pinch without getting sick. Some dippers can never do this (which is probably very good for them). I know some smokers that have tried dipping and it made them very sick :lol: . Was wondering if it was the same with snus and what that says about the difference in the two products.

[Zero]

Yeah, I gave it to one guy who had never touched anything tobacco before and in about six minutes he got woozy and dizzy and had to take it out :lol:

[marspatukka]

Does a new user of snus that has never smoked feel like throwing up and turn green?

I got really really dizzy when I first tried snus. I was maby 12 or 13. The dizzynes comes propably from the nicotine, that was my first real touch to that stuff.