Talk:Fire-safe cigarette

Potassium nitrate

Potassium nitrate is also added to the tobacco which keeps the tobacco burning. Removing potassium nitrate from the paper isn't going to do much good I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.173.186 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is added to the cigarette. What has changed is that the paper wrapper has two "speedbumps", i.e., two tiny bands of less porous paper that will extinguish the coal if not puffed, but will do nothing if the smoker continues to smoke the cigarette in a regular fashion. Lizsf (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

after doing some research, it has been found that EVA(ethylene vinyl acetate) is put into the cigarette paper in the form of bands. EVA is not meant for any kind of internal use, and therefore should not be inhaled. According to the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets), EVA is considered to be not hazardous under normal conditions, however it is not normally used for any products which require internal usage. According to the U.S. Department Of Health & Human Services, EVA is normally used for products such as underlayment concrete, wall insulation, Nail enamels, and many others..but none of these products are meant for internal use. Another fact according to the "Material Safety Data Sheets" about ethylene vinyl acetate is that it "can release irritating and/or toxic fumes if involved in a fire." So, if you smoke an FSC cigarette, then you are burning ethylene vinyl acetate releasing toxic fumes into the air, and inhaling it as well. On the list of potential health hazards for burning ethylene vinyl acetate, the "Material Safety Data Sheets" lists: "May cause mechanical irritation if the product comes into contact with the skin. Contact with molten material may cause thermal burns" along with a note about inhalation which says "INHALATION: NOT A PROBABLE ROUTE OF EXPOSURE UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS OF USE. ELEVATED PROCESSING TEMPERATURES MAY GENERATE FUMES AND VAPORS WHICH MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO THE NOSE AND THROAT." This means that you are not supposed to be smoking or inhaling EVA. This information, along with the fact that none of the materials listed which contain EVA are any which should be ingested or inhaled, seems to give credibility to the complaints of some smokers who have developed certain symptoms after smoking the new FSC cigarettes. The fact is, the government has not studied the effects of inhaling chemicals such as EVA, and therefore should not have passed these new FSC cigarettes into law and forced them onto the smoking population, without doing more thorough research on the products and additives which are found in these new cigarettes. THE MSDS also states that regarding the chemical EVA, it should be: "KEPT AWAY FROM HEAT OR FLAME." So there is evidence that not only are these FSC cigarettes not fire-safe, they force citizens to inhale additional chemicals and compounds that have not been subjected to long-term health studies. Another fact is that since FSC cigarettes have been placed into the marketplace, cigarette prices have been increasing tremendously to a point so high that they have never cost as much in the history of the United States(to over 5 and 6 dollars per pack). This along with all the recent limited studies of the new cigarettes is making many smokers believe that the real reason these cigarettes have been put out, is to "force smokers to quit".

I think the original poster meant, that fire accelerants are put into cigarettes, particularly potassium nitrate. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. I do know, however, that a roll-up, hand-made cigarette will go out by itself, if you leave it unattended. A commercially made cigarette however will burn all the way to the end. There's obviously some difference. I've heard the potassium nitrate rumour myself, but don't know if it's true. It certainly seems like something is added, or at least there's some difference, the observable difference from roll-ups is dramatic and very clear to see.

The accelerant rumour is very well known. It would certainly be a service to lots of people, to either prove or disprove it with certainty.

188.29.164.83 (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Intro reads like CFSC brochure

"Cigarettes are the leading cause of residential fire deaths in the United States, having resulted in an estimated 800 civilian deaths, 1,660 civilian injuries and $575 million in direct property damage in 2005.[1] Typically, a cigarette drops from an ashtray into a crevice in upholstered furniture, smolders for several hours, then bursts into flame; related fatalities are primarily from smoke inhalation."

This does nothing to explain the FSC and sounds more like an ideological push supporting the project. The title of the article is not "Likelihood of Danger of Fire in Cigarette Smoking". This article is specifically about the FSC technology itself. I will return to this article in a few days, and if there are no reasonable, realistic objections, will be removing this block. 65.184.233.253 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is inappropriate for the lead of an article. I have removed it completely, but anyone should feel free to re-add it to an appropriate place in the body of the article. Buck O'Nollege 07:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now reads like an anti FSC pamphlet

Under the controversy section, is there any research for the 'concerns voiced by smokers'? I've smoked fsc since i started smoking a few years back. I haven't experienced most of this, and some of it sounds like it could apply to smoking in general (ie respiratory conditions). I've smoked smokes from the US and Korea and have not noticed a difference in short term effects. Not sure what the long term outlook is like (besides being shitty either way) hey,i`ve found the answer and i need help spreading the word! Take your lighter and heat the cigarette paper before lighting up.seems to nuetralize the glue used to put them out. I`ve been enjoying my smokes again for a week now and i`m in heaven! Not only do they stay lit but they taste good again! you don`t need to burn the paper, just heat it up a little all around. Please help me spread the word, i want to spare everyone the poisoning our gov. is laying on us! Johnny Riddick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.116.128 (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"FSC Cigarette" is redundant

Someone needs to clean this up and respect what the acronym stands for. Right now there are numerous places that it effectively reads "fire safe cigarette cigarette." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.214.132 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a case of WP:SOFIXIT, so I just did. Even "Fire Standards Compliant cigarettes" is not nearly as commonly used as "Fire-safe cigarettes", so I made a brief mention in the lede and standardized the rest (even when it referenced ASTM, which may still need clarification).

By the way, I'll take the credit/blame for edits 1, 2, and 3. (Sorry, I didn't realize I was logged out!) Ruodyssey (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to renaming this article to "Fire Standards Compliant cigarette", and redirecting fire safe to it? The article itself states it's a misnomer, and a very potentially dangerous one. Delayed fire would be a better term, but since FSCC is the technical term, I think it'd be best to use that. --S eoJ (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Cases of word quasi-duplication in phrases formed from initials (eg "HIV virus") are very common. It's not a mistake. To "correct" it looks weird, and is less readable and less comprehensible. OP is over-analysing and getting it wrong. "FSC" is a term in itself, you're not supposed to expand it as you read. "FS cigarette" would refer to "FS", which isn't anything, "FSC" is the term. Just "FSC" without "cigarette" would be missing a noun, which is incorrect grammar. That's how abbreviations work. Language doesn't work on such pedantic, over-literal principles. Leave it be, Einstein. You're not the first person in the world to notice this phenomenon, you just apparently don't know that it's correct as it is.

188.29.164.83 (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Any information on the effectiveness of FSC?

Would be nice if there were some hard numbers about the effectiveness of FSC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.39.63 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people hate these damn things

You have to drag like hell to make these things work, they are terrible. I hate rolling my own, but these are driving me to it. I want a decent smoke. The article should reflect how terrible these damn things are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.63.213 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't affect the draw on the cigarette, ie making you drag harder. Perhaps the cigarettes you're smoking have perforations in the filter? These let air in, it's a way of making cigarettes lower tar / nicotine. Silk Cut is one example.

To counteract it, you can wrap a cigarette paper, eg Rizla, around the filter, to block the holes. This will also make the cigarette stronger. Or just smoke something else. I really can't see how the fire-safety changes would affect the draw.

188.29.164.83 (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Complaints by smokers

Could a section be added concerning the numerous complaints by smokers that these FSC's actually cause more fires and burns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.11.38 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The entire article could be summed up, This. Is. In. Sane. Barbecue grills? Holiday candles? What exactly is it that the politically progressive have against anything that burns, anyhow? -- Craig Goodrich 216.10.193.24 (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Drive by editing?

I wish I had caught this earlier, but there have been too many edits since this one in which Winterstoke1 removed two refs and rewrote whole paragraphs, inserting assertions without any new refs. I'm not saying I'm assuming bad faith, and it may all well be true and verifiable, but it needs to be cleaned up and sourced. I'll try to work on this if time permits. (And please use edit summaries!) Ruodyssey (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fire Safe Cigarette Laws: More Harm than Good

I've done an extensive amount of research on FSC cigarettes. Someone posted a link to my blog fsclawrepeal.blogspot.com, which I just changed to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-brooks/fire-safe-cigarette-laws_b_519867.html because it was published there on March 31, 2010 and already has some comments.

I would like to add, update, and clarify some information on this wiki entry, but I'm not sure where to begin. All of my information can be verified with credible primary source references. Can someone please help me?

209.172.21.202 (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Rebecca Brooks

This to me smacks of free advertisement for your upcoming book. Not only is your Huff post article EXTREMELY long, it shouldn't have overtaken the article "Are the new FSC fire-safe cigarettes making smokers sicker than ever?" which was concise and to the point. Bravo Rebecca ! I'm sure your hard work paid off. Noone refutes that your info is true, just funny how it overtook the above mentinoed article so quickly, being written not even 60 days ago ? Again, bravo ! Maybe this will help sales ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dec212012 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Add a "See also"

add "See Also" at bottom to link to page "ethylene vinyl acetate." The page, as of today implies that most if not all cigs are using paper speed bumps and have two bands. Benson and Hedges, or whatever that brand is, does use paper, but Newports, Marlboros and Camels all use this weird glue (maybe around 50 to 90% of all cigs smoked in the USA), and there are three bands, not two (split the cig and hold up paper to strong light to see the dark bands). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.138.114 (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal experience

I've been a smoker for more than 45 years. About thirty years ago I started rolling my own to keep cost down. These days I use 'Element' brand papers and 'Red Cap' tobacco. If I don't smoke the cigarette, it will almost immediately extinguish itself. I'll typically relight a cigarette up to a dozen times, or more. Just two or three seconds after puffing the smolder is so diminished that you can not see a glow, nor smoke.Even when I get to the bottom of my container of tobacco and it is very dry, the effect is the same. I'm also surprised at how little information is available in the subject with a Google search. Especially considering how much furniture fire proofing legislation has gone on over the years. The cigarettes that burn on their own must be engineered to do so in my opinion. Personal experience tells me a 'natural' cigarette just does not burn on its own. Science is done by observation and this one is not rocket science.

Thanks, Dan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeweb (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fire safe cigarette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207173649/http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Member%20Sections/AEBOcodechanges.pdf to http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Fire safe cigarette → Fire-safe cigarette – Compound adjectives are hyphenated. Attal Devoulport (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:HYPHEN. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per both above. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.