diff options
Diffstat (limited to '75599-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 75599-h/75599-h.htm | 1517 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 75599-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 607867 bytes |
2 files changed, 1517 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/75599-h/75599-h.htm b/75599-h/75599-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7606d78 --- /dev/null +++ b/75599-h/75599-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,1517 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <title> + The truth about the tobacco habit | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} +/* Heading Styles */ + h1,h2,h3 { + text-align: center; + text-indent: 0em; + clear: both; + font-weight: bold; + page-break-before: avoid;} + +h1 { + margin: 1em 5% 1em; + font-size: 180%;} +h2 { + margin:2em 5% 1em; + font-size: 140%;} +h3 { + margin: 2em 5% 1em; + font-size: 140%;} + +.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} /* use with h2 for epubs */ + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always; + margin-top: 4em;} + +/* Paragraph styles */ +p {text-indent: 1.25em; + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em;} + +.unindent {text-indent: 0em; + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em;} + +.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} +.center {text-align: center; + text-indent: 0em;} + +/* Font styling */ +.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} +em {font-style: italic;} +.muchlarger {font-size: 150%;} +.xxl {font-size: 200%;} + +abbr { border:none; text-decoration:none; font-variant:normal; } + + +/* Rules */ +hr { /*default rule across entire width */ + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; +} + +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} +@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;}} + +/* Tables */ +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + text-align: center; + border-spacing: 0; /* this removes spaces between handmade lines around boxes */ +} + +.tdl {text-align: left;} +.tdr {text-align: right;} +.tdc {text-align: center;} +.pad1 {padding: .5em 0 .5em 0;} +.pad2 {padding: 0 0 0 1em;} +.vlb {vertical-align: bottom;} +.vlt {vertical-align: top;} + +.pagenum { + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: 50%; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: 0; /* needed if using indented paragraphs by default */ + color: #444;} + +/* Poetry */ +.poetry-container {display: flex; justify-content: center;} +.poetry {text-align: left; margin: .25em 5% .25em 5%;} +.poetry .verse {text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em;} + +/* Poetry indents */ +.poetry .indent0 {text-indent: -3em;} + + + </style> + </head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75599 ***</div> + +<table> +<tr><td class="tdl vlb">LITTLE BLUE BOOK <abbr title="Number">NO.</abbr></td> + <td class="tdl" rowspan="2"><span class="xxl"><b>1389</b></span></td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl vlt">Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius</td></tr> +</table> + +<h1>The Truth About the<br> +Tobacco Habit</h1> + +<p class="center muchlarger">T. Swann Harding</p> + + +<p class="p4 center">HALDEMAN-JULIUS PUBLICATIONS<br> +GIRARD, KANSAS +</p> +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<p class="p4 center"> +Copyright, 1929,<br> +Haldeman-Julius Company<br> +<br> +<br> +<span class="allsmcap">PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA</span><br> +</p> +</div> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + + +<div class="chapter"> +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span></p> +<h2>THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TOBACCO +HABIT</h2> +</div> + + +<p>A young friend of mine of the trouser-wearing +male sex recently developed a pain in his +stomach. He decided to wait it out. But it +was an indecent as well as an insidious sort of +pain and finally persisted so long that he was +driven to consult a physician for moral support. +The physician said, “Do you smoke?” +My friend said “Yes.” The physician said, +“That’s it, of course. Quit smoking. Three +dollars, please.” My friend went away, quit +smoking, and the pain persisted. He returned +to the doctor. He was now given a little silver +nitrate. He went away, but he came back +again. By that time the physician was really +angry. He said, “You’ve smoked yourself into +a nice stomach ulcer, you have. I’ll have to +operate. I hate to but I have to.” Just then +buckwheat cakes and sausage made my friend +violently ill one day and he deleted them from +his diet. The pain left and has not yet played +a return engagement. He smokes more than +ever now, but he throws away longer butts.</p> + +<p>Another friend of mine classifying in the +male sex which so far tends to avoid wearing +trousers—much—went to a physician. She +complained of a rash which she said afflicted +her all winter. Fortunately for the physician +she smoked energetically. He therefore told +her to quit and called the next patient. Since +she knew that she smoked in summer as well +as in winter she did not quit but, by chance, +consulted a scientific nutrition investigator. +There was no reason for this; she did it irrationally +and by pure inadvertance. But he +asked, “Do you eat anything in winter that you +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span> +do not eat in summer?” And she at first said, +“No,” because that is the most natural answer +to make under the circumstances. Then later, +after a half an hour’s cross-examination, she +said, “Yes, oatmeal.” He said, “Try cutting that +out for a while.” So she conquered this craving, +but continued to smoke, and the rash departed +for parts unknown. She had an idiosyncrasy +for oatmeal proteins just as some people +have for strawberry or egg proteins, and her +rash was thus caused.</p> + +<p>In a moment of more violent perversity I +went not long ago to a lecture advocating ruthless +war on tobacco. In spite of the success +women have just had in smoking anti-cigarette +reformers into comas, the speaker, Daniel H. +Kress, M. D., was President of the Anti-Cigarette +Alliance. Since he was a regular doctor +in active practice I had a right to expect the +presentation of a scientific case against tobacco.</p> + +<p>This gentleman, who is personally one of the +most delightful old souls in the world, actually +completed his lecture without ever once citing +a scientific authority, without once grounding +upon irrefutable scientific fact and without departing +widely from the most trivial and childish +sort of argument from analogy. Thus he +stated that a famous war hero did not smoke. +Wilson did not smoke. Hughes does not smoke. +The inmates of reform schools all smoke. Smokers +are physically and mentally unsafe!</p> + +<p>This may all be true for all I can prove to +the contrary, but what of it? Many war heroes +smoke. Grant certainly did. Small, defective +and generally backward children normally +spring from parents who underfeed them, who +are themselves defective in heredity and who +neglect to instruct their children in any essential +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span> +matters. Can you prove that smoking +alone either stunted them or put them in the +reform school? You cannot. Criminals are +predominantly religious according to their professions +of faith. Did Christianity make them +criminals? If smokers are mentally unsafe +may I fervently declaim—God help research!</p> + +<p>You hear it said that the children of smoking +mothers are inferior. Are they? How can +it be proven? As a matter of fact no scientific +experiment could possibly be carried on to +prove this, for statistics, being riddled by all +sorts of idiosyncrasies and unknowns, are +grossly unscientific. To prove it you might +have the same mother have two children at +separate times by the same father, smoking +while she bore one and abstaining for the control +child. But that would prove nothing. Each +child is a unique individual arising from a +unique chromosome mixture. The mother and +father would of necessity be older in the one +case than in the other. Nourishment and other +environmental conditions would inevitably +vary. The experiment is impossible. Yet until +such an experiment becomes possible we are +merely voicing opinions when we say that +smoking causes inferior children. The actual +cause may be any of a thousand other and +extraneous factors.</p> + +<p>When you consider how very often tobacco +smoking is mentioned therapeutically and how +universally it seems to be assumed that it is +deleterious to health it is rather disconcerting +to discover so little reliable scientific work to +confirm this prevalent viewpoint. In fact practically +no comprehensive, systematic work has +been done by scientific research to prove that +smoking is exceedingly harmful to the human +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span> +system. Like so many other human preconceptions +this assumption rests largely upon +faith. To the acutely prejudiced non-smokers +smoking seems so utterly perverse that it +surely must be physically injurious.</p> + +<p>A rational esthetic case could be made out +against certain women smoking. True, the +modern woman so sedulously apes the other sex +that to deprive her of her cigarette is simply +to deprive her gracelessly of her masculinity. +We should never do that. But the spectacle of +a really pretty, effeminate woman smoking is +nevertheless an esthetic affront. Nothing the +average man can do could make him look very +much worse than he does naturally so even +this slight objection does not apply bisexually.</p> + +<p>But we have wandered, and I am of course +at fault, having set out laudably to lead our +thought procession. In my search of the scientific +literature the nearest thing to an authority +I came across was perhaps Sir Humphrey +Rolleston, Baronet, K. C. B.; F. R. C. P. and +M. D. of Cambridge, England, physician to King +George V in his late 1928 illness. He discusses +“The Medical Aspects of Tobacco” in such staid +British medical journals as <cite>The Lancet</cite> and +<cite>The Practitioner</cite>. He reviews every possible +lesion that might spring from tobacco smoking, +and they are many—quite as many indeed +as may spring from over eating artichokes or +drinking three gallons of well-water daily. He +sets himself flatly against animal experimentation +in this matter because this cannot possibly +take idiosyncrasies into account, and reminds +us that humans are both highly individualized +and exceedingly complex.</p> + +<p>Rolleston then remarks that cigarettes are +less invidious than pipes or cigars because +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span> +cigarette smoke is more air diluted. He finds +a wide diversity of opinion as to the harmfulness +of tobacco; he doubts that it ever affects +the nervous system greatly and believes that +coffee and tea usually produce the heart symptoms +attributed to smoking and that a latent +venereal disease accounts for much smoker’s +cancer. He doubts also that dilation of the +esophagus, dilation of the stomach, acid stomach +and nervous dyspepsia are often due to +tobacco while he commends the mildly laxative +properties of a pipe after breakfast.</p> + +<p>Finally our baronet says, and the medical +journal sustains him editorially, that in view +of the universality of the habit of tobacco +smoking the rarity of the organic lesions that +can be traced out as undoubtedly due to that +habit, beyond all question, is little less than +surprising. This, I should say, is the woodpile +Ethiopian. It is one thing for a physician to +lean back and say cut down on tobacco, coffee, +fried stuff and pastry. It is quite another for +him to prove scientifically that these indulgences +have undeniably caused the patient’s +present low physical estate.</p> + +<p>D. T. Barry, F. R. C. S. and M. D. of the +Physiological Department, University College, +Cork, is not very far off when he writes: “The +physiological effects of tobacco, as our present +knowledge reveals them, are not sufficiently +deleterious to counter-balance the benign influence +of the drug in other respects. It may +be abused, of course, but so may food, and +this latter form of abuse is, in my opinion, +responsible for greater evils than those resulting +from the abuse of tobacco.”</p> + +<p>In this connection another authority, Armstrong-Jones, +remarks that tobacco smoking in +moderation is not injurious to adults but is a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span> +valuable sedative. It contributes to calm +thought and efficient mental functioning. Worst +of all he casually remarks that cigarette smoking, +preferably without a holder, is the least +injurious form of tobacco indulgence. Even +allowing for the fact that the gentleman has +seen some of the less comely holders I have +witnessed in my time, his statements give +pause.</p> + +<p>Of course Earp’s well-known studies at Antioch +College, Ohio, did indicate that non-smokers +showed an intellectual superiority +over smokers, but whether these things were +cause and effect or mere harmless concomitants +who knows? Many very eminent intellectual +giants smoked excessively. Perhaps +they would have achieved absolute omnipotence +or omniscience had they been non-smokers. +Again, who knows?</p> + +<p>It is significant that Earp’s non-smokers +showed no physical superiority over his smokers; +that is, it is interesting when you remember +that the American university is an institution +of athletic training wherein some intellectual +education is offered to the feeble-bodied +as a consolation prize. Intelligence tests are +not affected by smoking, the non-smokers +ranking just as high after smoking as before +they had ever touched the vile weed. Finally, +the correlation between the length of a student’s +indulgence in tobacco and his scholarship +is so negligible as to indicate that there +can be no chronic cumulative poisoning from +tobacco.</p> + +<p>Laymen do not realize how difficult it is to +trace a diseased condition to a specific cause +even when bacteria abound, as is not the case +in smoking. For instance certain bacteria so +closely resemble each other that even experts +are hard put to tell them apart. Diphtheria +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span> +germs possess such a dead ringer. Real diphtheria +cultures were once sent out to clinical +laboratories along with other cultures containing +no diphtheria germs, but germs so closely +resembling them that the laboratories involved +returned all sorts of results. Some reported +that the actual diphtheria cultures contained +no diptheria germs at all; others that some +of the germs simulating diphtheria in appearance +were positively the real thing. So a tooth +or a tonsil may contain a germ so similar to +those found at the seat of secondary infection +that they are indistinguishable, yet the germ +may be harmless in one case and virulent in +the other.</p> + +<p>Certainly it is unlikely that we carry virulent +germs about in teeth and tonsils for long +years. For one thing they get acclimated to +us and can change their murderous habits. +For another we get used to them. This organism +of ours is an hospitable sort of thing. +The body tends to adjust in neighborly fashion +to germs upon long acquaintance, or familiarity +breeds contempt, just as it adjusts to +morphine, to opium, to over-eating, to the corrosive +harness oils now sold as bootleg whiskey +and to tobacco, of course. Perhaps long +acquaintance ripens into real friendship and +mutual aid.</p> + +<p>Nicotine is the active agent in tobacco. Mendenhall +tells us that tobacco sometimes stimulates +and sometimes depresses the bodily sensory +mechanism, depending largely upon the +state of fatigue prevalent at the moment. +When stimulation occurs the effect is precisely +that of a certain portion of high potential rest, +for in this case, says our authority, tobacco +has rested us artificially.</p> + +<p>Certain work seems to prove quite clearly +that tobacco slows down the gastric motility as +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span> +well as pepsin and rennin secretion. At least it +produced such results on certain individuals, +although the majority of mankind may be immune +for all we know. This would slow down +digestion, but it takes considerable smoking to +accomplish such a result even with the susceptible, +and one cigarette after a meal, even a +cigar, would scarcely be sufficient. It has also +been stated in scientific journals that tobacco +<em>may</em> play an etiologic role in gastric neurosis, +in gastritis, in ulcer and cancer of the stomach +and, likewise, in mouth or throat carcinoma.</p> + +<p>But, putting your mind rigidly to the task, +can you readily think of anything from hot +soup to worry that has not at some time by +some person been accused of causing these +conditions? Why is this? Holding a clay pipe +in the mouth may cause mouth cancer; holding +an ordinary pipe might; continuously holding +a roughened stick there might also, with +tobacco never involved. How do these anti-tobacco +ideas arise?</p> + +<p>Why are we told that so many things cause +ulcer, cancer, kidney trouble, heart lesions or +high blood pressure? Why are there so many +theories of evolution or of creation, or of salvation +for that matter? Why are there so many +and such diverse theories of economic and political +betterment? Why are there such varied +schools of treatment often imposing diametrically +opposed procedures to combat the very +same maladies? Why do men differ so widely +in their hypotheses about government, religion, +tobacco, women? Simply because nobody as yet +knows anything positively definite about these +matters, and just so long as this condition of +inspired ignorance persists, so long will infinitely +varied opinions be inevitable.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span> +In chemistry, in physics and in bacteriology, +for instance, we do possess certain definite +knowledge and we can rightfully cite certain +facts. In sociology, in politics and in economics, +we possess certain dogmas or beliefs +and we can pardonably express certain theories +or opinions—so long as we candidly admit their +opinionative status. But when we get beyond a +certain definite point in any science, even in +physics and chemistry, we begin to hypothecate +just like an economic determinist or an +anti-vivisectionist or a religious fundamentalist, +people who are habitually beyond this point +of separating fact from belief anyway. We begin +to express our opinions vociferously, to +dress them up in moral overcoats, and to justify +them just because we do lack certain scientific +knowledge.</p> + +<p>Thus we can go to the scientific work and +find an investigator saying that very large +quantities of tobacco smoke will paralyze the +gastric contractile power. All right. But this +very same investigator also sagely adds that +small amounts of the smoke will actually stimulate +this very gastric contractility and urge +along digestion. Or we can go to the <cite>Journal +of the American Medical Association</cite>, the highest +current medical authority in the United +States. We find a query by some doctor on +cigarette smoking and we read the reply. Authority +completely absolves cigarette papers +from blame for poison. It adds that any cigarette +smoker is safer from harm than a tobacco +smoker of any other sort. For one thing he +actually smokes less tobacco. If he nervously +smokes many cigarettes he throws away longer +and longer unused portions and thus keeps his +consumption at about the same figure.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span> +<cite>The Laryngoscope</cite> should be an authority on +throat conditions as it is the publication of +throat specialists. We find in here a statement +to the effect that from a medical or laryngeal +point of view there is no reason why anybody +should give up tobacco or alcohol if it does +them no very apparent harm. This is because +the use of both in moderation by millions +proves the harmlessness of the habit which is, +in fact, often actually beneficial.</p> + +<p>You can go further than that. If you want +to be really mean you can find an authority to +state that visual acuity is increased by smoking. +When non-smokers smoked for they first +time they saw better than they did before +smoking. The sight of habitual smokers was +unaffected by an additional smoke. They had +already smoked themselves into the best possible +eye-sight. This may be unreliable testimony. +Far be it from me to judge it. The +point is that it is quite as reliable as any of +the testimony advanced against the tobacco +habit.</p> + +<p>In short we are here in a region where exact +scientific investigation has not yet established +reliable criteria of judgment. We cannot cite +irrefutable facts. We can only express opinions +and opinions are usually grounded in +prejudice. Physicians tend normally to prohibit, +but they rarely prohibit judiciously because, +under our present chaotic medical system, +they cannot afford to make a sound, +thorough-going clinical examination of every +patient and must regard medicine as an art—<i>i. e.</i>, +fall back upon empiricism.</p> + +<p>As for prejudice, it amounts to little. Cromwell +and his Puritans smoked excessively. +About 1840 women smoked outrageous stogies +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span> +and cumbersome pipes so shamelessly that men +were alarmed and vigorous caricatures satirized +them in the periodicals of the day. Early +in the Victorian era smoking was all but a lost +art. Today it is again in ascendency, yet +human depravity has remained at about one +level throughout.</p> + +<p>In an editorial upon the subject during 1925 +<cite>The Journal of the American Medical Association</cite> +especially emphasized the fact that variations +in human susceptibility and tolerance +were factors as yet little understood. Extreme +caution in generalization was wisely advised +on such subjects as the harm inherent in tobacco +smoking, and the reader was admonished +that over-indulgence in turnips or parsnips, or +even in water, would turn out a great deal +worse than he might anticipate on immature +consideration.</p> + +<p>This factor of human individualization is +rightly coming to the front in medical literature +today. Advances in biological chemistry +constantly attest the fact that each human +individual is unique chemically. What Smith +can do with impunity Jones can only do with +a prospect of sudden death. This is not a +superficial matter, but one deep seated in the +cellular structure of the human body, a thing +going back through ages of inheritance via the +complex and ill-understood chromosome. More +and more it is being realized that routine diets, +prescriptions and prohibitions will not do in +all cases—in fact are actually unsafe and +dangerous in many.</p> + +<p>For all we definitely know today with positive +assurance we cannot deny the proposition +that tobacco smoking is probably beneficial to +many people. Not long ago everybody was +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span> +urged to go in for bran because we all sadly +needed roughage. Bran would cure constipation +and a thousand routine diets spattered the +press. It was all very well, except that constipation +persisted. Today it is realized that +nervous and psychic factors have much more +to do with constipation than diet and the parade +has set in that direction now. In fact +some authorities declare that these rough diets +have actually had fatal consequences in certain +instances where a smooth diet was required.</p> + +<p>But medical science really does not know +sufficient about the positive, absolutely undeniable +effects of tobacco smoking upon human +beings to parade in any direction as yet without +painful danger of finding itself hopelessly +bogged in error at some date in the near future.</p> + + +<h3>DEBUNKING “DENICOTINIZED” TOBACCO</h3> + +<p>Some years ago it was quite evident that the +cigarette was doomed. Groups of well desiccated +females, assisted by large droves of impotent +he-virgins, met together, assailed the +“filthy weed,” and determined to abolish it by +vituperation if not by legislation. Tobacco +manufacturers began to feel vague worries, +some States passed anti-cigarette laws and +righteousness seemed about to triumph. Then +came the war!</p> + +<p>War is a great release. We all live pretty +prosaic lives. Social conventions are harsh +and unless we live in Philadelphia or Chicago +it is not considered courteous, much less expedient, +to go out and rob, kill and commit +arson. War delights in that it releases these +crude desires which seem to be suppressed and +lying potentially in wait in the most sedate of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span> +us. Men were released to rob, murder and +commit arson and they did it with a vim and +vigor which belies the idea that we are becoming +a decadent and anemic race.</p> + +<p>At the same time war had its disadvantages. +A chap needed stimulation. He needed whiskey; +he needed women; he needed cigarettes. +He got them all and the dear, good Christian +souls applied themselves so whole-heartedly to +the good work of providing needful stimulation +that natural smiles began to sprout on +technical virgins, liquor ceased to draw the sex +line and cigarettes were actually dispensed by +the hands of Christian ladies and gentlemen. +The tobacco industry was saved.</p> + +<p>After the war women decided to continue +doing what they had done during the war. +They decided to retain “This Freedom.” Men +decided they should not retain it. The Christians +decided they should not retain it. It was +against ethics, morals and law. The women +retained their freedom and added to it. Among +other things they smoked cigarettes so indefatigably +that a consumption which had commenced +to decline hopped to a point of unprecedented +size.</p> + +<p>Women are like that. Men are more civilized, +have more modern bodies, are younger in +an evolutionary sense and respect this nonsense +called law. Women are much older physiologically—phylogenetically +for that matter, if you +really like long words. They adopt primitive +means to accomplish their ends and primitive +means are always effective. When they wanted +to smoke they smoked and that was that.</p> + +<p>At the same time, however, it is vaguely +interesting to many people to know whether +smoking is injurious. All sorts of ills have +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span> +been laid to its door. But there is this to be said +in its favor. In very many people smoking is +undoubtedly the percussion cap which sets in +motion a train of conditioned reflexes and enables +them to work efficiently.</p> + +<p>Watson has worked on these conditioned +reflexes. Let the young baby have a rat. It +is not afraid and will play with it happily. But +some day produce a blinding flash of light or +a loud noise just as you give it the rat and you +have imbedded a conditioned reflex which may +last its life. It will always fear rats. Watson +holds that education should address itself to +the job of making our conditioned reflexes of +such nature that they are helpful rather than +a hindrance.</p> + +<p>Thus a certain man cannot think unless he +plays with the keys in his pocket. That is the +original stimulus which sets his benign conditioned +reflexes in motion. Another smokes in +order to think deeply. A third smokes and +finds that it is laxative. Perhaps these men +cannot either think or avoid constipation unless +they smoke, and the probable reason is that +the act of smoking is an original stimulus +which automatically sets in motion a long +series of conditioned reflexes of a benign character.</p> + +<p>Yet there are people who do not want to run +any risks. They want to avoid nicotine. Perhaps +it is as well that they should. They +therefore buy cigarettes or cigars or tobacco +which have been “denicotinized.” To what +extent do they succeed in avoiding the poison +then? The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment +Station Bulletin 295, a prosaic scientific-looking +thing, pretty well explodes the bunk +of these tobaccos and it calls a spade a spade. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span> +More power to the research agencies of the +U. S. A. which dare be so outspoken. A brief +analysis of the results shown seems in order.</p> + +<p>Tobaccos were analyzed for nicotine and the +percentage given is in all cases on a dry basis. +First tested were several common brands of +cigarettes. They ran as follows in nicotine. +Take your pick hereafter when you buy—</p> + +<table> +<tr><td class="tdl">Cigarette.</td> + <td class="tdr">Percent Nicotine.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Egyptian Deities</td> + <td class="tdr">1.28</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Pall Mall</td> + <td class="tdr">1.38</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Philip Morris</td> + <td class="tdr">1.40</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Lucky Strike</td> + <td class="tdr">1.88</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Camel</td> + <td class="tdr">2.21</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Old Gold</td> + <td class="tdr">2.17</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Capstan Navy Cut</td> + <td class="tdr">2.30</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Chesterfield</td> + <td class="tdr">2.53</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Piedmont</td> + <td class="tdr">2.89</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>Since not even physicians have had any idea +how much nicotine common brands of cigarettes +carried this alone is important. Now +how did the “denicotinized” cigarettes line up? +They ran as follows:</p> + +<table> +<tr><td class="tdl">“Denicotinized”</td> + <td class="tdr">Percent</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Cigarette.</td> + <td class="tdr">Nicotine</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Sano</td> + <td class="tdr">2.32</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Cestrada Virginia</td> + <td class="tdr">2.10</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Dormy Turkish</td> + <td class="tdr">1.19</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Sackett</td> + <td class="tdr">1.02</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>Next I shall list the cigars and the smoking +tobacco analyzed—</p> + +<table> +<tr><td class="tdc pad1" colspan="2">Normal</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Reyes de Espana</td> + <td class="tdr">1.16</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Manila</td> + <td class="tdr">1.31</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Knickerbocker</td> + <td class="tdr">1.90</td></tr> + +<tr><td class="tdc pad1" colspan="2">“Denicotinized” + <span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span></td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Sano</td> + <td class="tdr">1.07</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">O-Nic-O</td> + <td class="tdr">.72</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Sackett</td> + <td class="tdr">.67</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>The smoking tobaccos tested ran—</p> + +<table> +<tr><td class="tdc pad1" colspan="2">Normal</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Blue Boar Pipe</td> + <td class="tdr">1.45</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Weldon Slice</td> + <td class="tdr">1.84</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Hudson Bay Imperial</td> + <td class="tdr">1.95</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Gilbert’s Mixture</td> + <td class="tdr">2.09</td></tr> + +<tr><td class="tdc pad1" colspan="2">“Denicotinized”</td></tr> + +<tr><td class="tdl">Dormy Smoking</td> + <td class="tdr"> 2.26</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Sackett</td> + <td class="tdr">.98</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">O-Nic-O</td> + <td class="tdr">.97</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>In short, the average for all brands tested +stood 1.77 percent nicotine straight and 1.28 +percent still in the “denicotinized” products. +Seventy-two percent of the nicotine remains behind. +The process is, like the process of removing +caffeine from coffees, very largely bunk +but it is bunk that makes the American people +spend their money, as Barnum very well knew. +A person can with considerable ease select an +ordinary tobacco which is so near the nicotine +content of the “denicotinized” varieties that he +scarcely seems justified in paying the higher +prices for the treated product.</p> + +<p>Was ever a nation so neurotic over its health +as ours? European observers are constantly +amazed at the imbecile delight we show in all +sorts of products especially treated to make +them less toxic, more digestible, less harmful +and more beneficial. Just tell an American +that you have vacuum treated your coffee and +have thereby removed some obscure organic +compounds which normally tie his stomach in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span> +knots and he will faithfully believe you and +buy it. Tell him you have taken the nicotine +out of his cigarette and though 72 percent of +it is still there he will buy. Tell him Grapenuts +make his teeth sound and he will buy. +Tell him that he can improve his health by +standing on his head on a cake of ice in a +blast furnace while somebody shoots a stream +of liquid platinum in his left ear and you will +find some fool to do it in America. Why are +we such damned fools? I am not going to tell +you. I don’t know. But we are.</p> + + +<h3>IS COFFEE DRINKING HARMFUL?</h3> + +<p>It is recorded in the annals of history that +a certain doctor once told a certain patient to +drink no coffee. Were you, perchance, the +patient? I know I was. But why did the doctor +say that? Because if we stopped there +would be more coffee left for him?</p> + +<p>It is also recorded that there once lived a +certain Arab whose name comes down to us +as Chadely. Chadely is reputed to have been +the initial coffee drinker of the world and he +drank an extract of the berry to combat a continual +drowsiness which prevented him from +attending punctually his religious devotions! +In this others of the Mohammedan faithful +rapidly followed him, and the habit might well +be cultivated by certain church-going Christians +with sedative pastors.</p> + +<p>Now I am one of those most unfortunate +persons over whom alcohol has no appreciable +authority. I confess this with shame and deep +humiliation. Right in this Prohibition Era +when various nondescript alcoholic beverages +are held in higher esteem than ever before in +our history (for does not the lowliest shellac +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span> +now become a sacred and inviolate symbol of a +personal liberty we would not recognize in this +collectivist country if we saw it?) I can drink +one, two or even three glasses of high voltage +and yet remain placid, neutral, passionless, +taciturn and erect in posture. So far as I am +concerned even the dynamic and remorseless +cocktail of these days is just so much ill-tasting +liquid. Isn’t this tragic?</p> + +<p>But I would not prohibit the sale, ingurgitation +or even the flagrant abuse of these curiously +synthesized beverages, or even of good +alcohol drinks. Not for one single prohibitive +instant. For I want my coffee and some day +some bluenose wowser might seek to deprive +me of the cup that really cheers me. For I +can arise in the morning hopeless, misanthropic, +pessimistic, with a strong suicidal impulse, +a feeling of uselessness and a Calvinistic +conviction of sin—yet one cup of good coffee +completely reverses my emotions and stirs me +to optimism, confidence, cheer and incipient +exaltation. I can be induced to consider new +fur coats and parlor rugs.</p> + +<p>Or again, in the evening, I may have sunk +into a mental stupor, becoming in fact so definitely +subhuman that I can only listen to a +radio or read a newspaper—but coffee at once +changes the entire universe and suffuses me +with self-satisfaction, energy, will power and +complacency—jostles my brain cells rudely +against each other and clicks out of them what +little useful information there is in them. Indeed +I strongly sympathize with any dull soul +who momentarily sweeps aside the stagnant +miasmas of toil, monotony and misery with a +swig of ethyl alcohol—in varied disguise. Insensitive +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span> +to alcohol I do exactly the same thing +with caffeine.</p> + +<p>It is a most curious matter upon which to +meditate. The entire universe is not something +static and permanently postulated by +definition. It is not even what I made it a +moment ago. It is what coffee makes me and +makes me make it at this moment. Leaving +my entire environment, debts and all, and my +complete mental and somatic equipment <i lang="la">in +statu quo</i> one dash of caffeine completely reorganizes +the universe for me and as completely +modifies my reaction thereto. The final +test in any scientific experiment takes place +when one variable factor accomplishes such results +while all other factors remain completely +unaltered. I know my coffee.</p> + +<p>But of course this is a world wherein doctors +sound solemn tocsins to pleasure. You go to +them and they almost invariably admonish +you to quit smoking tobacco and drinking coffee, +to have your teeth pulled and your tonsils +uprooted. Some years ago I myself suffered +from chronic indigestion. I was on a meticulous +diet which lacked meat and coffee and I +was about ready to accuse coffee alone of all +my indispositions. But I met a hardy old +codger of eighty who drank eight cups of +strong coffee daily and had but recently reduced +his consumption from a normal dozen +and his vigor, which he attributed to seventy +years of strong coffee, greatly heartened me. +I knew what the doctor would say. I didn’t +smoke. Teeth and coffee alone were left. So +I went soberly to the expert in exodontia.</p> + +<p>He at first demurred and insisted that I had +no teeth meriting destruction. But I was desperate. +I insisted. So he X-rayed around, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span> +finally selected an inoffensive and courteous +molar and drew it. The shock or something +proved beneficial. At least I had no more indigestion +and even learned how to drink two +cups of strong coffee and go to sleep on the +draft. This is the final step in expert coffee +drinking. When you can perform that feat +and outwit your imagination you have come +into the inner circle of The Sacred Coffee +Drinkers’ Conclave.</p> + +<p>But I remained curious. I wondered why +doctors said drink no coffee. I determined to +find out something about this. Botany didn’t +get me very far. It simply declared “Coffee +is the product of a rubiaceous plant indigenous +to Abyssinia of the <i lang="la">genus</i> coffea; there are +about twenty-five known species, of which +coffea Arabica is the most important commercially.”</p> + +<p>History was slightly more productive. It +appeared coffee drinking was of respectable +age and that the substance derived its name +from K’hawah, or Kaffa, an Abyssinian Province, +and that there it was employed as a stimulant +for centuries before its introduction into +Arabia. The Arab physician Khayes, who +lived 850-922 A. D., wrote on coffee and knowledge +of the plant arrived in Europe by the late +sixteenth century. It is most interesting to +remember that these Arabian Mohammedans +used coffee as an anti-soporific during prolonged +religious ceremonies. Yet the beverage +at first underwent violent protest because +strictly orthodox and conservative priests held +it to be intoxicating and hence under the ban +of the Koran.</p> + +<p>At Constantinople certain dervishes also +held that after roasting coffee had become a +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span> +kind of coal which the Prophet had denounced +as inedible. Thereupon the coffee houses were +closed. But a lenient mufti later proved to the +satisfaction of the faithful that roasted coffee +was not coal and they were reopened.</p> + +<p>The earliest European coffee houses were +established, in fact, in Constantinople and in +Venice. The first one appeared in England in +1650; out of it grew the Oxford Coffee Club +in 1655 and from that sprang the Royal Society +itself. But alas, convivial gatherings at +coffee houses became of ill repute; wives complained +they could not expect their husbands +back from errands because they would loiter +in coffee houses and kings declared that their +subjects met at coffee houses, became garrulous +and bespoke political rebellion. The current +Volstead, Charles II, therefore, sought to +suppress coffee drinking, but evidently Anglo-Saxons +valued their liberties more then than +now for the King had little success. Frederick +the Great, fearing coffee drinking for the more +thrifty reason that it caused too much money +to leave his domain, boldly attributed sterility +to indulgence in the berry and sought to restrict +the use of coffee by a license system.</p> + +<p>The medical profession came forward to denounce +coffee for all sorts of sins. The English +Dr. Pecoke accused it of causing leprosy. +Dr. Duncan of Montpellier in 1706 wrote in +opposition to all hot beverages while James +the I actually composed a royal “Broadside +Against Coffee.” The kingly book contained +this gem—</p> + +<div class="poetry-container"> +<div class="poetry"> + <div class="verse indent0">Confusion huddles all into one scene,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">Like Noah’s arks, the clean and the unclean,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">For now, alas! the drink has credit got,</div> + <div class="verse indent0">And he’s no gentleman who drinks it not.</div> + </div> +</div> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span> +Millingen in his “Curiosities of Medical Experiences,” +1837, said that coffee in excess produced +“feverish heat and a predisposition to +apoplexy.” But he did commend coffee and +tea as beverages affording stimulus without +producing intoxication. Francis Bacon declared +that “coffee comforteth the heart and +helpeth digestion” while Bach, to offset this, +wrote his Cantata No. 211 of the “Secular Cantatas” +to protest its use.</p> + +<p>In 1792 Dr. Benjamin Moseley said doubt +existed as to whether coffee was a tonic or a +sedative, but believed that it had intrinsic food +value. Every now and then individuals arise +to denounce or to praise an article of diet or a +diet system and to declare that all men should +hear and follow because this idea was of benefit +to them. Such statements can have no +standing in science, even when made by a doctor +and based upon his actual experiences with +a few patients. The only possible way to find +out whether coffee, say, is beneficial, or the +reverse is to investigate the literature and try +to poll the authorities each one of whom has +examined large numbers of individual cases to +see if any general statements can be hazarded. +Even then we cannot make final conclusions +but we can assay general trends.</p> + +<p>Is coffee harmful then? What do physiologists, +pharmacologists and medical men say? +Coffee demonstrably enlivens the intellect, removes +the sensation of fatigue and makes the +subject feel more comfortable. These are gifts +not to be sniffed out of court. But is coffee +safe and harmless enough that we may dare +indulge ourselves in this pleasant reaction in +a world where the pleasant is so readily assumed +to be <i lang="la">per se</i> the invidious—and so often +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span> +is actually so? The question is in dispute like +most questions considered settled by many people. +There is no more reason to conclude one +way than the other in so far as average adults +are concerned. All who say dogmatically “No +coffee—it is very harmful” are as wrong as all +who state the opposite of this.</p> + +<p>In his “Personal and Community Health” C. +E. Turner says coffee is not harmful to most +adults in reasonable quantities. G. N. Stewart’s +“Physiology” remarks that tea and coffee are +safe stimulants because they have no bad after +effects. Stewart also cautions against their +abuse, but it may as well be stated at once that +the question of abuse introduces an altogether +new factor. Water and salt are absolutely +necessary to life but the abuse of either is injurious. +We can produce true water intoxications +and salt eaten to excess can do us +much harm. All articles of diet from parsnips +and lamb chops to caffeine and alcohol can +harm if abused and we should assume when +speaking of them a sane, rational use and regard +abuse as a harmful condition of a different +order altogether.</p> + +<p>As C. E. A. Winslow well says in his +“Healthy Living”—“The fact that tea and coffee +sometimes become tyrants does not mean +that such drinks are necessarily bad.”</p> + +<p>In one thing medical authorities do agree, +however, coffee and tea are not beverages for +children. Moralists to the contrary notwithstanding, +this is again beside the point when +we are considering the reasonable use of coffee +by adults. Adults and children are essentially +different animals using their food intake +differently—the one for upkeep and repair the +other for new construction as well as upkeep +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span> +and repair. They differ basically in metabolism. +They have different metabolic rates and +different expenditures of energy. The child +is turning food into flesh and bone and blood +at a much greater rate than a fully-grown adult +organism is ever required to do. Diets which +would amply sustain an adult may easily be +detrimental to or deficient for young and +growing children. We shall, then, restrict ourselves +herein to the rational use of coffee by +average adults. What can coffee, or its active +principle caffeine, do to harm adults?</p> + +<p>Caffeine definitely increases the force of the +heart beat. Yet Wood, “Notice of Judgment +Under the Food and Drugs Act No. 1455 1912,” +says such an effect may be desirable since a +slower rate and increased force induce cardiac +efficiency. Heavy coffee drinking may produce +a frequent, hard pulse and palpitations, +but this again goes over into the territory of +abuse.</p> + +<p>Coffee tends both to dilate the vascular system +and to constrict it, the net result being a +mass movement of the blood without increased +blood pressure. Coffee has repeatedly been suspected +of damage to the heart and blood vessels +but such suspicions are common in therapy +and evidence is entirely lacking to prove this +point scientifically. Suspicion is here probably +no more legitimate than in many lay superstitions. +While patients with definite heart +trouble should avoid all stimulants the normal +use of coffee by an adult cannot be said to have +an insidious effect upon the heart and blood +vessels.</p> + +<p>While coffee is a diuretic it cannot be convicted +of renal injury as yet. Indeed it is +quite probable that the kidneys become accustomed +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span> +to caffeine while A. R. Cushny (J. Pharmacol. +& Experimental Therapy 4 363) declares +that caffeine does not injure the kidneys even +when given in large dosage over long periods.</p> + +<p>But how about digestion? Years ago Fraser +(J. of Anatomy & Physiology 184 13 1883) said +that coffee and tea hindered the digestion of +protein foodstuffs with the exception of ham +and eggs! This very fortunate immunity renders +the typical American dish a safe breakfast +in any case. In general, however, observations +<i lang="la">in vivo</i> indicate that the amounts of the beverage +usually taken have no evil effects upon +digestion. Indeed some investigators have +found a pronounced increase in gastric secretion +following tea and coffee.</p> + +<p>Hutchinson in his “Food and Dietetics” +says that the digestive disturbance caused by +such infused beverages is negligible in health. +Others have held that the aromatic constituents +of coffee, or the “empyreumatic oil,” upset +digestion. There may be some reason for this; +at least certain individuals tolerate much better +coffee from which these substances have +been removed.</p> + +<p>Caffeine is of course a stimulant to the central +nervous system, particularly that part of +it intimately associated with the gastric function. +How far is its use as such a cerebral +stimulant advisable? Like all stimulants this +will result in greater fatigue on excessive +usage. But as “The Medical Review of Reviews” +once said, “When tea and coffee are +made moderate in strength and partaken of in +sober quantities they are gentle stimulants and +their effect upon the nervous system is salutary.” +A too constant reliance on coffee as a +goad may of course result in nervous irritability. + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span> +Coffee speeds up the metabolism, increases +the body heat and heat elimination, and perhaps +urges us on to greater activity. But, as +the English pharmacologist Dixon remarks in +his “Manual of Pharmacology,” “Caffeine decidedly +facilitates the performance of all forms +of physical work.” Yet certain athletes are +reported to have had their performances injured +by coffee drinking, while Osborn holds +that coffee interferes with the best muscular +efforts. Take Hobson’s choice here, you have +an authority either way and we do love some +one to give our opinions an affidavit. It may +be observed that coffee also increases the rate +and depth of our respiration.</p> + +<p>The following gracefully and euphoniously +named aromatics have been found in roasted +coffee—pyrol, quinol, methylamin, acetone, +furfuryl alcohol, a derivative of saligenin, +phenols, valeric acid, pyridin and trimethylamin. +You are no doubt much surprised and +edified to know that. Some of these compounds +are toxic, but they occur in coffee in amounts +far too small to be dangerous to health. Some +have accused these formidably named derivatives +of bad effects but the work existing shows +caffeine to be the only coffee constituent of +importance in its physiological effects. It is +agreed that caffeine is very rapidly changed by +the body into less active substances and disposed +of, so there can be no cumulative effect +even of that. In old age, as in youth, coffee, +like other stimulants, should be used in moderation +if at all.</p> + +<p>As a whole then what can we conclude about +the use of coffee by adults? Science has not +found it harmful when taken in non-excessive +amounts. Heart patients, neurotics, the young +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span> +and the aged should avoid it. It has not been +proven to cause pathological changes in the +heart, blood vessels or kidneys. It is a valuable +cerebral stimulant and antidote for mental +fatigue, lacking as it does the bad effects of +most stimulants. It also stimulates respiration +and speeds up the metabolism, while its effects +on digestion cannot be said to be definitely +deleterious. Tea, because of its tannin content, +is probably worse than coffee gastrically. +Finally caffeine is rapidly oxidized and has no +cumulative poisonous effect.</p> + +<p>Most important of all we must remember +that individuals differ. They are constructed +of different proteins and have cellular and +glandular processes differing from individual +to individual. What one can do with impunity +another will find bringing him nearer to the +undertaker daily. In this as in all other matters +dietetic common sense and sound judgment +in appraising our own state of health and +the reactions of our organism to various stimuli +will always surpass slavish subservience to +systems or morbid efforts to avoid all harm +and achieve an impossible all good.</p> + +<p>Then if we are to drink coffee let us consider +momentarily how best to make it. One +basic fact stands out—freshly ground coffee is +best. Ground coffee loses its flavor on standing. +It also loses its content of carbon dioxide. +These two factors are definitely related but +exactly how and why we do not know.</p> + +<p>In considering coffee-making precise scientific +methods are everything. Our mothers, +more energetic than the decadent women of +today, made their own bread. They often appraised +various flours by such rude methods +and declared this brand better than that. How +much could they have known about it? Did +they keep every factor constant except the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span> +flour when making their tests? You know +they did not.</p> + +<p>Go into the laboratory in the U. S. Bureau +of Chemistry, where flour bought by the government +is tested, and what do you see? You +see an apparatus enabling the investigator to +make bread from that flour holding every factor +constant except the flour. All other materials +used are precisely the same and all +materials are carefully weighed. The dough is +kneaded mechanically and timed exactly. Fermentation +takes place in a cabinet at a constant +temperature and for a definite time for +all loaves. The same holds for the time and +temperature of baking. The loaves are cooled +just alike on wire meshes for the same time. +They are weighed and their volumes measured. +Then the investigator positively knows which +flour makes the best loaf of bread and the +government buys that flour for its hospitals +and penitentiaries.</p> + +<p>It is exactly the same with coffee. To test +coffees they must be infused in very precise +ways. How is it done? In the first place +pulverized coffee must pass a 30 mesh sieve +and be like fine cornmeal, medium ground coffee +must pass a 10 mesh sieve and be like steel +cut; coarsely ground coffee must pass an 8 +mesh sieve and appear like the rude, home +ground bean of our childhood.</p> + +<p>Then boiling, boiling with egg, percolation +and filtration must be tried on each by precise +methods. A 40c. Mocha-Java coffee may be +used with 12 grams of coffee and 240 cc. of +water, except in the case of percolation which +requires 480 cubic centimeters of water for +12 grams of coffee. In boiling with egg 10 +grams of egg white were added. The infusion +must be governed precisely.</p> + +<p>Boiling takes place in a seamless white +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span> +enamel pot, cold water being poured over the +coffee, the whole brought to a boil and boiling +continued for three minutes; the infusion then +stood five minutes and was ready. It was +strained through cheese cloth. Percolation was +carried out in the usual manner with an +ordinary percolator, the water being cold at +the start and boiling being continued for five +minutes. In filtration a wire strainer was put +across the top of the pot covered with a piece +of tennis flannel upon which the coffee lay. +Boiling water was poured through once.</p> + +<p>The brews were tested hot, for strength, +color, and flavor by various people who did not +know the methods of preparation. Six degrees +of strength were observed with specific gravities +of the brew by test as shown in the table—</p> + +<table> +<tr><td class="tdl">Very weak</td> + <td class="tdr">1.0045 Specific Gravity</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Weak</td> + <td class="tdr">1.0055 Specific Gravity</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Moderately strong</td> + <td class="tdr pad2">1.0060 Specific Gravity</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Standard</td> + <td class="tdr">1.0065 Specific Gravity</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">A little too strong</td> + <td class="tdr">1.0070 Specific Gravity</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Much too strong</td> + <td class="tdr">1.0080 Specific Gravity</td></tr> +</table> + +<p class="unindent">The specific gravity was taken on the cold brew +and a standard, 1.0065 was selected for further +tests. The following table indicating condition +of coffee, method of brew, weight of coffee used +and cost per cup is of considerable interest—</p> + +<table> + +<tr><td class="tdc">Condition</td> + <td class="tdc">Method<br>of infusion</td> + <td class="tdc">S. G. 1.0065<br>Weight Coffee<br>Grams</td> + <td class="tdc pad2">Cost<br>per cup<br>cents</td></tr> + +<tr><td class="tdl">Pulverized</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Boiling</td> + <td class="tdc">12.05</td> + <td class="tdr">.63</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Pulverized</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Percolated</td> + <td class="tdc">12.78</td> + <td class="tdr">.71</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Pulverized</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Boiled with egg</td> + <td class="tdc">12.85</td> + <td class="tdr pad2">1.05</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Pulverized</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Filtered</td> + <td class="tdc">12.31</td> + <td class="tdr">.72</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Medium</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Boiling</td> + <td class="tdc">15.89</td> + <td class="tdr">.83</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Medium</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Percolated</td> + <td class="tdc">22.94</td> + <td class="tdr">1.29</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Medium</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Boiled with egg</td> + <td class="tdc">16.71</td> + <td class="tdr">1.29</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Medium</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Filtered</td> + <td class="tdc">30.00</td> + <td class="tdr">1.73</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Coarse</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Boiling</td> + <td class="tdc">19.79</td> + <td class="tdr">1.03</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Coarse</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Percolated</td> + <td class="tdc">27.52</td> + <td class="tdr">1.54</td></tr> +<tr><td class="tdl">Coarse</td> + <td class="tdl pad2">Boiled with egg</td> + <td class="tdc">21.27</td> + <td class="tdr">1.56</td></tr> +</table> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span> +Hence it is apparent that pulverizing is the +most efficient method of grinding. The best +brew is made by filtration. Boiling with egg +is second best while plain boiling and percolation +are the poorest of all. In general, strength +and color of the brew are quite independent of +the blend and price but depend upon the grind. +The flavor, however, varies markedly with the +coffee brand and price. Java, Sumatra and +Bogota give weaker infusions under the same +conditions than do Mocha and Santos. The +order of preference for flavor stood—Java, +Sumatra, Santos, Bogota and Mocha. It was +also observed that coffee which had stood long +after grinding gave an infusion of a lower +specific gravity and hence of impaired strength.</p> + +<p>The effect of adding sugar and cream to +coffee is not well understood. Some assert +that the fat of cream and the fats of the coffee +bean form indigestible compounds, but there is +scarcely sufficient experimental evidence to +justify this. The tannin compounds in coffee +are apparently not precipitated, as has frequently +been stated, by the addition of sugar +and cream. Testing a centrifuged cream from +a beverage coffee gave no appreciable evidence +of tannin while the remaining coffee infusion +gave the normal positive tests for tannin. It +is certainly true, however, according to one authority +that black coffee without any additional +substances, with the possible exception of a +portion of sugar, is the most beneficial form of +the beverage.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> + +<div class="chapter"> +<h2 class="nobreak" id="Transcribers_Note">Transcriber’s Note:</h2> +</div> + +<p>Obvious printing errors, such as +partially printed letters and punctuation, +were corrected. Three misspelled words were corrected. +</p> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75599 ***</div> +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/75599-h/images/cover.jpg b/75599-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3d8771a --- /dev/null +++ b/75599-h/images/cover.jpg |
