Path: alberta!quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyber store.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news2.near.net!das-news2.ha rvard.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!cr39+ From: Christopher B Reeve Newsgroups: alt.drugs Subject: Re: Cigarettes radioactive? Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 21:38:19 -0500 Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 81 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: andrew.cmu.edu In-Reply-To: <3adsnd$n3v@romulus.rutgers.edu> > I've got some bad news for you, buddy. *Everything* is radioactive to > one degree or another (well, just about anything, and definately > anything you're going to find in nature). Hmmm... polonium-210? I'm > not sure about that one, Yes, polonium-210, the same stuff that atom bombs are made of. I believe it is the opinion of C. Everette Koop that this radioactivity, not tar, accounts for at least 90% of all smoking-related lung cancer [1]. Other estimates that have been made are 50% [2] and 95% [3]. This means that we're not talking about any normal amount of radiation here; also, consider that you're sucking this radiation into your lungs, and nicotine paralyzes the cilial hairs in your airways, so it's hard for your body to expunge this material. BTW, that 95% figure is based on a mathematically- calculated potential, i.e. it's not just a guess. In fact, Dr. R.T. Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, agrees with the risk, asserting that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source" [3]. Bam! That quote kind of knocked you up the head, eh? You're not to blame if it surprises you; the tobacco companies are. [1] Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction, Surgeon General's Report, 1988. [2] Ponte, Lowell. "Radioactivity: The New-Found Danger in Cigarettes," Reader's Digest, March 1986, pp. 123-127. [3] Litwak, Mark. "Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?" Whole Life Times, Mid-April/May, 1985, p. 11. > I don't recall the exact elements in cigarettes, but if that's in > there, it may be an _ingredient_ of the fertilizer, but its certainly > not a _by-product_. Yes, the theory is that it's from the fertilizer, which is thrown up by the plows and sucked in by the tobacco leaves' tiny hairs, and also through the root system. > Stop worrying so much about radioactivity, its all over the "natural" > world, and isn't anywhere near as dangerous as some people would have > you believe. > >bill clark >rutgers university Well, I think you're jumping the gun big time here. There is a reason why cigarettes are causing hundreds of thousands of cases of lung cancer every year, and yet, Slikker in his experiments on pot-smoking monkeys could not find a single sign of lung cancer. Supporting the radioactivity notion is the finding that smokers of low-tar-and-nicotine cigarettes die of lung cancer just as much as smokers of other cigarettes [4]. Also, even the most potent carcinogen found in cigarettes, benzopyrene, is only present in quantities sufficient to account for about 1% of the cancer found in smokers [3]. Why don't you know any of this? Because the tobacco industry is that powerful. Also, tobacco smoke is theorized to work as a kind of "magnet" for airborne radioactive particles such as radon, causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on walls, rugs, or draperies [2]. I wonder if this same thing happens with marijuana smoke? Anybody know? [4] Hammond, E.C., L. Garfinkel, H. Seidman, and E.A. Lew. "Some Recent findings concerning cigarette smoking," In: Origins of Human Cancer. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1977. p. 101-112. There is still much left to be discovered about the radioactivity theory, but I think it's safe to say that the evidence in support at this point in time is much stronger than that against. It seems to be a real danger. What is outrageous is just the fact that this theory has been around since 1964, and the public still isn't fully aware of it. The joy of sources ... -- "The ambition of every poor Mexican is to sell enough pot so that he can get rich enough to get drunk on alcohol." (Anonymous Mexican, from Lester Grinspoon, _Marihuana Reconsidered_, 214)