My Misunderstanding of Cigarette Dangers... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 11-06-2007, 11:57 AM

I was skimming through Reddit and came across an article from cannabisculture.com about what from cigarettes causes cancer. I was expecting a simple tirade on carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, and lead... but this article brought something new to the table, at least from my experience. It goes into why documented cases of lung cancer really only started around the 1930s.

Radioactive fertilizer. (forgive the long article, but it's all pertinent)

Quote:

Radioactive tobacco
by David Malmo-Levine (02 Jan, 2002)

Cannabis is often compared to tobacco, with the damage caused by smoking tobacco given as a reason to prohibit use of cannabis. Yet most of the harms caused by tobacco use are due not to tar, but to the use of radioactive fertilizers. Surprisingly, radiation seems to be the most dangerous and important factor behind tobacco lung damage.

Radioactive fertilizer

It's a well established but little known fact that commercially grown tobacco is contaminated with radiation. The major source of this radiation is phosphate fertilizer.1 The big tobacco companies all use chemical phosphate fertilizer, which is high in radioactive metals, year after year on the same soil. These metals build up in the soil, attach themselves to the resinous tobacco leaf and ride tobacco trichomes in tobacco smoke, gathering in small "hot spots" in the small-air passageways of the lungs.2 Tobacco is especially effective at absorbing radioactive elements from phosphate fertilizers, and also from naturally occurring radiation in the soil, air, and water.3

To grow what the tobacco industry calls "more flavorful" tobacco, US farmers use high-phosphate fertilizers. The phosphate is taken from a rock mineral, apatite, that is ground into powder, dissolved in acid and further processed. Apatite rock also contains radium, and the radioactive elements lead 210 and polonium 210. The radioactivity of common chemical fertilizer can be verified with a Geiger-Mueller counter and an open sack of everyday 13-13-13 type of fertilizer (or any other chemical fertilizer high in phosphate content).4

Conservative estimates put the level of radiation absorbed by a pack-and-a-half a day smoker at the equivalent of 300 chest X-rays every year.5 The Office of Radiation, Chemical & Biological Safety at Michigan State University reports that the radiation level for the same smoker was as high as 800 chest X-rays per year.6 Another report argues that a typical nicotine user might be getting the equivalent of almost 22,000 chest X-rays per year.7

US Surgeon General C Everett Koop stated on national television in 1990 that tobacco radiation is probably responsible for 90% of tobacco-related cancer.8 Dr RT Ravenholt, former director of World Health Surveys at the Centers for Disease Control, has stated that "Americans are exposed to far more radiation from tobacco smoke than from any other source."9

Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210, but were unable to cause cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco.10 The most potent non-radioactive chemical, benzopyrene, exists in cigarettes in amounts sufficient to account for only 1% of the cancer found in smokers.9

Smoke screen

Surprisingly, the US National Cancer Institute, with an annual budget of $500 million, has no active grants for research on radiation as a cause of lung cancer.1

Tobacco smoking has been popular for centuries,11 but lung cancer rates have only increased significantly after the 1930's.12 In 1930 the lung cancer death rate for white US males was 3.8 per 100,000 people. By 1956 the rate had increased almost tenfold, to 31 per 100,000.13 Between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled, commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers.14

Publicly available internal memos of tobacco giant Philip Morris indicate that the tobacco corporation was well aware of radiation contamination in 1974, and that they had means to remove polonium from tobacco in 1980, by using ammonium phosphate as a fertilizer, instead of calcium phosphate. One memo describes switching to ammonium phosphate as a "valid but expensive point."15

Attorney Amos Hausner, son of the prosecutor who sent Nazi Adolf Eichmann to the gallows, is using these memos as evidence to fight the biggest lawsuit in Israel's history, to make one Israeli and six US tobacco companies pay up to $8 billion for allegedly poisoning Israelis with radioactive cigarettes.16

Organic solutions

The radioactive elements in phosphate fertilizers also make their way into our food and drink. Many food products, especially nuts, fruits, and leafy plants like tobacco absorb radioactive elements from the soil, and concentrate them within themselves.17

The fluorosilicic acid used to make the "fluoridated water" most of us get from our taps is made from various fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers during the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers. This fluoride solution put into our water for "strong teeth" also contains radioactive elements from the phosphate extraction.18

Although eating and drinking radioactive products is not beneficial, the most harmful and direct way to consume these elements is through smoking them.19

The unnecessary radiation delivered from soil-damaging, synthetic chemical fertilizers can easily be reduced through the use of alternative phosphate sources including organic fertilizers.20 In one test, an organic fertilizer appeared to emit less alpha radiation than a chemical fertilizer.21 More tests are needed to confirm this vital bit of harm-reduction information.

Organic fertilizers such as organic vegetable compost, animal manure, wood ash and seaweed have proven to be sustainable and non-harmful to microbes, worms, farmers and eaters or smokers. Chemical phosphates may seem like a bargain compared to natural phosphorous, until you factor in the health and environmental costs.

To ensure that cannabis remains the safest way to get high, we must always use organic fertilizers and non-toxic pesticides. We should also properly cure the buds, take advantage of high-potency breeding and use smart-smoking devices like vaporizers and double-chambered glass water bongs. These will all help to address concern over potential lung damage far more effectively than either a jail cell or a 12-step program.

Tobacco smokers can also use this information to avoid radioactive brands of tobacco. American Spirit is one of a few companies that offers an organic line of cigarettes, and organic cigars are also available from a few companies. You can also grow your own tobacco, which is surprisingly easy and fun.

Until the public has an accurate understanding of how phosphate fertilizers carry radiation, and why commercial tobacco causes lung cancer but cannabis does not, there will be many needless tobacco-related deaths, and increased resistance to the full legalization of marijuana.

References

1. Winters, TH and Franza, JR. 'Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,' New England Journal of Medicine, 1982. 306(6): 364-365,
2. Edward A Martell, PhD. 'Letter to the Editor,' New England Journal of Medicine, 1982. 307(5): 309-313
3. Ponte, Lowell. 'Radioactivity: The New-Found Danger in Cigarettes,' Reader's Digest, March 1986. pp. 123-127.
4. Kilthau, GF. 'Cancer risk in relation to radioactivity in tobacco,' Radiologic Technology, Vol 67, January 11, 1996,
5. Maryland Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. Website, 2001,
6. Office of Environmental Health and Safety, Utah State University. 'Cigarettes are a Major Source of Radiation Exposure,' Safety Line, Issue 33, Fall 1996, web
7. Nursing & Allied Healthweek, 1996,
8. Herer, Jack. The Emperor Wears No Clothes, 11th edition, 1998. p. 110, web
9. Litwak, Mark. 'Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?' Whole Life Times, April/May, 1985. pp 11, web
10. Yuille, CL; Berke, HL; Hull, T. 'Lung cancer following Pb210 inhalation in rats.' Radiation Res, 1967. 31:760-774.
11. Borio, Gene. Tobacco Timeline. Website, 2001, web
12. Taylor, Peter. The Smoke Ring. Pantheon Books, NY, 1984. pp. 2-3, web
13. Smith, Lendon, MD. 'There Ought to Be a Law,' Chiroweb.com, November 20, 1992, web
14. Marmorstein, J. 'Lung cancer: is the increasing incidence due to radioactive polonium in cigarettes?' South Medical Journal, February 1986. 79(2):145-50, web
15. Phillip Morris internal memo, April 2 1980. Available online at www.pmdocs.com, web
16. Goldin, Megan. "'Radioactive' cigarettes cited in Israeli lawsuit." Reuters, June 23, 2000.
17. Health Physics Society, 'Naturally occuring radioactive materials factsheet,' 1997. see also: Watters, RL. Hansen, WR. 'The hazards implication of the transfer of unsupported 210 Po from alkaline soil to plants,' Health Physics Journal, April 1970. 18(4):409-13, web and web
18. Glasser, George. 'Fluoride and the phosphate connection.' Earth Island Journal, earthisland.org, web
19. Watson, AP. 'Polonium-210 and Lead-210 in Food and Tobacco Products: A Review of Parameters and an Estimate of Potential Exposure and Dose.' Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1983. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.
20. Burnett, William; Schultz, Michael; Hull, Carter. 'Behavior of Radionuclides During Ammonocarbonation of Phosphogypsum.' Florida State University, Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. March, 1995, web
21. Hornby, Paul, Dr. Personal communication, 2001.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco/

Ustwo · 11-06-2007, 12:11 PM

Interesting take but I don't think thats it.

Lung cancer rates rose proportionately with consumption which grew in the 30's and exploded in the 40's as cigarettes became a part of the war culture. I don't have the graph handy but the one I saw, the lung cancer rates always lagged just behind consumption, even in the early part of the century.

I'm sure that perhaps this could also contribute, but I think its a bit of a smoke screen itself to cover the real risk of smoking.

"Hey man, mines all organic, its not gunna give you cancer man."

Willravel · 11-06-2007, 12:23 PM

Anyone would be a fool (or deceitful) to say that carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, and lead aren't dangerous. I simply had no idea there was potentially radioactive material in cigarette manufacturing. Radiation is proven to be a cause of cancer, and it could have an effect on health.

If you're a smoker (asking generally), does this effect you at all? Or do you just ignore it along with all the other proven facts about how smoking can cause disease and death?

World's King · 11-06-2007, 12:33 PM

Smoking kills people.

We all know that. What exactly it is that kills is almost irrelevant.

And I'm still gonna smoke.

Willravel · 11-06-2007, 12:52 PM

Radiation can cause impotence, fyi.

Leto · 11-06-2007, 12:53 PM

I don't smoke, but I did notice that after a night out at the club, bar or pub back when smoking was legal there, the following morning I was short of breath. It seemed to have a huge effect on my well being to consume all that second hand smoke. Not to mention the smell of my clothes, hair and skin which would drive my gf to insist that I either slept on the couch or showered immediately.

Yes, I think smoking had larger effects than the chance of cancer from radioactive fertalizer.

Willravel · 11-06-2007, 12:59 PM

The effect of long term use of products with radiation are cumulative. If you smoke for 10 years, you've got 10 years worth of radioactive material inside you because your body can't filter it the same as it would other things. Imagine 2 packs a day for 40 years, each cigarette having a trace amount of radiation. Then imagine the lung cancer rate raising after radiation was introduced.

Glory's Sun · 11-06-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If you're a smoker (asking generally), does this effect you at all? Or do you just ignore it along with all the other proven facts about how smoking can cause disease and death?

No.. it doesn't really concern me. We all die, we all breathe toxins in daily. I choose to smoke. I know the dangers. Whatever it is that can kill in the cig doesn't really matter. It's a person's choice whether to pick up the habit or not. :shrug:

I guess, I've just always been in the "we all die from something anyway" camp.

Crack · 11-06-2007, 01:05 PM

Life kills people, as do cars, guns, dogs, falling down, sleep, food, water, and pretty much everything else.

Quote:

Kid #3: My Mommy says smoking kills.
Nick Naylor: Oh, is your Mommy a doctor?
Kid #3: No.
Nick Naylor: A scientific researcher of some kind?
Kid #3: No.
Nick Naylor: Well then she's hardly a credible expert, is she?

Quote:

Nick Naylor: Gentleman. It's called education. It doesn't come off the side of a cigarette carton. It comes from our teachers, and more importantly, our parents. It is the job of every parent to warn their children of all the dangers of the world including cigarettes so that one day when they get older, they can choose for themselves.

Great movie.

World's King · 11-06-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Radiation can cause impotence, fyi.

Everything works just fine...

healer · 11-06-2007, 01:29 PM

I'm a two cigarette a day smoker. So while this information is pertinent, I don't think it's going to make me think twice before lighting up my next one.

Maybe if I smoked more.

snowy · 11-06-2007, 01:34 PM

I occasionally smoke tobacco mixed with another, stronger psychoactive substance.

I don't see myself doing it forever; it's definitely something that will stop once I have children. I'm going to die some day anyways. I could be hit by a bus tomorrow. Plus, what I do behind closed doors in my own home is my business. I fully support laws that limit smoking in public places, including restaurants, because others shouldn't be harmed by my choice.

This is just one more bad thing that tobacco does. Oh well. C'est la vie, you know?

blahblah454 · 11-06-2007, 03:44 PM

Well this was interesting to learn, but I don't smoke and I never will so I suppose it doesn't really bother me all that much. If a pub or bar allows smoking I won't go to it, if an event allows smoking I won't go to it.
Good for you if you want to smoke, but I don't and I avoid it at all costs, this is just another one to add to the list of why to stay away from it.

Journeyman · 11-06-2007, 04:30 PM

Pack a day, two packs on a bad day, three packs a day if I go drinking... but I haven't had a cigarette in 20 days. Helps a ton on the treadmill, I can't drive more than 20 minutes without smelling somebody's cooking from two blocks away, and I wish I didn't have to quit with A) A convenience store 5 minutes away and B) Two family members in the house that both smoke. If you need to quit, go camping or something.

Plan9 · 11-06-2007, 04:36 PM

I'm cool with people smoking whatever until their ass is always in the hospital and driving up these here insurance premium rates through the roof.

dlish · 11-07-2007, 01:43 AM

its the 'in thing' to smoke shisha here in dubai (aka hubbly bubbly). ive recently given up the social shisha smoking scene (once a month). but in the last few days ive read an artical that said that tests show that 1 session of shisha that can last up to 2 hrs is like smoking 80 cigarettes.

so im definately not going back to it.

Plan9 · 11-07-2007, 06:11 AM

Wow. Yeah, you might be better off sucking on the tailpipe of a diesel truck.

MSD · 11-08-2007, 06:56 AM

I occasionally smoke cloves or cigars when I'm drinking, and oddly enough, it seems to clear up my asthma, but the cigarette equivalent is probably about a pack a year.

Weed does the same thing, but the past two times I've smoked, I've gotten really sick in the next two days. Pneumonia one time and a cold the other, I think (I'm still coughing from that one.) I think it's a coincidence, but I'm not sure if I want to smoke out of that bowl again since I've gotten sick from it every time and not from anything else.

I figure that considering how little I smoke, driving in rush hour with the windows open next to tractor trailers and with tens of thousands of others, that I'm more likely to get cancer from all the auto exhaust than from smoking every few months.

Ustwo · 11-08-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I occasionally smoke cloves or cigars when I'm drinking, and oddly enough, it seems to clear up my asthma,

If the hygiene theory of asthma is correct then its quite possibly true for you. One of the concepts for why people become asthmatic is living in to clean an environment, (and this has scientific support) so that your natural defenses to internal parasites have nothing to do and focus too much of a reaction to minor irritants.

Smoking that kinda crap would refocus your body from over doing a reaction to dustmites or whatever and get it cleaning out the crap you were putting in your lungs.

Willravel · 11-08-2007, 10:26 AM

A vast majority of scientific evidence supports the idea that asthma is caused by:
Exposure to household cleaners or
Exposure to polluted air or
Genetic (allergies)

thingstodo · 11-08-2007, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

No.. it doesn't really concern me. We all die, we all breathe toxins in daily. I choose to smoke. I know the dangers. Whatever it is that can kill in the cig doesn't really matter. It's a person's choice whether to pick up the habit or not. :shrug:

I guess, I've just always been in the "we all die from something anyway" camp.

There are a lot of ways to die. A slow death by lung cancer is pretty bad, as is all the complications of cardiovascular disease brought on by the effects of smoking.

Yes, we all die. I'd prefer to have a better quality of life in my last years. Plus, smoking is a sign of weakness, I don't care what you say. To spend nearly $1,500 on smoke every year for no benefit is just weak.

casual user · 11-08-2007, 06:50 PM

i never knew about that radioactive shit, but i was always fully aware that tobacco cigarettes are worse than marijuana if for nothing else but their addictive properties

Racnad · 11-08-2007, 07:14 PM

I have a college professor who told us that tobacco was a "natural sieve" for certain radioactive isotopes and that cannibis was more so. Don't ask me to quote a study for that - I can't.

But this article makes an erronious assumption that because fertilizers contain a product known to contain radium are used in tobacco production, that tobacco deposits more radioactive isotopes in the lungs of smokers than cannabis. Radium in varying levels is found in soils in many places, and is likely present in some levels in food and other argricultural products (read: cannibis) that is grown in areas with more naturally occuring radium and other isotopes in the soil.

The article also uses a red herring with the word "organic." Many people associate the word "organic" with "healthy," but just because something is "organic" does not mean it's healthy, nor does it having anything to do with the amount of radioactive isotopes it contains. You can make a skin cream with poison oak/ivy and call it "organic and 100 percent natural" since poison oak and poison ivy are 100 percent natural plants. That doesn't mean it is good for you.

Ustwo · 11-08-2007, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

A vast majority of scientific evidence supports the idea that asthma is caused by:
Exposure to household cleaners or
Exposure to polluted air or
Genetic (allergies)

Well if you say its a vast majority, it must be true.

Willravel · 11-08-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

(and this has scientific support)

TheFu · 11-14-2007, 12:24 AM

I don't buy it. The same phosphate fertilizers are used on the produce we consume. Wouldn't there be a huge jump in cancers in the digestive system too?

stevie667 · 11-14-2007, 03:49 AM

Bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks, all of it.

Using the word 'radiation' as the new terr'ist. Radiation is not going to be high enough in those concentrations to do any harm whatosever. My uncle has radon gas eminating from miles around him in greater concentrations than you will ever see from this. There is not going to be a difference between smoking radioactive lead and normal lead in how quick it messes you up, and polonium has a half life of less than 6 months IIRC.

Not only that it doesn't mention what type, there is a difference between them. I've actually seen some evidence suggesting that low level radiation can be somewhat beneficial, stimulating DNA repair and cellular reinforcment. If you want to be concerned about ionising radiation, don't go outside, ever.

Also, cannabis smoked pure without a filter is sooo much worse for you than cigarettes, this i cannot stress enough. I went through a phase of using stealth joints (cannabis put into cigarette tubes), i got through about 3 puffs before the filters clogged with tar and gunge to the extent it dripped off.

biznatch · 11-15-2007, 10:45 AM

I smoke American Spirits, they don't add anything to the tobacco like other companies do. Before everyone gets on my ass, I know I'm not smoking "healthy" cigarettes, but I just like the concept of people not adding artificial stuff.
I might try the organic ones, for now I use the regulars.
I think the article is interesting, and that it's worth looking into. It's always interesting to shed new light on something...if it turns out not to be radiation, oh well, but if it does, then that'll certainly help changing the damage that tobacco does to people.

11-06-2007, 12:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Interesting take but I don't think thats it. Lung cancer rates rose proportionately with consumption which grew in the 30's and exploded in the 40's as cigarettes became a part of the war culture. I don't have the graph handy but the one I saw, the lung cancer rates always lagged just behind consumption, even in the early part of the century. I'm sure that perhaps this could also contribute, but I think its a bit of a smoke screen itself to cover the real risk of smoking. "Hey man, mines all organic, its not gunna give you cancer man." __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-06-2007, 12:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	Smoking kills people. We all know that. What exactly it is that kills is almost irrelevant. And I'm still gonna smoke. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

11-06-2007, 01:34 PM	#12 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	I occasionally smoke tobacco mixed with another, stronger psychoactive substance. I don't see myself doing it forever; it's definitely something that will stop once I have children. I'm going to die some day anyways. I could be hit by a bus tomorrow. Plus, what I do behind closed doors in my own home is my business. I fully support laws that limit smoking in public places, including restaurants, because others shouldn't be harmed by my choice. This is just one more bad thing that tobacco does. Oh well. C'est la vie, you know? __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

11-06-2007, 04:36 PM	#15 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	I'm cool with people smoking whatever until their ass is always in the hospital and driving up these here insurance premium rates through the roof. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-07-2007, 01:43 AM	#16 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	its the 'in thing' to smoke shisha here in dubai (aka hubbly bubbly). ive recently given up the social shisha smoking scene (once a month). but in the last few days ive read an artical that said that tests show that 1 session of shisha that can last up to 2 hrs is like smoking 80 cigarettes. so im definately not going back to it. __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

11-06-2007, 12:23 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Anyone would be a fool (or deceitful) to say that carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, and lead aren't dangerous. I simply had no idea there was potentially radioactive material in cigarette manufacturing. Radiation is proven to be a cause of cancer, and it could have an effect on health. If you're a smoker (asking generally), does this effect you at all? Or do you just ignore it along with all the other proven facts about how smoking can cause disease and death?

11-06-2007, 12:52 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Radiation can cause impotence, fyi.

11-06-2007, 12:53 PM	#6 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	I don't smoke, but I did notice that after a night out at the club, bar or pub back when smoking was legal there, the following morning I was short of breath. It seemed to have a huge effect on my well being to consume all that second hand smoke. Not to mention the smell of my clothes, hair and skin which would drive my gf to insist that I either slept on the couch or showered immediately. Yes, I think smoking had larger effects than the chance of cancer from radioactive fertalizer.

11-06-2007, 12:59 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The effect of long term use of products with radiation are cumulative. If you smoke for 10 years, you've got 10 years worth of radioactive material inside you because your body can't filter it the same as it would other things. Imagine 2 packs a day for 40 years, each cigarette having a trace amount of radiation. Then imagine the lung cancer rate raising after radiation was introduced.

11-06-2007, 03:44 PM	#13 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	Well this was interesting to learn, but I don't smoke and I never will so I suppose it doesn't really bother me all that much. If a pub or bar allows smoking I won't go to it, if an event allows smoking I won't go to it. Good for you if you want to smoke, but I don't and I avoid it at all costs, this is just another one to add to the list of why to stay away from it.

11-06-2007, 04:30 PM	#14 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	Pack a day, two packs on a bad day, three packs a day if I go drinking... but I haven't had a cigarette in 20 days. Helps a ton on the treadmill, I can't drive more than 20 minutes without smelling somebody's cooking from two blocks away, and I wish I didn't have to quit with A) A convenience store 5 minutes away and B) Two family members in the house that both smoke. If you need to quit, go camping or something.

11-07-2007, 06:11 AM	#17 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Wow. Yeah, you might be better off sucking on the tailpipe of a diesel truck. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

11-08-2007, 06:56 AM	#18 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I occasionally smoke cloves or cigars when I'm drinking, and oddly enough, it seems to clear up my asthma, but the cigarette equivalent is probably about a pack a year. Weed does the same thing, but the past two times I've smoked, I've gotten really sick in the next two days. Pneumonia one time and a cold the other, I think (I'm still coughing from that one.) I think it's a coincidence, but I'm not sure if I want to smoke out of that bowl again since I've gotten sick from it every time and not from anything else. I figure that considering how little I smoke, driving in rush hour with the windows open next to tractor trailers and with tens of thousands of others, that I'm more likely to get cancer from all the auto exhaust than from smoking every few months.

11-08-2007, 10:26 AM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	A vast majority of scientific evidence supports the idea that asthma is caused by: Exposure to household cleaners or Exposure to polluted air or Genetic (allergies)

11-08-2007, 06:50 PM	#22 (permalink)
casual user Crazy Location: everywhere and nowhere	i never knew about that radioactive shit, but i was always fully aware that tobacco cigarettes are worse than marijuana if for nothing else but their addictive properties

11-08-2007, 07:14 PM	#23 (permalink)
Racnad Crazy Location: Washington State	I have a college professor who told us that tobacco was a "natural sieve" for certain radioactive isotopes and that cannibis was more so. Don't ask me to quote a study for that - I can't. But this article makes an erronious assumption that because fertilizers contain a product known to contain radium are used in tobacco production, that tobacco deposits more radioactive isotopes in the lungs of smokers than cannabis. Radium in varying levels is found in soils in many places, and is likely present in some levels in food and other argricultural products (read: cannibis) that is grown in areas with more naturally occuring radium and other isotopes in the soil. The article also uses a red herring with the word "organic." Many people associate the word "organic" with "healthy," but just because something is "organic" does not mean it's healthy, nor does it having anything to do with the amount of radioactive isotopes it contains. You can make a skin cream with poison oak/ivy and call it "organic and 100 percent natural" since poison oak and poison ivy are 100 percent natural plants. That doesn't mean it is good for you.

11-14-2007, 12:24 AM	#26 (permalink)
TheFu Crazy	I don't buy it. The same phosphate fertilizers are used on the produce we consume. Wouldn't there be a huge jump in cancers in the digestive system too?

11-14-2007, 03:49 AM	#27 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	Bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks, all of it. Using the word 'radiation' as the new terr'ist. Radiation is not going to be high enough in those concentrations to do any harm whatosever. My uncle has radon gas eminating from miles around him in greater concentrations than you will ever see from this. There is not going to be a difference between smoking radioactive lead and normal lead in how quick it messes you up, and polonium has a half life of less than 6 months IIRC. Not only that it doesn't mention what type, there is a difference between them. I've actually seen some evidence suggesting that low level radiation can be somewhat beneficial, stimulating DNA repair and cellular reinforcment. If you want to be concerned about ionising radiation, don't go outside, ever. Also, cannabis smoked pure without a filter is sooo much worse for you than cigarettes, this i cannot stress enough. I went through a phase of using stealth joints (cannabis put into cigarette tubes), i got through about 3 puffs before the filters clogged with tar and gunge to the extent it dripped off. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information. Last edited by stevie667; 11-14-2007 at 03:54 AM..

11-15-2007, 10:45 AM	#28 (permalink)
biznatch Junkie Location: France	I smoke American Spirits, they don't add anything to the tobacco like other companies do. Before everyone gets on my ass, I know I'm not smoking "healthy" cigarettes, but I just like the concept of people not adding artificial stuff. I might try the organic ones, for now I use the regulars. I think the article is interesting, and that it's worth looking into. It's always interesting to shed new light on something...if it turns out not to be radiation, oh well, but if it does, then that'll certainly help changing the damage that tobacco does to people. __________________ Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread