• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

"It's not tobacco's tar which kills, but the radiation.&q

J

jaradthescot

New Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
35
The article only mentions this happening in US tobacco, and obviously focuses on cigarettes. Does anyone know if this is an issue for cuban or non-american tobacco? Also the article is from 2002 (link at bottom), has anyone read anything that furthers/debunks this?

Radioactive tobacco
by David Malmo-Levine (02 Jan, 2002)
It's not tobacco's tar which kills, but the radiation!

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.
Click to expand...

source
 
David Malmo-Levine is a pot trafficker. Or was. I'm pretty sure.

edit: so take this article with a grain of salt. Also, it probably has a strong hidden agenda.
 
aye, the source is "cannabis culture" but this particular article is about tobacco. Or are you saying that he makes stuff up to further his pro-pot arguments?
 
jaradthescot said:
aye, the source is "cannabis culture" but this particular article is about tobacco. Or are you saying that he makes stuff up to further his pro-pot arguments?
Click to expand...

I'm saying it is a possibility... The sources he use... well, some look credible, and others not so much. But this also seems very geared towards the chemicals that are used in cigarettes rather than the tabaccy.

Regardless, there is and always will be a risk in smoking anything, and if that worries you or you don't want the risk, maybe you shouldn't smoke (not you specifically). I'm not trying to be a dick -- don't get me wrong, but it just seems, to me, that you should know there is a risk in smoking regardless of whether or not it comes from the soil or not.

Edit: Oh, I'm pretty sure most cigars are "organic" by the way
 
Oh definitely, but at the same time it's an odds thing. I don't care if you'd get the greatest feeling in the world from drinking rat poison, if it has a 100% mortality rate I'm not going to try it. Which is why I (try to) keep up with Tabacco research. I don't mind the minor effects of cigars and the few years lost because of how much I do/will enjoy them over decades. If this just furthers that then great news.
 
jaradthescot said:
Oh definitely, but at the same time it's an odds thing. I don't care if you'd get the greatest feeling in the world from drinking rat poison, if it has a 100% mortality rate I'm not going to try it. Which is why I (try to) keep up with Tabacco research. I don't mind the minor effects of cigars and the few years lost because of how much I do/will enjoy them over decades. If this just furthers that then great news.
Click to expand...

Well, to answer the original question instead of derailing you :sign: : it is my understanding that handmade premium cigars (read: not swishers/philies) are very unlike cigarettes, and do not contain paper, preservatives, and/or other additives. I remember reading somewhere that cigars are natural agricultural products, like apples or pineapples. But that doesn't mean they are 100% organic, just like apples are not 100% organic.

I believe the only organic pesticides are used and the soil contains worms for enrichment purposes. I may be wrong.
 
Radiation is everywhere. We are constantly around it.
When you fly on a plane, you get more radiation than you would being on the ground.
You will also get more radiation by living in Finland than living in Chernobyl Russia.

Scientists have been researching how much a person can absorb but can never find what is considered safe low level radiation and dangerous high level.
To kill someone with radiation is a long time consuming process. After the person gets a high does of radiation, it will take decades for it to take affect. Scientists do not know which radiation particle can cause you cancer. It is unknown. So take the article with a grain of salt.

btw. Nuclear power is safe. Do not let this article scare you.
 
"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"

The fertilizer that this crackpot is talking about is the same thing every farm, orchard, or commercial vegetable grower in the country uses in some form or another. What I'm trying to say is that if this is a major problem, then every food we induce is in some way going to kill us. I'm not saying that this stuff is not radioactive in some way, but I think you probably get a bigger dose from standing to close to the microwave than eating an apple or smoking a cigar(regardless where the tobacco is from). Sorry, I'll stop preaching now, but this kind of rhetoric aggravates me. :)
 
Is it possible that we get far more concentrated doses from smoking it than from eating, or is he simple, as you say "a crackpot"? :p
 
This seems to be an opinion piece directed at furthering his cause of the "wonderful world of cannabis". At best, it's skewed journalism.
 
I'm not a soil scientist, I'm a Horticulturist. Also, I do have a little background as an agronomist for Farmland Industries in a past life. With the classes I took in college and the classes I took to get my certification, I really think this guy is a crackpot. If this were the case several people would be freaking out about the radiation issues. Just my 2 cents.
 
fatman1267 said:
If this were the case several people would be freaking out about the radiation issues. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

The radiation maybe correct, but since it is low level radiation, our body can handle it.
Radiation is everywhere. It is dangerous when it is a high level in a short time frame.
 
The byproducts of burnt tobacco tar are the primary carcinogens in tobacco (the unburnt tar is not carcinogenic).
 
I think we should be a lot closer allied with our BOTL's who enjoy a different leaf. Their fight to decriminalize marijuana is closely related to our fight to keep tobacco legal. Any argument about smoking bans in cities for tobacco is used against marijuana. There has been a massive smear campaign against marijuana for 70ish years I believe which has been incredibly successful. What it comes down to is an adult has the right to put whatever he wants into his own body.
 
Ya gotta love Libertarians. They just can't stay away from hot button issues.

Doc.
 
Didn't someone post one here a little while a go that scientists can now produce radiation buy using scotch tape? If the tobacco doesn't kill you, wrapping presents this Christmas will.
 
Eryxis said:
I think we should be a lot closer allied with our BOTL's who enjoy a different leaf. Their fight to decriminalize marijuana is closely related to our fight to keep tobacco legal. Any argument about smoking bans in cities for tobacco is used against marijuana. There has been a massive smear campaign against marijuana for 70ish years I believe which has been incredibly successful. What it comes down to is an adult has the right to put whatever he wants into his own body.
Click to expand...


I would like to say first that I have never smoked Marijuana and don't plan on doing it anytime soon. However, do not bash people who smoke weed. We are going through some harsh economic times and one of the best ways to get out of this recession, whether you like it or not, is to legalize marijuana. Marijuana has 100s of different uses besides getting high and America has the best soil/space to grow it. We can make clothes, fuel, use it to lower CO2 in our atmosphere, and of coarse smoke it. The later can be taxed the hell out of.

If you went up to someone and told them that you can lower taxes, create jobs, go green, and create an American export that nobody can outsource, they will be very excited to hear it.

Prohibition does not work.
 
radman said:
Mr. Malmo-Levine is correct about radiation in tobacco, but he may be understating the case:

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/sources/tobacco.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/3738/880

Daily smokers exposed to 16,000mrems per year:
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q3137.html
Click to expand...

The radiation comes from the fertilizers used in growing the plant.

<Natural radiation accounts for only 10% of the average dose anyone receives from all natural sources.>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top