Tobacco's radiation vs. Cherynobl's

[Dr Mordrid]

Link....

Tobacco's radiation dose far higher than leaves at Chernobyl

If nothing else, this should worry smokers: the radiation dose from radium and polonium found naturally in tobacco can be a thousand times more than that from the caesium-137 taken up by the leaves from the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

Constantin Papastefanou from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece measured radioactivity in tobacco leaves from across the country and calculated the average radiation dose that would be received by people smoking 30 cigarettes a day. He found that the dose from natural radionuclides was 251 microsieverts a year, compared with 0.199 from Chernobyl fallout in the leaves (Radiation Protection Dosimetry, vol 123, p 68).

Though the radiation dose from smoking was only 10 per cent of the average dose anyone receives from all natural sources, Papastefanou argues that it is an increased risk. "Many scientists believe that cancer deaths among smokers are due to the radioactive content of tobacco leaves and not to nicotine and tar," he says.

[MultimediaMan]

We've known this for some time: I think he's overstating his case, and leaving out some other important information: What about Isotopes of Iron? Or the various isotopes of Strontium and Thorium which Chernobyl released in vast quantities and which readily accumulate in the body and are still in the soil and plants for quite a distance around Chernobyl.

He is capitalizing on the Litvenko assassination, as well.

[Dr Mordrid]

All I know is that it's interesting to autoradiograph tobacco in the presence of smokers. You can hear their jaws dropping from the next room when the film comes out.

A single gram of 210Polonium generates 140 watts of power just from alpha emissions, and it's not the only radionuclide present;

228Actinium, 212Bismuth, 214Bismuth, 134Caesium, 137Caesium, 212Lead, 214Lead, 40Potassium and 226Radium

more or less depending on the source of the fertilizer and the geology where it's grown.

[Brian Ellis]

And why just tobacco? There are similar doses in much of the foodstuff we eat. Brazil nuts are notorious but why stop there? Lettuce is as bad as tobacco and that goes straight to the stomach, whereas some of the radionuclides in tobacco are dissipated into the air before they even enter into the body. Some species of edible mushrooms are also bad, as their mycelia can reach over large areas and concentrate picked up radionuclides in the fruiting body.

But what many don’t know is that even modern consumer products are often laced with radioactive material. These include smoke detectors, spark plugs, certain 3M tape dispensers, cat litter, low-sodium salt and my favorite – glossy magazines. Certain clays used in glossy magazines – to create a smooth surface on the paper – are radioactive and a truckload of glossy periodicals can trip a radiation detector.

(http://noumenon.roderickrussell.com/...t-healthy-glow)

If we are going to worry about minute doses (far below the natural background levels), then we might as well put a gun to our own radioactive heads and end it all. Personally, I dislike mass hysteria articles in pseudo-scientific rag sheets.

[Dr Mordrid]

But in this case many, many studies show the connection between tobacco grown with mined phosphate fertilizers and an enhanced rate of lung cancer over and above the rate caused by chemical carcinogens going back to 1964. The cause is traced to alpha particle irradiation of the lung from within.

Want to toss all that out? You'd be arguing with nearly every oncologist on the planet.

The difference between tobacco and food is that food passes through quickly, the absorption of the isotopes is poor and what is absorbed is largely excreted shortly after.

When smoked the particles that stick in or to the lung tissue stays in the bronchial epithelium for years, and alphas are the worst when it comes to this kind of carcinogenesis.

Remember that 140 watts/gram of 210Po then remember Radium is also present, which begets Radon....another alpha emitter, significant indoor pollutant and carcinogen that is blamed for 21,000 deaths in the US alone.

Also consider that tobacco is cured by inverting the leaves by their stems for weeks or months, which would concentrate any contaminants in the stalks into the leaves.

Not done with veggies.

[Brian Ellis]

No question of tossing it out, but mined phosphate is used extensively for food crops, as well.

Food may have a short transit time (say 48 h), but new food is ingested 3 x/day, so there is a constant supply. As for whether it is ingested or not is moot. Sr, K and I most certainly are. K, in particular is present in almost all natural foodstuff in an ionic state and is readily absorbed to adjust the electrolyte balance. K40, in particular, with a half-life of 1.28 x10^9 years, is present in all natural potassium to the tune of 0.01%. About 0.35% of the human body is K, so an 80 kg person has 0.28 g.of which 28 µg is K40, with a new intake of ~5 g (500 µg K40) per day. The excess is eliminated in the urine, so that the kidneys/bladder receive much of the dosage.

There are many other ionic radionuclide salts: I take K only as one example of a salt that is readily metabolised.

I'm not suggesting this is dangerous. What I am suggesting is that tobacco should be considered with a sense of proportion, considering other radionuclides in the air we breathe, such as those released by the combustion of fossil fuels. Coal, oil and NG all contain radon which no purification will eliminate. This, I suggest, is much more dangerous than tobacco radionuclides, even to those idiots who stick cigarettes etc. in their face. Note that I don't talk about the chemical effects of tobacco smoke: that's another story!

[TransformX]

Radiactive stuff outside my body isn't such a big deal. We have skin to effectively deal with Alpha rays and less effectively but still deal with the other kinds.
As for the stuff going inside me, I suspect my digestive tract lining is far superior to whatever I have in my lungs for dealing with radioactivity.

[Dr Mordrid]

Exactly and mainly because the lining of the gut is replaced far more rapidly than the lining of the bronchi; every 2-3 days.

[Brian Ellis]

Yes but not the kidney tubules or bladder. You're assuming the radionuclides are not absorbed but at least some are and reach the kidney/liver/brain/elsewhere. You're also implying that tumours cannot grow in the gut: they can.

The radiation from K40 is beta, btw.

I repeat that I'm not implying there is any real danger under normal conditions as the radiation levels from food and tobacco are infinitismal compared with background levels due to natural and anthropogenic causes in the air.

[Dr Mordrid]

Never said tumors can't grow in the gut; that's you putting words in other peoples mouths, again.

What I did say was that between the guts rapid cell replacement rate and fast cycling of ingested materials out as waste the lingering of radionuclide's in the gut isn't as big an issue as with lung/bronchial tissues.

Basic rule of carcinogenesis: all else being equal reduced exposure = fewer tumors.

Also: betas are highly ionizing, and therefore carcinogenic too.

As for their presence in other tissues, yes they're present but at much lower concentrations than the clumps that form at bronchiole bifurcations in the lungs. Those spots get hammered.