Polonium-210 in Cigarettes

Smokers inhale the same radioactive isotope that killed the former KGB operative Alexander V. Litvinenko three years ago. Polonium-210 is responsible for some, perhaps most, of the lung cancer caused by cigarettes. Tobacco companies could easily reduce the amount of polonium that enters the lungs, but they haven't bothered to do so, even though they have known about this problem for decades.

For more on this topic, see
"The Polonium Brief: A Hidden History of Cancer, Radiation, and the Tobacco Industry
By Brianna Rego
Isis, September 2009, 100:453–484

ABSTRACT
The first scientific paper on polonium-210 in tobacco was published in 1964, and in the
following decades there would be more research linking radioisotopes in cigarettes with
lung cancer in smokers. While external scientists worked to determine whether polonium
could be a cause of lung cancer, industry scientists silently pursued similar work with the
goal of protecting business interests should the polonium problem ever become public.
Despite forty years of research suggesting that polonium is a leading carcinogen in
tobacco, the manufacturers have not made a definitive move to reduce the concentration
of radioactive isotopes in cigarettes. The polonium story therefore presents yet another
chapter in the long tradition of industry use of science and scientific authority in an effort
to thwart disease prevention. The impressive extent to which tobacco manufacturers
understood the hazards of polonium and the high executive level at which the problem and
potential solutions were discussed within the industry are exposed here by means of
internal documents made available through litigation.

The American public is exposed to far more radiation from the smoking of tobacco
than they are from any other source.
—Reimert Thorolf Ravenholt (1982)

http://www.briannarego.com/RegoIsis2009.pdf

This is important and needs to be widely seen.

The ones I buy now are made like cigs, but they don't taste, smell or burn like cigs, plus they are 1/3 the price. $11.99 a carton.

I really like that price a lot better.:)

be it merely the *potential* for global warming or recent news items about various cancer screenings. It feels they have an agenda to protect.

k&r

For example:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/apple_is_latest_to_quit_chamber_over_climate_chang.php

..

T. C. Tso, N. A. Hallden, and L. T. Alexander:
"Radium-226 and Polonium-210 in Leaf Tobacco and Tobacco Soil"
Science, 1964, 146: pp. 1043-1045.

.

we had safety tape for radioisotope areas ("Warning! Radioactive materials in use!") and I figured it would look good on the ashtrays ...

to make cigarettes non-carcinogenic. I am now thinking it must have been related to knowing about this substance. Their reason for not doing it? It would be admitting that the current cigarettes were dangerous.

Cigarette smoke contains other carcinogens besides polonium. There is probably no way to get rid of all of them simultaneously.

Of course, we did recently learn the addition of nitrosamines during processing (which occurred in the 60's) is causing a form of lung cancer in American smokers which is not seen in other countries where nitrosamines are not used.

..

:evilgrin:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/80687142.html

KENT'S micronite filter was made out of asbestos. Many people who smoked these cigarettes came down with mesothelioma, the hallmark cancer that results from asbestos exposure.

organically grown tomatoes?

...if not, then there's no way it will end up forming deposits
at your bronchial bifurcations. So any Po210 in ingested
foods is likely much less dangerous than that in tobacco...

I recommend reading the paper if you have time, it is a very
interesting story/phenomina which more people should know about.
Moreover, the author, though very anti-smoking, seems rational
enough to realize that making cigarettes less harmful would save
lives, rather than the usual "abstinence only" attitude taken
by the anti-smoking rank and file. Not that they are the
villains here (the industry is) but I found that refreshing
for a change.

And you're missing the point. Tobacco gets the polonium from the ground, which is going to be the same problem for anything else that's grown in soil, regardless of if it's eaten or smoken. And of all the really bad things in cigarette smoke, polonium is way down the list.

...or you'd know that you are oversimplifying.

If you do decide to educate yourself, pay close attention to the
effective range of alpha particles.

"The American public is exposed to far more radiation from the smoking of tobacco
than they are from any other source.
—Reimert Thorolf Ravenholt (1982)"

More radiation from tobacco than from the sun? Why aren't we powering our cities with tobacco?

It's an unfortunate quotation in the article “Smokers Said to Risk Cancers beyond Lungs,” New York Times, 29 July 1982.

According to this article, Ravenholt went on to say that polonium was "carried by the systemic circulation to every tissue and cell," resulting in "mutations of cellular genetic structures."

In fact, the polonium tends to stay put at certain hot spots in the lungs.

Despite his impressive credentials, Ravenholt hadn't done his homework on that day in 1982. Brianna Rego would have done better to ignore Ravenholt, and so would I.

Quite unfortunate for the person trying to convince others he's someone to be listened to.

:sarcasm: