The Radioactive Ciggy
by Jason GodeskyTobacco often appears as a sacred power in Native American lore. It is given to spirits, and is believed to have medicinal properties. This seems jarring, given what we now know about smoking. How could these same Natives, who had such comprehensive command of the medicinal and edible plants around them, mistake the carcinogenic nature of tobacco? Of course, when we carefully examine the history of tobacco, we find something very curious. Cancer often leaves skeletal evidence, and old ethnographic accounts can often be used to piece together symptoms of diseases unknown to the original ethnographer, yet evidence of lung cancer among Native Americans before the 20th century remains rare.
In 1990, then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop declared on national television that 90% of all smoking-related cancers were caused not by tar or any of the other factors we normally think of, but radioactivity.
For over twenty years scientists have known that all types of tobacco contain radioactive Polonium-210 which emits alpha particles and radioactive Lead-210 which emits Beta particles and is a precursor of Polonium-210. But only recently has there been a degree of consensus about how tobacco becomes radioactive.
All soils contain radium, a radioactive element that decays into Lead-210 and Polonium-210. In addition, phosphate ore used to make fertilizers used on tobacco fields contains these isotopes in relatively high concentrations. While tobacco plants can absorb Lead-210 and Polonium-210 through their roots, relatively little enters this way.
Instead, radiation mainly enters tobacco through the leaves, which are coated with tiny hairs called trichomes, whose tips are coated with a sticky substance which collects dust. This airborne radioactive dust collects on the trichome tips, or heads, in concentrations of radioisotopes 10,000 times that of the overall leaf. almost all the radioactivity of tobacco comes from this air deposition process.1
Polonium—named after “Poland,” the home country of its co-discoverer Marja (”Marie”) Curie—is fairly rare on earth, but it can degrade from elements found commonly in phosphate fertilizers used since the 1930s to help grow tobacco.
At the Harvard School of Public Health, Dr. Edward P. Radford Jr. and Dr. Vilma R. Hunt worked with polonium, one of the rarest of the naturally occurring elements and until recently one of the hardest to detect. Many radioactive elements are found in tobacco leaves, as in all vegetation; they occur naturally and have nothing to do with man-made fallout, and they have been exonerated as causes of lung cancer. Polonium is different, the Harvard researchers reported in Science, because it vaporizes at a mere 500° C., far below the 800° temperature of a burning cigarette tip.
Experiments with machine-smoked cigarettes showed that polonium attaches itself to smoke particles and may also pass into the lungs with the inhaled smoke in the form of gas. The amount of polonium in tobacco, as in a tossed green salad, would be negligible if, like the salad, it passed quickly through the system. But the polonium-bearing smoke appears to get trapped in the tissues and crevices of the airways, say Drs. Radford and Hunt. Because of this trapping, they suggest, polonium builds up to concentrations that are high enough so that its radioactivity could begin the process that leads ultimately to lung cancer.2
In fact, of the elements in tobacco smoke, only polonium has been found to cause cancer on its own. Moreover, we can see now that the historic trends in lung cancer, while they mismatch the trends in tobacco use, do match the use of phosphate fertilizers in growing tobacco.
Lung cancer rates among men kept climbing from a rarity in 1930 (4/100,000 per year) to the No. 1 cancer killer in 1980 (72/100,000) in spite of an almost 20 percent reduction in smoking. But during the same period, the level of polonium -210 in American tobacco had tripled. This coincided with the increase in the use of phosphate fertilizers by tobacco growers - calcium phosphate ore accumulates uranium and slowly releases radon gas.3
This also explains the danger of second-hand smoke.
Polonium and lead volatilises in lighted cigarettes. Ten per cent of Pb-210 and 20 per cent of Po-210 contained in cigarettes enter the smoker’s lung through the main smoke stream; remaining ninety percent of Pb-210 and 80 per cent of Po-210 float in the ambient air for the passive neighbours to inhale!4
Of course, there’s an inherent health problem with inhaling any burning plant material so directly as with smoking, but it seems that most of the dangers of smoking have little to do with tobacco itself, and much more to do with the fact that industrial agriculture and the Green Revolution make tobacco radioactive. Perhaps the lack of evidence for pre-20th century lung cancer due to smoking tobacco is simply because before the use of phosphate fertilizers, tobacco simply wasn’t radioactive—and wasn’t a significant carcinogen?
Thanks to Ran Prieur for suggesting this line of inquiry, and supplying a good deal of initial information.
What about feritlizers for foods other than tobacco?
Comment by casemeau — 30 August 2006 @ 1:22 PM
They have plenty of problems, chronicled elsewhere, but it seems that the specific biology of the tobacco leaf is very prone to picking up polonium, so tobacco is much more prone to this kind of thing.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 August 2006 @ 1:37 PM
whoah and holy shit, thanks for the totally new and mind-blowing information!
I had no fucking idea, really, at all, this is amazing!
Comment by TonyZ — 30 August 2006 @ 2:04 PM
Are there any real organic cigarettes? I know American Spirits are supposed to be “natural”, but I haven’t seen that verified anywhere.
Comment by Phillip — 30 August 2006 @ 6:10 PM
Jason–Ran’s webhost was hacked.
his current address is now:
http://ranprieur.server311.com
(patricia)
Comment by patricia — 30 August 2006 @ 8:13 PM
thanks for the ranprieur update, I was wondering what had happened!
Comment by Anonymous — 30 August 2006 @ 8:25 PM
As was said above, truly a mind-blowing article.
Comment by dagnabit — 30 August 2006 @ 8:54 PM
patricia,
Thanks! I, tool, was wondering what had happened.
Comment by jhereg — 31 August 2006 @ 8:25 AM
Thanks, Patricia. I was wondering what happened. I’ll leave the link in the article on the assumption that this will get worked out, but thanks for letting us know where to find it in the meantime.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 31 August 2006 @ 10:06 AM
Ran has his old domain name re-secured, so it should now point to the new server! a major hassle and expense, though!
-p.
Comment by patricia — 31 August 2006 @ 4:11 PM
Looks like it’s still propogating across the DNS servers, so YMMV.
Do you know it was hacked? Lots of things can go wrong to cause a problem like this, and only some of them are outright malicious.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 31 August 2006 @ 4:24 PM
the Netbunch company sent him an email that said they had 16 servers completely wiped clean–backups, everything–and were working with “FBI and law enforcement” to find out who did it.
i’d say that means hacked, at least as far as the company is stating publicly.
no clue why, or by whom, though. supposedly a lot of spammers were using the larger company that had recently purchased Netbunch…
Comment by patricia — 31 August 2006 @ 8:51 PM
Although your hypothesis appears plausible, the question that comes immediately to mind is what about chewing tobacco? If the cancer rates were similar (oral for chewing vs. lung for smoking), than it would severely discredit your hyponthesis. This was my initial gut reaction . However, a quick google search appears to SUPPORT, not discredit, your hypothesis. In these studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9868728&dopt=Citation
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/349
higher rates of cancer are NOT correlated with chewing tobacco.
In this study
http://www.jdentaled.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/4/328
it is higher alcohol consumption that is correlated with higher oral cancer rates.
Great work!
Comment by Ron — 1 September 2006 @ 4:30 PM
got anything more recent?
your sources are 20-40 years old, newer research is needed to see if the initial test results were true or not with the better testing methiods we have today.
Comment by truekaiser — 1 September 2006 @ 9:37 PM
The other thing smoking causes is emphysema. Did that also only become a major problem when tobacco starting being grown with those radioacitve fertilizers?
Comment by Thomas Rondy — 2 September 2006 @ 1:26 AM
Thomas –
You may want to look at environmental pollutants for that one. Emphysema and allergies have been on the rise steadily for the last five decades, largely as a result of chemicals, coal dust and residues, etc in the air we breathe.
Smoking, on the other hand, most certainly aggravates these conditions, but I would be skeptical of it as the prima facia cause.
Janene
Comment by janene — 2 September 2006 @ 9:46 AM
cigarettes cause cancer, eh? hmmmm where are the causal studies? Oh, I forgot, there are none, it is only a correlative link.
Comment by some random dude — 3 September 2006 @ 8:53 AM
oh they cause cancer but what i want to know is if the claim he is making has any more recent studys.
Comment by truekaiser — 3 September 2006 @ 8:56 PM
Um… “some random dude”: on the basis of your criticism, all epidemiological studies would be invalid. The only “causal” studies are clinical trials, which would be infeasible and unethical to conduct in this instance (cigarette smoking).
In fact, correlation = causation when there are no confounders. (E.g., read Pearl, 2000, for extensive treatment of this topic). In most epidemiological studies, it is difficult to say with certainty that there are no unmeasured confounders. However, in the case of smoking, the studies have been fairly exhaustive. At this point, it would be difficult to envision a confounder that could invalidate the causal link.
BTW, there is evidence that tobacco chewing (and smoking) are correlated with oral cancer, although, yes, the drinking link is stronger. Another big factor, as yet not widely recognized, is HPV infection. (Read: oral sex with multiple partners).
However, I have an issue with the following statement: “Cancer often leaves skeletal evidence, and old ethnographic accounts can often be used to piece together symptoms of diseases unknown to the original ethnographer, yet evidence of lung cancer among Native Americans before the 20th century remains rare.” Lung cancer is itself a very rare disease (even with smoking, which increases the risk 10-fold). Since it is also often a disease of old age, one would not necessarily expect to see it among native Americans.
Comment by slomo — 4 September 2006 @ 1:13 AM
Actually, I should amend my previous statement about confounders: 20th Century agricultural methodologies are highly confounded with the tobaccocancer association. So, in fact, it might very well be that “smoking tobacco” does not cause cancer, but rather “smoking tobacco that has been grown with phosphate fertilizers” is what causes causes.
But I’m just being pedantic here. Anyone who thinks smoking a commercial cigarette has no health consequences is either delusional or is working for RJR.
Comment by slomo — 4 September 2006 @ 1:20 AM
not trying to be rude here but will ask again.
does anyone have any more recent studies on the subject of this hypothesis that it is radiation from the fertilizer that causes the lung cancer and not the tobacco?
i really need more proof then a summery of a 40 year old magazine article and a 20 year old study listed on a random web-page.
Comment by truekaiser — 4 September 2006 @ 5:24 PM
Ah, OK. Posting so soon after Ron’s claims about chewing tobacco, I wasn’t sure if you were asking him or me. Well, firstly, I’d point out that the age of a study does nothing to diminish its evidence or its argument, but that said, here’s what I have (ranging from 2005 to 2001, from most to least recent):
Savidou A, Kehagia K, Eleftheriadis K., “Concentration levels of 210Pb and 210Po in dry tobacco leaves in Greece.” J Environ Radioact. 2006;85(1):94-102. Epub 2005 Aug 10.
Rodu B, Jansson C., “Smokeless tobacco and oral cancer: a review of the risks and determinants.” Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2004 Sep 1;15(5):252-63.
Khater AE., “Polonium-210 budget in cigarettes.” J Environ Radioact. 2004;71(1):33-41.
Peres AC, Hiromoto G., “Evaluation of 210Pb and 210Po in cigarette tobacco produced in Brazil.” J Environ Radioact. 2002;62(1):115-9.
Skwarzec B, Ulatowski J, Struminska DI, Borylo A., “Inhalation of 210Po and 210Pb from cigarette smoking in Poland.” J Environ Radioact. 2001;57(3):221-30.
Skwarzec B, Struminska DI, Borylo A, Ulatowski J., “Polonium 210Po in cigarettes produced in Poland.” J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2001;36(4):465-74.
The causal studies are overwhelming, but you’ll need to read an actual academic journal, rather than the light-weight coverage it gets in “scientific journalism.” Journalists routinely mistake correlation for causation, but that’s not a problem you’ll find in the actual science.
That’s not true. You can establish causation with correlation and a mechanism. If you understand how X would cause Y, and you can establish that when X happens, so does Y, you have a strong case for causation.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 September 2006 @ 9:55 AM
I love how scientists twist language to further their philosophical ends. This is not a criticism directed to Jason, or anyone in particular.
correlation=causation. the dictionary defines those words differently, so I am at loss to understand how correlation=causation, or how “You can establish causation with correlation and a mechanism.”.
And I will say, quite simply, if tobacco causes cancer, invariably, every tobacco user would get cancer. but they don’t all get cancer. apparently, there is more to the picture than tobacco use=cancer.
I personally believe that the 2000 some odd nuclear weapon detonations over the past 60 years has alot more to do with the ever rising cancer rates than tobacco use. all that
We don’t hear too much about that, do we?
Comment by some random dude — 5 September 2006 @ 11:04 AM
I’m afraid I have very little patience for this kind of thing. Scientists are very precise with their language—to a fault, sometimes. They’re also incredibly keen on the difference between correlation and causation. It’s science journalists, who usually have very little understanding of science, and routinely confuse correlation and causation, but the ignorance of reporters is not found in scientific studies themselves.
Causation is a subset of correlation. Anything causal will also be correlated, but many things are correlated that are not causal. Causal phenomenon are those correlated things that also have a mechanism. In that case, we already know how X causes Y, so the correlation of X and Y merely confirms it. So, to establish causation, you first must have a mechanism, then you must observe a correlation. This is the essence of the scientific method: control samples and all the rest are merely how we systematically establish a correlation with the X and Y we’ve already established a correlation for, and show that the correlation does not exist when the critical cause is removed, to eliminate the possibility of mere correlation for some other reason.
Your dismissal of the evidence based on the fact that the correlation is merely “very strong” and not 100% is incredibly naive. The fact that some people smoke without getting cancer merely proves that things like degree and frequency play a role. If I’m shot at, and the bullet merely grazes my arm, does that constitute proof that guns don’t cause wounds?
As for nuclear weapons, your own logic defies you, since we’re all subject to it, and many of us do not develop cancer. If cigarettes have nothing to do with cancer, and it’s all fallout from nuclear weapons, why do such a majority of smokers develop lung cancer, but it’s almost impossible to develop it without smoking or working in a coal mine? Smokers and coal miners are the only ones subjected to the fallout of nuclear weapons? I think the reason you never hear much about that is that nuclear weapons are tested underground; they’re few and far between, and contribute almost nothing to the level of radiation we’re subjected to today. Coal-powered electrical plants, cigarette smoke, and other, much more mundane sources, provide the overwhelming majority of the radiation we’re subjected to.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 September 2006 @ 11:31 AM
Well, to begin, How did Andy Kaufman die? He died of Lung Cancer, and never smoked a cigarette, or worked in coal mine.
Jason wrote:
nuclear weapons are tested underground; they’re few and far between, and contribute almost nothing to the level of radiation we’re subjected to today
There have been over 1500 verifiable atmospheric and above ground nuclear weapon tests since 1945. Haven’t you seen “Trinity and Beyond”? They show over 200 detonations,with each det shown being one of a test run of 37, or 150, or 300.
the Idea that most nuke tests have always been underground is demonstrably false, as is your assertion that most of us do not develop cancer.
Do a bit of research before you make such assertions.
Lots of people get cancer that have never smoked. Lets begin with the marked increase of childhood cancer, and end with Lance Armstrong. They all worked in coal plants and smoked 15 packs a day. yep, those 4 year olds sure can swing a pick.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/16/5/1007
for starters. especially check out the first 2 sentences of paragraph 1 of the abstract.
or
http://www.nuclearactive.org/docs/RTKCancer.pdf#search=%22cancer%20rates%201945%22
that one is especially good.
I am not trying to argue with the premise of the article. Smoking certainly raises the chance one will “contract” cancer. I believe that there is a lot more going on than seen at first glance. I commmend you for your informative, interesting essay, but am mystified at the hostilitytowards the idea that radiation from other sources than polonium could be contributing.
But, “very strong” and 100% certainty are 2 different things. I don’t consider myself naive, I am just sceptical of science in general. These are the same assholes who thought who asserted, with 100% certainty that:
The sun revovles around the earth;
The earth is flat;
The space between astronomical objects is filled with aether;
Blacks, Asians and Mexicans are genetically inferior to whites;
and so forth. they have been wrong a million times and right only 100 times, so pardon my scepticism.
The gun, unless used as a club, will never hurt you. It is the bullet that causes damage. But i would speculate that there is a strong correlation between the discharging of firearms and injuries caused by bullets
Comment by some random dude — 5 September 2006 @ 4:41 PM
People get struck by lightning, too. This is what that ancient philosopher meant when he first said, “Shit happens.” The fact that your chances of lung cancer without smoking or working in a coal mine are pretty much on par with your chances of being struck by lightning certainly indicate that any causation that puts us all at equal risk is going to have some trouble.
I didn’t say all. The first tests were above ground, but later tests have been below ground. Most of the nuclear weapons tests ever done have been below ground, and the amount of radiation they’ve contributed is negligible. So I’ve already done my research; can you read my assertions as they’re written?
Again, I’d advise you to apply that sharp, discerning mind to what was actually written. Lung cancer is a very specific type of cancer. Lance Armstrong has testicular cancer. Maybe this is different for you, but in most Homo sapiens, the testicles and the lungs are entirely different organs.
We’ve been fed a line of bullshit from tobacco companies for decades about how cigarettes don’t cause cancer. You’re parroting that line.
Of course, now you’re shifting over to an entirely different argument: that there’s cancer (in general) caused by other sources. That’s obvious, though nuclear weapons have almost nothing to do with it. We simply haven’t used them enough to have that kind of effect. Nor are nuclear power plants a special concern for this, oddly enough. More radiation is emitted from coal-burning electrical plants than nuclear power plants (coal has many impurities, including uranium; even though this produces less radiation than a nuclear power plant, a nuclear plant expects radiation and shields it, whereas a coal-fired plant does not).
However, when we look at the specific condition of lung cancer, what we find is that there is no correlation whatsoever with geographical location, but an almost perfect correlation with smoking.
I’ve criticized science myself fairly strongly on this site in the past, but let’s give credit where it’s due. It was not scientists, but animists who conceived of the earth as flat, and the sun revolving around it. That’s certainly our experience of it, isn’t it?
Yes, science has been wrong many times. That’s the essence of it: to keep trying, to find its mistakes, and keep plugging away. So I won’t pardon your skepticism. That’s mere laziness. You should be slogging in to the facts and arguments, finding out where they go wrong, and fixing it. In other words, your argument doesn’t lead to a rejection of science, it leads to the practice of science.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 September 2006 @ 5:23 PM
sorry, i was just in bad mood and being rude and argumentative ealier. please excuse me.
i don’t doubt that cigarettes and lung cancer are very closely correlated, and most likely causal.
i still speculate that increased caner rates come from a wide variety of sources, inclluding coal mines, nucleer power plants and weapons.
BTW, I loved the last paragraph. that one is a keeper. seriously.
Comment by some random dude — 5 September 2006 @ 7:23 PM
“Well, firstly, I’d point out that the age of a study does nothing to diminish its evidence or its argument, but that said, here’s what I have (ranging from 2005 to 2001, from most to least recent):”
actually it does. the older the test is the more likely the possibility that a new testing method was found and that method shows that the previous one was flawed or not.
anyway thanks for the links.
Comment by truekaiser — 5 September 2006 @ 8:08 PM
Phillip, yes American Spirits make not only natural cigarettes but organic ones as well. They cost about a third more than top cigarettes like Marlboro and Newport.
Comment by Cody — 6 September 2006 @ 4:59 PM
Dude, you’re right, cancer in general comes from many sources. Though, as we discussed in thesis #21 probably the biggest single factor is bread.
Kaiser, I thought you might mention that, but a refuting study does not change or diminish the arguments, logical or evidence in the original study: it merely highlights the weaknesses that were already there, if you could notice them.
Cody, American Spirit makes no claims about its organic cigarettes being healthier. I looked for some comparison statistics, but couldn’t find any, and given the way that so many “organic” providers try to cheat the spirit of the regulation and still get the label, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether or not they’re actually grown without phosphate fertilizers.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 September 2006 @ 10:21 AM
“Kaiser, I thought you might mention that, but a refuting study does not change or diminish the arguments, logical or evidence in the original study: it merely highlights the weaknesses that were already there, if you could notice them.”
a properly done one does diminish the previous studies. we rarely get things right the first time so it’s a good idea to leave a little bit open just in case. i asked for more recent info because when i see 20-40 year old information it throws up a red flag if it doesn’t have following more recent information confirming it.
the key is of course if the new study test has evidence that is valid and enough of it to prove the older test wrong.
this is the process of science, new discovery’s or testing methods might prove what the previous methods and ideas wrong and force them to change.
Comment by truekaiser — 7 September 2006 @ 10:55 PM
The point about the assholes being wrong a million times is not that they shouldn’t practice science, it’s that they should practice science with humility. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE MEASURED. Assholes have no humility about their present assertions. That includes end-of-the- world fright geeks, entreprenuers and beggars like Savinar and Prieur. They haven’t become better people with their so-called knowledge, correlative or causitive. Scientist’s are assholes if they think they have absolute proof of anything (for the most part). Face it geeky guys, everything is a total fucking mystery and all our knowledge is ultimately speculative. Life is a case by case basis. Everything old is made new again. Miracles are everywhere. Almost everything science knows was known before somewhere at some point, without science. Still the masses live in ignorance. Practice science, just don’t be an asshole about it. Say “it seems to be that…” “….it usually happens that…..” Science is a method not a position. Science is a method not a weapon. The smug asshole with the arithmetic doesn’t know what the future holds because he can read a chart off the page. But I’d rather have a beer with him than the Boulder Ad Council chairwoman. We are not reindeer. We have 1/3 lizard brains, but we are not reindeer. Good planning, but you will still need good luck.
Comment by pygmy — 10 September 2006 @ 7:57 AM
the big difference between native american use of tobacco and western culture’s is quantity. ceremonial use of tobacco is not going to lead to cancer, but if you smoke a pack a day you definitively will get cancer, even if you smoke natural american spirits.
most people smoke because they are stressed out and a cigarette gives them a break or something to do when they are around people. but modern civilised life is so full of stress that you have to smoke often, then you get addicted and smoke all the time. suddenly you’ve got one more thing to get stressed out about.
Comment by ceremonial — 11 September 2006 @ 11:45 PM
no one ever believed the earth was flat . You can verify this quite easily yourself.
Theres also a good article on the mises site re scientism
Comment by Anonymous — 1 January 2007 @ 12:16 PM
I dunno, Anonymous.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 1 January 2007 @ 4:53 PM
Besides the modern incarnations that Chuck mentions, ancient beliefs in a flat earth were quite common. The roundness of the earth was first established by Eratosthenes, a third century BCE Hellenistic mathematician who also calculated the earth’s circumference to within 318 km of its actual size. While the idea of a flat earth was not nearly as prevalent as Andrew Dickson White’s The Warfare of Science with Theology made it out to be, it’s equally untrue to say that “no one ever believed the earth was flat.” Many people believed, and some still believe, that the earth is flat. Unfortunately, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is a frequent source of such “truish” misinformation.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 January 2007 @ 11:14 AM
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=flat+earth++myth&meta=
i have my bets hedged on the Tibetan Sun view More recently popularised by Schauberger
~poster formerly known as anonymous
Comment by havegheewilltravel — 3 January 2007 @ 6:12 PM