Science vs. Greed and Politics

[wacki]

I've seen numerous studies that strongly correlate the rise and fall of the dollar with lung cancer rates. (Draw what conclusions you may about cigarettes from this.)

If you go to this web site you will find lots of wonderful information that is reasonably well sourced. Specifically it talks about how companies are literally lacing tobacco with radioactive waste (specifically polonium). This is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer being high in heavy metals and the plant soak up these metals.

http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/

Also:

Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210 but have not caused cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco


So basically, tobacco doesn't cause cancer, it's the radioactive metals they are dumping on the plants that is killing everyone and quite possibly having a huge effect on the value of the dollar.

The polonium in tobacco is well documented and John Hopkins, Mayo, CDC, University of Florida, and many many more institutions have released studies on this.

Basically, what I'm wondering, is why doesn't anyone listen to the scientists/doctors? I would think politicians would be banning these types of fertilizers from being used on tobacco without blinking an eye. This is not the case. I would think Phillip Morris would find it in their best interest to keep their customers alive and healthier longer. This is not the case.

[Zeno]

Some interesting tidbits of information:

A large amount of radioactivity is released during forest fires. This is natural radioactivity stored in soil and plants etc and Po 210 is the main isotope that is release in abundance (I think this is correct, my papers on this are stored in a box at a friends house). Of course there is also all the residual fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing that is still around and that gets added in too. And then if you have fires around areas that have additional radioactive contamination (many places in the former Soviet Union for example) even more little nasties become airborne for downwind inhabitants to inhale. Hold your breath.

And naturally occurring Radon is released from near surface soil after heavy rainfall; larger doses are possible in more arid lands where there is a greater time interval between large rainstorms or were a dry and wet season is prevalent. Like Billy Clinton, don’t inhale.


[ QUOTE ]
Basically, what I'm wondering, is why doesn't anyone listen to the scientists/doctors?

[/ QUOTE ]

As to this question: Scientists and doctors are boring and most people will only listen if there is some crisis. Otherwise, more pressing issues like the Michael Jackson trial take precedent.

I thought you knew that already.

-Zeno

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought you knew that already.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did, but I figured that money gained from longer living customers and less legal action would make the scientists worth listening to. I guess I was wrong.

Man, I love my job but [censored] like this really makes me wish I was a cold hearted golden parachute collecting exec.

Interesting stuff on the forest fires/rainfall. What are the countermeasures in those cases? It sucks that rainfall is included as a hazard, I love the smell after a good storm.

[Zeno]

The radioactive dose released in almost all circumstances is very small (for both rain events and fires) and pose no hazard. Where fires occur on radioactivitely contaminated soil (uptake by plants means the flora also has a component) the dose is greater and could pose a health risk to some people, especially to firefighters or others in close proximity to smoke, dust and other particulates that become airborne.

There is still some problems around Chernobyl for example. I don't have time to post any links; I have to get to work.

-Zeno

[nicky g]

Hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhold on a minute. You're saying I can start smoking again as long as I buy organic cigarettes?

[Zeno]

Tobbaco is a plant that uptakes natural radioactivity in the soil very well and concentrates it. It is all organic baby. Enjoy.

-Zeno

[nicky g]

Ho hum.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen numerous studies that strongly correlate the rise and fall of the dollar with lung cancer rates. (Draw what conclusions you may about cigarettes from this.)

If you go to this web site you will find lots of wonderful information that is reasonably well sourced. Specifically it talks about how companies are literally lacing tobacco with radioactive waste (specifically polonium). This is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer being high in heavy metals and the plant soak up these metals.


Also:

Researchers have induced cancer in animal test subjects that inhaled polonium 210 but have not caused cancer through the inhalation of any of the non-radioactive chemical carcinogens found in tobacco


So basically, tobacco doesn't cause cancer, it's the radioactive metals they are dumping on the plants that is killing everyone and quite possibly having a huge effect on the value of the dollar.


[/ QUOTE ]

That statement is wrong. I am not fully aware of the carcinogenecity of Polonium 210 (not that I doubt it causes cancer), but it is false to say that the other ingredients in tobacco don't cause cancer. The molecular mechanisms for it were even outlined in a major scientific journal (either Nature or Science) back in 1996.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
but it is false to say that the other ingredients in tobacco don't cause cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, however, the rate which people get cancer from benzylpyrene vs. Po 210 aren't really a comparable. I looked up that study that failed to produce cancer via chemical carcinogens and it was dated. So the data was true at the time of publications but later studies were able to produce cancer just at much slower rate in comparison to Po 210.

Nicky G, smoking is bad for you no matter what. However, there are cigarettes that are way less harmful then other cigarettes due to being grown in good soil.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but it is false to say that the other ingredients in tobacco don't cause cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, however, the rate which people get cancer from benzylpyrene vs. Po 210 aren't really a comparable. I looked up that study that failed to produce cancer via chemical carcinogens and it was dated. So the data was true at the time of publications but later studies were able to produce cancer just at much slower rate in comparison to Po 210.

Nicky G, smoking is bad for you no matter what. However, there are cigarettes that are way less harmful then other cigarettes due to being grown in good soil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you read that chemical carcinogens cause cancer at a much slower rate than radioactive ones? I did a pub med search and found one article from '96 comparing the rates. As I'm on vacation right now and have access to it I'll look it up. I'l get back to you on it later today or tomorrow.