Science vs. Greed and Politics

[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.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok what about the effect of fertilizers on other things like food? From the link you provided:

[/ QUOTE ]

From everything I've read in the past (which was many years aago), using this fertilizer on food is considered safe. That paragraph, as far as I can tell, is accurate but it is also a bit misleading.

External safety levels are no the same as internal safety levels.

However, according to:

http://www.uic.com.au/ral.htm

Australias Uranium Information Centre

Tens of thousands of people in each technically advanced country work in medical and industrial environments where they may be exposed to radiation above background levels. Accordingly they wear monitoring 'badges' while at work, and their exposure is carefully monitored. The health records of these occupationally exposed groups often show that they have lower rates of mortality from cancer and other causes than the general public and, in some cases, significantly lower rates than other workers who do similar work without being exposed to radiation.


So I have a feeling that other sources of radiation are a problem. Is Po in food a problem? I don't know. I've seen numerous studies that say it isn't when the food is grown under proper conditions. Whether or not those conditions are abused, I don't know. Acccrding to some people, a lot of questions are unanswered.

One more thing to add to the long list of stuff I need to read/research.........

[wacki]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

HOLY CRAP!!!! SOMEBODY ELSE BESIDES ZENO AND ME USES PUBMED!!!!!!

Lung cancer rates increased significantly during most of the 1900's (6). Although it has been conclusively proven that tobacco causes lung cancer, researchers have not established that the carcinogens in tobacco are present in high enough levels to explain the numbers of cancer cases(7). Its no coincidence that between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers and Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) accumulation(8).

http://www.acsa.net/HealthAlert/lungcancer.html

If you have access to PMID: 8850254 please fill us in. IU doesn't subscribe to that journal. I am very interested in reading that review.