polonium in smoke

[John Cuthber]

"the authority comes from the ability of the information itself to pass the scrutiny of several experts who have been offered the chance to give criticism."

If a theory fails to meet reasonable scrutiny from any source then it fails.

I scrutinised it and I still think theres more Po in smokers from background than from smoke for the reasons I gave.

Incidentally, what's the explanation of the raised cancer (of the mouth and throat etc) incidence in those who chew tobacco? You have said that the stuff in the GI tract doesn't stay long enough to cause cancer so what does?

 

JT2095, do you still have a real vacuum tube TV or monitor? If so please take a tissue and wipe the screen then place the tissue on the alpha monitor. You will almost certainly see a raised alpha level caused by dust stripped out of the air by the electric field of the screen. This is still background radiation and the few miligrams of dust will usually (unless you happen to live in a very low radon area) give a count that may compare with several tens of grams of tobacco. (and by the way, is the alpha counter named "CMAPT" if so please pm me, I could use help with sorting mine out)

 

Ultma, that article is from someone's book on "how to cure your cancer- just buy my book". It's bull. My best guess as to the cause of the cancers in the mice is mycotoxins in poorly stored grain but there's another real possibillity; he made the story up to sell his book. The idea that excess phosphate in the diet causes cancer is bizzare; all those of us who drink cola by the bucketfull would be dead by now.

[YT2095]

ok dokes, although the lab is in a Skywalk and Radon is hardly likely to last long in here, I`ll certainly do that and check it

 

my mate EJ has a cellar, I`ll get him to take some samples too.

 

thanks, I`ll try that!

[bascule]

Incidentally, what's the explanation of the raised cancer (of the mouth and throat etc) incidence in those who chew tobacco? You have said that the stuff in the GI tract doesn't stay long enough to cause cancer so what does?

 

There are 17 known carcinogens in cigarettes. Most chewing tobacco contains nitrosamine, a result of direct fire curing of tobacco.

 

Companies like Swedish Snus produce chewing tobacco without nitrosamine which they claim are safe and do not cause cancers.

[John Cuthber]

Why not accept that those 17 are responsible for the lung cancers?

[bascule]

The additional 20 or so Bq of Po that a smoker picks up isn't going to make any difference compared to the backgroung levels of about 1500 Bq from natural radon.

 

Since it's been awhile... where'd you get that 20 Bq figure from?

 

Also, how much of that background radiation is the average person's lung tissue actually exposed to?

 

How does it compare to 80-100 rads delivered to approx 10⁷ lung cells from radionucleotides in cigarette smoke?

 

Why not accept that those 17 are responsible for the lung cancers?

 

Which ones are most responsible? I'd say: benzopyrene, nitrosamine, and insoluble Po₂₁₀ compounds

[John Cuthber]

I probably got the figure of 20 Bq from th enet- most likely the same place I got the lead cadmium etc figures from. Since, in both cases, we are talking about inhaled Po and the lungs are very good at trapping stuff I'd say that the roughly a hundred times more Po from background leads to roughly a hundred times more exposure in the lungs.

 

The figure of 80 -100 Rad is misleading- if you take a small enough volume the local dose will always look huge.

According to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(unit)

a dose roughly 20 times bigger than that ought to kill you.

20 cigarettes doesn't cause death by radiation sickness

 

"A whole-body dose of 10-20 grays of high-energy radiation, delivered at one time, can be fatal to humans"

"One gray is equivalent to 100 rad."

 

 

I can't remember now where I found the figure of 20Bq-it has been 9 months or so.

Why the necromancy?

[bascule]

Why the necromancy?

 

You linked back to this thread from politics here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32497#post404701

 

and I would prefer to keep science and policy discussions separate

[John Cuthber]

I'm not sure that the two are separate. The reason the EPA don't regulate Po in cigs is based squarely on the science- there's no meaningful risk to health or the environment.

[bascule]

I'm not sure that the two are separate. The reason the EPA don't regulate Po in cigs is based squarely on the science- there's no meaningful risk to health or the environment.

 

That's not the response I got back from the EPA. They cited the science (giving a reply which almost perfectly echoes the conclusions of the Martell paper) and cited lack of regulatory authority as the reason they don't.

[John Cuthber]

This is turning into a messy crossed thread.

I will reply in the other thread but, just to clarify things for anyone reading this thread, here's what I understand they told you

"Thank you for your inquiry. The simple answer to your question is that existing laws to not authorize EPA or other federal agencies to regulate this source of radiation. The primary issue is that it comes from a naturally occurring radionuclide.

 

The radiation in tobacco comes from phosphate fertilizer, which is made from naturally occurring phosphate ore. Radium is commonly found in the rocks that contain phosphate ore and is the origin of the radiation in fertilizer. When phosphate fertilizers are used on tobacco, radon, a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas, which is a decay product of radium, rises from the soil and deposits its decay products on the underside of tobacco leaves. Tobacco leaves are sticky so the radionuclides (notably lead-210) stick and decay to polonium-210, which is subsequently inhaled by the smoker. "

 

Is that the whole of what they said (apart, of course, from dates names addresses and such that don't matter and you wouldn't want published)?

[bascule]

Is that the whole of what they said (apart, of course, from dates names addresses and such that don't matter and you wouldn't want published)?

 

Yes, that was the EPA's response. Here is the entirety of the exchange if you are curious:

 

Why does the EPA continue to allow cigarette manufactures to manufacture and distribute products which contain progeny from the radon decay sequence which are known to emit ionizing alpha radiation, namely polonium-210? Isn't this one of the primary causes of the adverse health effects of smoking, and wouldn't requiring cigarette manufacturers to produce products free of radioactive contaminants greatly improve the health of cigarette smokers?

 

Thank you for your inquiry. The simple answer to your question is that existing laws to not authorize EPA or other federal agencies to regulate this source of radiation. The primary issue is that it comes from a naturally occurring radionuclide.

 

The radiation in tobacco comes from phosphate fertilizer' date=' which is made from naturally occurring phosphate ore. Radium is commonly found in the rocks that contain phosphate ore and is the origin of the radiation in fertilizer. When phosphate fertilizers are used on tobacco, radon, a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas, which is a decay product of radium, rises from the soil and deposits its decay products on the underside of tobacco leaves. Tobacco leaves are sticky so the radionuclides (notably lead-210) stick and decay to polonium-210, which is subsequently inhaled by the smoker.[/quote']

 

Also, I would consider your arguments thus far naive, as they deal with radiation levels and not radiation dosage. The level of alpha emitters especially are virtually irrelevant unless deep tissue exposure occurs, as the body has several lines of defense mechanisms to prevent deep tissue exposure to alpha radiation, to the point that alpha radiation is typically considered to be harmless. The Martell paper experimentally measures the radiation dosage, taking into account the existence of insoluble Po₂₁₀ compounds in mainstream cigarette smoke which are not cleared by natural processes. It makes the following claims about radiation dosage from cigarettes:

 

80-100 rads (1rad=0.01J/kg=0.01 Gy) is delivered to approx 10⁷ cells (approx 10⁶ cells at individual bifurcations) of most smokers who die of lung cancer.

 

Bronchial bifurcations seem like an ideal "hot spot" for alpha radiation exposure, as they represent an area of deep tissue with high surface area. Furthermore, insoluble polonium compounds are sticky and thus easily deposited at these locations, bombarding the tissue they are stuck to while resisting natural processes which would typically remove them. There are several reasons why the dosage received from insoluble Po₂₁₀ compounds should be different from compounds present in the atmospheric background regardless of their levels.

 

Can you find a paper in the peer reviewed literature which refutes the Martell paper, or failing that, one which shows similar a dosage of radiation occurring from a natural source as you claim? Or, at the very least, can you point out a flaw in the Martell paper itself? Perhaps you can find a paper which experimentally calculates a different dosage of radiation from mainstream cigarette smoke, or compares it directly to radiation dosage from background sources.

 

At the very least, I would like to see some sort of peer reviewed paper which directly challenges the Martell paper. The Martell paper claims carcinogenic exposure to radiation from mainstream cigarette smoke over the life of a smoker. I'd really like to see a paper that challenges that claim, or provides an alternative interpretation.

[John Cuthber]

Lead and polonium are both metals. They are not volatile.

I don't think its naive to expect the lungs to do a good job of trapping them. I also think the filter in a cigarette, or, in the case on unfiltered ones, the "dog end" would do a fair job of trapping the stuff.

As I have pointed out, the inhaled dose of these same nuclei from background radiation is something like a hundred times bigger than that from smoke (and the ratio is bigger yet idf the remains of the cigarette retain any of the Po that it originally held).

 

You are hypothesising that somehow the body can exhale this metal when it's not from smoking but it traps it when you are talking about smoke.

That, to me, seems naive.

If I'm naive in believing this then at least I can take comfort from the fact that a major government body suffers from the same naivete.

 

It's interesting that you accuse me of refering only to radiation levels rather than radiation dose. I explicitly mentioned dose and pointed out that the dose levels quoted (of the order of hundreds of Grays) would be well into the realms of radiation sickness from one cigarette. As I said, it depends on what mass you chose to divide by. If you calculated the dose for the Bi atom itself as it disintegrates, the dose would be phenomenal, but meaningless. (BTW, if you don't think that is "pointing out a flaw in the Martell paper" what, exactly, do you want?)

Radiation dose only exists because of radiation levels. It doesn't make sense to only try to talk about one. All things being equal the higher the level the higher the dose.

Some radioisotopes like radiokrypton are not particularly hazardous because the stuff is exhaled quickly. On the other hand, things like strontium 90 are particularly nasty since they are readily absorbed by the body and poorly excreted.

Exposure to the same activity of these two materials would not give the same absorbed dose because one leaves and the other stays.

OK, but what we are comparing is inhaled Po and Pb radioisotopes from radon daughters versus exactly the same stuff from the same source.

The difference being that, in one case, there's about a hundred times more of it.

Now to me that's pretty clear grounds to supose the absorbed dose

1 will be bigger for the bigger exposure

and

2 will be in the lungs in both cases.

 

I accept that I havent provided a peer reviewed refutation of this paper but I did quote another paper as saying "The Martelll "Hot Particle Theory" has been addressed in the past and has apparently lost popularity in the scientific community ".

Given that you cited that paper in the first place, I presume you agree with it.

How about, from this

http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm

This quote " a relatively less publicized attack on the conventional

approach to evaluating Pu toxicity is the ``warm-particle''

theory of Edward Martell. He hypothesizes that natural radiation

is one of the principal causes of lung cancer, but this idea has

not been accepted by the cancer research community."

[bascule]

As I have pointed out, the inhaled dose of these same nuclei from background radiation is something like a hundred times bigger than that from smoke (and the ratio is bigger yet idf the remains of the cigarette retain any of the Po that it originally held).

 

Can you provide a citation for this? Everything I've seen so far has referenced background radiation levels, not dosage to lung tissue.

 

You are hypothesising that somehow the body can exhale this metal when it's not from smoking but it traps it when you are talking about smoke.

That, to me, seems naive.

 

Actually what I was saying was that mainstream cigarette smoke contains both soluble and insoluble Po₂₁₀ compounds. The soluble compounds are cleared by natural process. The insoluble ones are deposited at bronchial bifurcations and are not easily cleared by natural processes. This is covered both in the Martell paper and in the internal documents from Philip Morris. It's not my "hypothesis", it's recognized by even the cigarette companies.

 

It's interesting that you accuse me of refering only to radiation levels rather than radiation dose. I explicitly mentioned dose and pointed out that the dose levels quoted (of the order of hundreds of Grays) would be well into the realms of radiation sickness from one cigarette. As I said, it depends on what mass you chose to divide by. If you calculated the dose for the Bi atom itself as it disintegrates, the dose would be phenomenal, but meaningless. (BTW, if you don't think that is "pointing out a flaw in the Martell paper" what, exactly, do you want?)

 

A citation regarding direct exposure to lung tissue would be nice.

 

Radiation dose only exists because of radiation levels. It doesn't make sense to only try to talk about one. All things being equal the higher the level the higher the dose.

Some radioisotopes like radiokrypton are not particularly hazardous because the stuff is exhaled quickly. On the other hand, things like strontium 90 are particularly nasty since they are readily absorbed by the body and poorly excreted.

Exposure to the same activity of these two materials would not give the same absorbed dose because one leaves and the other stays.

OK, but what we are comparing is inhaled Po and Pb radioisotopes from radon daughters versus exactly the same stuff from the same source.

The difference being that, in one case, there's about a hundred times more of it.

Now to me that's pretty clear grounds to supose the absorbed dose

1 will be bigger for the bigger exposure

and

2 will be in the lungs in both cases.

 

I accept that I havent provided a peer reviewed refutation of this paper but I did quote another paper as saying "The Martelll "Hot Particle Theory" has been addressed in the past and has apparently lost popularity in the scientific community ".

 

That was from the internal Philip Morris documents I linked, which first are certainly not peer reviewed scientific literature, and second predate the Martell paper I lniked.

 

How about, from this

http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm

This quote " a relatively less publicized attack on the conventional

approach to evaluating Pu toxicity is the ``warm-particle''

theory of Edward Martell. He hypothesizes that natural radiation

is one of the principal causes of lung cancer, but this idea has

not been accepted by the cancer research community."

 

That's certainly a better document, thanks.

[John Cuthber]

"Can you provide a citation for this? Everything I've seen so far has referenced background radiation levels, not dosage to lung tissue."

No, but I can repeat my observation that what's in the background will get into the lungs so some extent and, whatever that extent might be, there's no clear reason why it should be different for Po derived from smoke or Po from background radon.

 

 

"Actually what I was saying was that mainstream cigarette smoke contains both soluble and insoluble Po210 compounds. The soluble compounds are cleared by natural process. The insoluble ones are deposited at bronchial bifurcations and are not easily cleared by natural processes."

 

What evidence can you offer that Po from background radon doesn't also form both soluble and insoluble compounds?

Without that, I'm inclined to say they are pretty much the same thing and, therfore, I blame most of the damage on the thing that produces most of the exposure.

 

I wonder if you can find any recent paper that supports Martell's ideas?

I seem to have found a few that say such support is lacking.

If there's no such support then he's a lone voice- even if it's published in Nature a single paper isn't proof.

I realise he may have published shedsfull of papers based on this hypothesis- what I'd like to see is evidence of anyone outside his research group agreeing with him.

There certainly seems to be evidence that the EPA disagree or they would be lobbying for the power to do something about it. I think it's fair to say that, like most groups, the EPA would like more authority and a bigger budget- this idea would offer them that so you have to ask why they haven't taken it up (I realise you have written to ask them exactly that but until you get a reply it's still an interesting question).

 

Why do you think the EPA is not angling for a research budget for this problem?

[bascule]

What evidence can you offer that Po from background radon doesn't also form both soluble and insoluble compounds?

Without that, I'm inclined to say they are pretty much the same thing and, therfore, I blame most of the damage on the thing that produces most of the exposure.

 

That's shifting the burden of proof. You're the one arguing similar dosages for background radiation.

 

I wonder if you can find any recent paper that supports Martell's ideas?

I seem to have found a few that say such support is lacking.

 

Are you referring to this?

 

http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm

 

That paper is titled "THE MYTH OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY"

 

Polonium is not referenced anywhere in it. You say you found a few papers. Can you post a link to one of the others?

 

If there's no such support then he's a lone voice- even if it's published in Nature a single paper isn't proof.

 

No, but so far, I'm not seeing anything refuting it, or even offering a contrary opinion.

 

There certainly seems to be evidence that the EPA disagree or they would be lobbying for the power to do something about it.

 

I've contacted the EPA asking them their opinion on whether or not they would want to regulate it. However, just because they're not lobbying for authority doesn't mean they aren't concerned, and nothing in their original reply to me suggested they didn't consider it a problem. Perhaps they just have bigger fish to fry.

 

But again, that's policy-based speculation, which is about as far from science as you can get.

[John Cuthber]

I'm allowed to shift the burden of proof because I'm putting forward the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the body is not able to distinguish between Po from cigarettes and Po from background radon. If you want to make a case for controlling Po in tobacco you need to prove that it is more hazardous than the Po in normal air.

"That paper is titled "THE MYTH OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY"

 

Polonium is not referenced anywhere in it. You say you found a few papers. "

I know what it's called and I know that it points out that Martell's work isn't widely accepted.

The other reference I gave earlier it says "The Martelll "Hot Particle Theory" has been addressed in the past and has apparently lost popularity in the scientific community ".

 

If you can find a few independent papers that support Martells work then I might start to beleive it, but even then I would need some convincing that the the small levels of Po measured in tobacco have a bigger effect than the much larger quantities of the same stuff from other sources.

 

Incidentally, the facts are

1 I am offering a contrary opinion and I'm not the only one- the 2 references I gave earlier also offer the opinion that there's a problem with Martell's work.

2 The quantity of radiation is small- much more is present from other sources so there would need to be something special about Po from tobacco for Martells conclusions to be valid. No such "special" property has been demonstrated. (that's a refutation BTW)

 

So when you write "I'm not seeing anything refuting it, or even offering a contrary opinion."

I can't help wondering if you have read what I have written.

 

I agree that the EPA certainly have bigger fish to fry- 20Bq of Po in a cigatrette isn't a big fish.

[bascule]

I'm allowed to shift the burden of proof because I'm putting forward the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the body is not able to distinguish between Po from cigarettes and Po from background radon.

 

A quick Googling shows:

 

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm

 

...a background radiation dosage (to the entire body, I assume) of 360 millirem.

 

Also I don't think rads and rems are equivalent for alpha radiation.

 

I know what it's called and I know that it points out that Martell's work isn't widely accepted.

 

Argument from popularity? What's wrong with it?

 

The other reference I gave earlier it says "The Martelll "Hot Particle Theory" has been addressed in the past and has apparently lost popularity in the scientific community ".

 

Again, that's an internal memo from Philip Morris. Not exactly the most credible thing to put up against a paper that got published in Nature.

 

If you can find a few independent papers that support Martells work then I might start to beleive it, but even then I would need some convincing that the the small levels of Po measured in tobacco have a bigger effect than the much larger quantities of the same stuff from other sources.

 

Incidentally, the facts are

1 I am offering a contrary opinion and I'm not the only one- the 2 references I gave earlier also offer the opinion that there's a problem with Martell's work.

 

Can you point out what the problem is? That's what I'm really looking for.

 

2 The quantity of radiation is small- much more is present from other sources so there would need to be something special about Po from tobacco for Martells conclusions to be valid. No such "special" property has been demonstrated. (that's a refutation BTW)

 

That special property is deposition of sticky "tar" directly on lung tissue which contains insoluble compounds of alpha-emitting polonium.

[John Cuthber]

Argument from popularity might be a logical flaw, but it doesn't mean it's wrong.

If Martell's work carried much weight in the scientific community it would be easy to show it. Since a lot of work has been done on cancer and smoking you would need to explain why this theory keeps getting ignored.

Personally I think it's because Po stuck on ordinary dust (as most of it will be) would work just as well as that from smoke. Martell's paper requires it to be something like 100 tiomes more effective.

 

"Also I don't think rads and rems are equivalent for alpha radiation."

Did anyone say they were?

What I pointed out was that by choosing to look at very local events you exagerate the apprent dose received. Thats' bad science - another problem with that paper.

 

"Not exactly the most credible thing to put up against a paper that got published in Nature."

A paper published in Nature generally sparks a whole lot of similar research. If it's right why isn't it mainstream?

The website you cited gives a relatively much higher effect of smoking than I calculated earlier. I guess we can wait for the EPA to give a casting vote. On the other hand it says "When the tobacco is inhaled, the smoker receives a dose from the inhaled lead-210 as well as polonium-210, the decay product of lead-210. Lead-210 is deposited on the surfaces of bones and polonium-210 is deposited in the liver, kidney and spleen. ".

No mention of the lungs.

Even then, if the effect of smoking is to nearly double (280 vs 361 mRem) the radiation dose you receive, but the effect on lung cancer is enormously greater than that (and it is; estimates vary from about 8 to about 20) what you have is evidence that something else in smoke is responsible for most of the cancers in smokers.

 

As I have said, it will be interesting to see what the EPA say about it.

[John Cuthber]

Nearly a month on. Have the EPA got back to you?

[bascule]

This time I didn't receive a personal reply like I did before, but instead I got a form letter which didn't address my question at all.

[John Cuthber]

Well, I guess we just have to use the data we have got. Smoking less than doubles the dose of radiation received but the increased risk from smoking is much more than a factor of 2.

It looks to me as if there must be something else responsible for the rest of the excess cancer risk.

I maintain that it's all those nasty chemicals; particularly since they are present and known to cause cancer.