Radionucleotide regulation

[bascule]

I contacted the EPA regarding the presence of radionucleotides in cigarettes, namely polonium-210 and lead-210, asking why they weren't regulated. This is the response I received:

 

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.

 

What I can infer from this response:

 

The EPA is fully aware there are radionucleotides present in cigarettes.

 

Present laws do not allow them to regulate the radionucleotide content of cigarettes.

 

Let's put the issue of how harmful these radionucleotides are for a second...

 

Do you think, just as a matter of principle, that the EPA should have the power to regulate them?

 

And as an aside, I contacted my senator about preventable safety problems in cigarettes, including both radionucleotides and nitrosamene content. I included Ed Martell's paper about deep tissue alpha radiation exposure from cigarette smoking and several other citations, with relevant passages already highlighted for easy reading!

 

I didn't even receive a response It's hard to help but feeling that the cigarette companies control Washington and nearly a half million people die every year as a result...

[Pangloss]

It's an excellent course of action, sending that stuff to the sentator's office, IMO. They can't throw it away; they're obliged to keep it. That means they have it, which means they're responsible for it. It may not seem like a big deal, but they cannot now say that none of their constituents are concerned about the issue or aware of the facts. It matters.

[John Cuthber]

"Do you think, just as a matter of principle, that the EPA should have the power to regulate them?"

No, because they can't legislate against rocks.

 

People die from smoking but it has very little to do with the polonium content and a lot to do with things like nitrosamines and PAHs.

If it made sense to ban Po in cigarettes it would make a lot more sense to ban nicotine. It's not going to happen.

This has been debated before. 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.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27298

[insane_alien]

should they regulate the amount of carbon-14 you swallow everyday? i can't imagine how they would be able to do that.

[bascule]

People die from smoking but it has very little to do with the polonium content and a lot to do with things like nitrosamines and PAHs.

 

If you believe the science demonstrates polonium is not a factor in lung cancers, why do you oppose the EPA having authority to regulate it?

 

As an aside: nitrosamines form through direct fire curing of tobacco (and can be reduced to undetectable levels by using indirect fire curing instead), but the EPA doesn't have the authority to regulate nitrosamines in cigarettes either.

 

If it made sense to ban Po in cigarettes it would make a lot more sense to ban nicotine.

 

Why would it make more sense to regulate nicotine? Nicotine isn't a carcinogen, but Po₂₁₀ is. What ill health effects caused by nicotine do you think make it more worthy of regulation than Po₂₁₀?

 

That said, this thread isn't intended to discuss how Po₂₁₀ in cigarettes should be regulated. It's to discuss whether the EPA should have the power to regulate it at all, which they presently don't.

[John Cuthber]

"why do you oppose the EPA having authority to regulate it?"

According to wiki

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or sometimes USEPA) is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and with safeguarding the natural environment: air, water, and land. "

They have responsibility to regulate things that affect the health and environment- Po in smoke doesn't affect them to any meaningfull extent. They also have better things to do.

 

It's the nicotine in cigarettes that's addictive. Removing it would get most people to stop smoking. This would reduce the net harm done.

 

Also, while nicotine isn't carcinogenic, it is the most likely candidate for the detrimental effect smoking has on the heart.

 

Those effects are within EPA's remit, the trace of Po isn't. There's almost certainly uranium in cigs too, why not worry about that?

Come to that, there will be plutonium from nuclear fallout. Do you think it's worth removing that?

 

This is a reply to a post in another thread. The OP is trying to keep the science of Po toxicity separate from the legal/ political issues of the EPAs regulatory authority.

As I said, the EPA's role is clear - they regulate risks to people and the enevironment.

Since the exposure to Po from cigarettes is not a major part of the hazard from smoking (in fact I don't think it's even a measurable part), they don't have any rules to deal with Po in smoking materials.

That's consistent with their reply that "existing laws to not authorize EPA or other federal agencies to regulate this source of radiation."

The other part of the reason is that its NORM and you can't legislate against rocks.

 

There's nothing in the reply the EPA sent you that supports the idea that the Po content of tobbaco has any significant effect on health.

You certainly can't say that it agrees with Martell's paper which talks about putative damage to the lungs. The EPA's response simply tells you what everyone knows- the stuff is from the phosphate rock used to make fertiliser.

The EPA are, as you say, fully aware of the assertion that Po is harmful. Their business is to control harm, yet they are not seeking legal authority to regulate the Po in cigs.

I think that's because, like me (but unlike Martell), they don't think it's a significant cause of harm.

[bascule]

I have submitted a follow-up question to the EPA asking if they feel radon progeny in mainstream cigarette smoke should be regulated if they were authorized to do so.

[Pangloss]

should they regulate the amount of carbon-14 you swallow everyday? i can't imagine how they would be able to do that.

 

Are you kidding? With the US Government at work? Having to wait 5,000 years to test the results sounds just about right!

[John Cuthber]

Why a 5000yr wait?

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the EPA think.