AW: [ RadSafe ] Tobacco's radiation dose far higher than leaves atChernobyl

[Franz Schönhofer]

Maury et al. including your dog,

I think I can not only answer your question, but also comment on the
original message. 

The original message is based on an article in the "New Scientist". I do not
know this media, but it seems that it is one of the typical media focussed
on sensations. Therefore articles on it seem to be not a good basis for
scientific discussions. 

I have met a Greek person by name Papastefanou many times at conferences. I
do not remember the first name of this person, but I would not be surprised
if this would be the same one. In case this would be the same - which I
assume - my only polite comment on his expertise would be - "no comment". 

The question of Po-210 in tobacco has been investigated since many decades
ago, please make your own literature research. For those not so familiar
with this topic: Pb-210 and Po-210 is present in tobacco leaves as well as
they are present in any other crops. Po-210 is volatile at the temperature
of the tip of the glowing cigarette - about 900 C. How much of it will be
inhaled by the smoker after passing through the cigarette and cooling down
is a good question. I would be more than surprised if this had not been
investigated by the cigarette industry already since long. 

Now the question of the impact of fertilizers:

I do not know of any such studies regarding tobacco. Almost ten years ago I
wanted to start a research project on the influence of what you call
"artificial fertilizers" on the Ra-226 content of crops. The money would
have been ready, but our literature research reveiled that the amount of
Ra-226 which in the worst case would have been added by those artificial
fertilizers was negligible compared to the naturally occurring level of
Ra-226 and daughter products in the soil. You may deduce from this fact,
that you read the message of an absolute idiot, who does not take the money
for a research with the final outcome that no difference could be detected.


With respect to tobacco I would caution everybody insofar, that it is well
known, that some species might take up (radio)-nuclides preferentially, like
the mushroom Xerocomus badius takes up Cs-137, others accumulate Vanadium
etc. etc. An enhanced uptake of radionuclides in hairy plants like tobacco
of fallout Cs-137 following the Chernobyl accident was only temporarily of
concern. Caesium - whether nonradioactive or radioactive is volatile at
temperatures above 450C and therefore of more concern. 

Oh, I forgot the benzpyrenes etc. Should there not be other, much more
convincing arguments against smoking?

Best regards and best wishes from an absolute never-smoker!

Franz  

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Maury Siskel
Gesendet: Sonntag, 03. Juni 2007 09:42
An: ROY HERREN
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Tobacco's radiation dose far higher than leaves
atChernobyl

Roy, can you (or anyone else on the List) comment on anecdotal claims 
that the polonium in tobacco arises solely from fertilizers used to grow 
tobacco? Has the obvious experiment ever been performed using (control 
group) soil never exposed to "artficial" fertilizers? I'm impressed by 
the impression that we still do not know exactly what in tobacco is the 
cause of lung cancer. Is this correct?
Thanks,
Maury&Dog          (maurysis at peoplepc.com