Re: : Re: Toxic Trivia

["Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>]

>During this course he indicated that "in his opinion" most lung
>cancers associated with cigarettes were caused by radioactivity >rather 
>than the chemical carcinogens.  He indicated that Pb-210 and >Po-210 as the 
>primary sources of the radiation.

I question whether a quantitative statement ("...most lung cancers...") can 
be made. Already 25 years ago about 20000 harmful chemicals had been found 
in cigarette smoke. This included many aromatic hydrocarbons such as 
benzene, benzpyrene and anthracene like compounds including various 
partially oxidized forms of these (like epoxides), nitrosoamines, most of 
the metals of the periodic table (this is mainly a question of level or dose 
except for a few elements As, Pb, Sb, Hg and Cd which probably have no 
biological function).
And then Pb-210, Po-210 etc. I don't see how you could study the relative 
effects - relative DNA damage may be a starting point but there is much more 
in tumor progression - cell membrane damage may be one promotion factor for 
instance.

But I must say that I like the idea of cigarette radiation warnings but many 
smokers probably wouldn't care.

My personal ideas only,

Bjorn Cedervall   bcradsafers@hotmail.com
PS. Hope to see some of you Radsafers at the Tokaimura discussion in L.A. 
tomorrow (this is my vacation).
http://www.geocities.com/bjorn_cedervall/

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html