>>
>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.
In a message dated 2/9/00 10:50:55 Pacific Standard Time,
bcradsafers@hotmail.com writes:
>>>
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
>>>
Bjorn,
You are right we do not care.
I am afraid that it may even boost the cigarettes sales to a some group of
teenagers.
It could be appealing to them as a sort of "COOOL". Everybody was a
teenager once.
As a smoker for a fifteen years, I can say that I never really cared about
the radiation
from Pb-210, Po-210
What has been bothering me, from the beginning that direct physical and
chemical damages (known as a tumor progression promoters).
Twenty years ago, I heard an opinion that any permanent wound eventually
will turn out into a cancer tumor. The initial mutations have very low chance
to "survive", to replicate.
The last time, four years ago, I have heard, nobody really knew yet how many
hits into DNA are enough to produce a mutation. I agree with you, it is the
promoters who play a big role in the whole process (initial mutation and
progression).
As far as I am concern, cosmic radiation is energetic enough rays (with less
LET than alphas) but it is enough to generate the initial mutations. (One is
not enough but how many is to many?? SSB, DSB) I am sure that it is
happening right now, and I have no control over that at all. So little bit of
Pb-210 and Po-210 alphas are not really changing the quality of the picture.
Quartz UV lamps for example are used for the disinfection purpose in some
hospital rooms.
Could be those Po-210, Po-210 alphas the disinfectors (with higher LET)
inside of the lungs.
So, there are always pluses and minuses.
Without those alphas may be person would have a higher rate of pneumonia (is
it a promoter-?) I would consider it as a tumor progression promoter. So
without the alphas will be more promoters.
Of course, I am not trying to say that smokers have less pneumonias, they do
have higher rates, but because of the physical and the chemical damage to the
lungs.
But the idea is that radiation is not a negative factor in every situation.
We have no a direct control over the mutations, just over the chances them
to be happening. Chances are the chances, some people believe they will hit
the jack pot, for some it may progress into the obsession. Some do not care.
I don't.
(I guess, those who are obsessed with the radiophobia are obsessed with the
idea of hitting that jack pot.)
But with UV quartz lamps we have a direct control over the infection in the
room.
Best Regards,
Emil.
kerembaev@cs.com
I hope in this situation, it is not a citation.
And I did not mess up Jones with Johns in this message. ;-)