[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: : Re: Toxic Trivia



 


  >>
>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. ;-)