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

smoke....



This post comments on a few of the recent 'smoking'

remarks from different posts.  I've tried to keep

things related to radiation safety as best as

possible.

Point "4" is probably the most important and relevant.



1.  The major carcinogens in tobacco smoke are

polycyclic organic compounds.  Polonium and other

decay chain members are not believed to be the primary

culprits:  



Rubin H.  Synergistic mechanisms in carcinogenesis by

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and by tobacco smoke:

a bio-historical perspective with updates.  

Carcinogenesis. 2001 Dec;22(12):1903-30. Review.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11751421&dopt=Abstract



Here is a list of culprits:



http://www.repace.com/fact_exp.html



2.  I think that economic incentives (lowered

health/life insurance rates for non smokers/non(low)

drinkers/seatbelt users and for corporate insurance

plans in workplaces with few smokers are hired),

promoted by Milton Friedman) are an excellent idea.



3.  Here's an _opinion._  _I just don't like_ some of

the opinions I've seen voiced here in the past few

days, particularly the ones that support 'smokers'

rights.'  It seems like I've already heard almost all

of them before from a very heavy smoker (deceased -

lung cancer)...comments like "I have a right to smoke

where/when I want to," and, "people who are called to

their maker early are cheaper to the taxpayers" than

the ones who stick around."  

------------

4.  I think that general health attitudes can be read

by coworkers at the workplace rather easily. 

Attitudes _are_ contagious and they do reflect a

person's values.  A safety person who demonstrates at

least an attempt to promote good personal health

practices is more *credible* to me than a safety

person who seems concerned about the rights of smokers

to light up and blow smoke my way. 



-------------

Imagine the following situation (not realistic and not

autobiographical):  "I" am a tradesperson of some kind

who is not trained in radiation safety.  "I" used to

play football in high school, and I still like to go

and do active things on the weekends.  "My" job

involves working in a radiation area, because I got

hired to do work there.  I use tools like wrenches,

hammers, drills etc.  I know rather little about

radiation.  After all, I can't see it or feel it.  I

have no idea what LNTH is, and have no/little opinion

about how many photons are too many.  I have a choice

of 2 possible HP people to work with (I didn't say

this was realistic).  I want to choose, above all,

someone whom I can trust who will look out for my

health.  The first HP smokes (fortunately, outside in

the smoking area) but grumbles about not being allowed

to smoke in the lunchroom.  This person goes home

after work and watches TV.  The second HP that I can

choose does not smoke and takes a two mile walk after

work, and brings a bag of salad along with their

lunch.  As a tradesperson who doesn't know too much

about radiation but who knows that an active lifestyle

is healthier than smoking and leading a sedentary

lifestyle, I have asked to work with the second HP,

because that person seems more like someone I can

trust to look out for my health and safety on the job,

because he/she demonstrates good general health

habits.  

--------------------



While I realize that some people see a 'parallel'

between overregulation of radiation and smoking

ordinances, I think that view is a little superficial.

 The folks here have the opportunity to do _much_

better, because folks have access to decent summaries

of risk analysis information (Cohen 1991) and also

because there is a good chance that longevity can be

prolonged with low dose rate radiation (Caratero et

al. 1998).  Conversely, I don't think that any of the

researchers who blew cigarette smoke at rats found any

increased longevity!   



~Ruth 2

===================================================

Caratero, A., M. Courtade, L. Bonnet, H. Planel, and

C. Caratero.  1998.  Effect of a continuous gamma

irradiation at a very low dose on the life span of

mice.  Gerontology. 44(5):272-276.



Cohen, B.L.  1989.  Expected indoor 222Rn levels in

counties with very high and very low lung cancer

rates.   Health Phys. 1989 Dec;57(6):897-907.



Cohen, B.L.  Catalog of risks extended and updated. 

Health Phys. 1991 Sep;61(3):317-335. Review.



================================================





The cheapest

> person, for society, is one that works all his life,

> pays taxes (including sin taxes) and drops dead from

> a heart attack the day he retires.

>



__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience

http://launch.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/