When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.

[ibjamming]

How could anyone disagree with the original title? Of course ALL knowledge should be freely available to anyone to be used for the betterment of all. But it doesn't work that way. Just about everyone wants to suppress your knowledge so they have the advantage.

Look at patents...the sole purpose is to keep knowledge private. It's ALL about the money.

You'd be shocked to know all the bullshit we're being told...practically EVERYONE is lying to you! Daily...

In 50 years I've learned one important thing...trust nobody and don't believe a thing you're told. EVERYONE tells you the story they want you to hear...the truth be damned!

The bullshit is astounding... I'll address some things mentioned by Mary in the post above...I don't have time for more than that.

The "death panels" are nothing more than a cost saving measure. Your life is worth XXX amount of dollars when you're young, but only X amount when you're old. We have only so much to spend on health care so resources must be monitored and priorities set.

As a country, there is NO WAY in hell we can pay for all the baby boomers to retire. There is also no way we can afford their medical care. The panels will determine whether the benefit outweighs the cost. Hitler and Stalin both needed a way to eliminate a huge chunk of the population...this country does too. How better to "save money" than to deny costly health care to the old and indigent. Death panels are the way the government will save precious resources. But you know...the DAY the government denies coverage to a retired worker...no matter the age...but still covers poor welfare people who have NEVER done a productive thing in their life...I'll be the first to start the revolution!

Muslims ARE out to get us..."Islam" is anyway. It's part of their doctrine. They want to take over the world just as Christians do. I've been to the middle east...I know first hand what they think of "westerners"...they hate us MORE than "we" hate them. THEIR knowledge is suppressed along with ours. It's all part of the "keep them scared and dependent" that rulers have been doing forever.

The tobacco industry SHOULD be gone...it provides nothing good, it's a dangerous product. WHY is it still here? Tax money! The government is SO reliant on the tax revenue from cigarettes that it allows a killer industry to continue to kill people...all for the tax money. And the beauty is...with the "death panels", those who get sick from the cigarettes won't get treatment...it's "self inflicted". So, you PAID high taxes while you smoked, and then you get cut off when you get sick. You were the PERFECT citizen!

Cap and Trade is the big legislation for "global warming". The problem is...it won't do anything but line pockets. It's just an added layer of bureaucracy and taxation. Global warming IS real...the ice IS melting...but what CAN we do about it? In the past the earth has been much warmer AND much colder...it's probably natural warming and nothing can be done about it. What we REALLY need to do is figure out how to live WITH the increased temps.

I hate to be a glass half empty kind of guy...but things seem pretty fucked up in the world right now. I also think that Obama will spell the end of Americas greatness. He is allowing all kind of things that are bad for the US and the world in general to happen with abandon. Iraq is/was a joke...WHY did we spend the last 20 years there again? What did we gain? WHY are we letting a terrorist nation...and yes, Iran IS a terrorist nation...listen to their president speak at the UN and you'll see they ARE a terrorist state...why are we letting them develop their own nuclear program? Because OUR "leader" does NOT have the people's best interests at heart.

Speaking of Obama...how the fuck did he get elected? He's a nobody who came out of nowhere...talk about supressed knowledge! Something IS fishy about the whole thing. And I'm NOT happy at all with the direction we're going. BTW, I didn't like Bush either. They're ALL the same...meet the new boss, same as the old boss. It's the party system that's keeping us enslaved to politicians who are owned by their party/special interests.

Well...at least I have my weed...it keeps me sane. But I'm not "allowed" to have it...our "leaders" have determined it's not good for me. I know what's not good for me...YOU...the government telling me what I can and can't do. I harm nobody smoking weed. Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home. You can't...so I don't listen. That's one of the big problems...government tries to control so much that people start to ignore the "law". And why not? MOST laws are nothing more than rules to give one "person" and advantage over another. Corporations get most of the bullshit laws passed. Take our beloved weed...it's illegal because the drug and alcohol makers would lose billions. It's ALL about the money...it ALWAYS is!

Fuck it...where's the bong...

 

[dagnabit]

You would think after almost 40 years of research thousands of peer reviewed literature open to the scrutiny of others, there should be by now a more uniformed opposing argument.

You need to look into no further than a few pages back you will find that there is no unified opposition.

All I have seen in the last few pages are political rhetoric and just plain outright trolling. With the only objective in mind is to get the thread closed.

When knowledge is suppressed brought us death panels last summer and out for this summer, they imply our current president along with all Muslims are going to get us.

Unfortunate as it may be these tactics work. Some of the same organizations that campaigned for the tobacco industry and opposed health care reform are now opposing any legislation put fourth concerning global warming.

Mj

the funny thing...
the above quote will do more to get this thread closed than any other 10 posts in this thread combined!!!

hilarious

 

[Weird]

the funny thing...
the above quote will do more to get this thread closed than any other 10 posts in this thread combined!!!

hilarious

the basic precept of etiquette and good taste seem lost on those who come to challenge the OP and not the OT

if there was a smokers bar "den" and there were tables "threads" and you saw some one pose a question would take a chair "read" and immediately interject "post" and foretell "post without focus on OT" that they would all be thrown out cause they are acting inappropriately?

one of the things that made IC Mag a very special place when I came here was a seeming mutual respect by a real variety of persona

now there is a them vs. us mentality and an angst

for better or for worse, many of the toker den threads correlate to the perspectives our fellow stoners posses regarding the world around them

i dont agree with all the information that people present BUT I DO BELIEVE that in giving those people respect they have the chance to talk about their perspectives and learn from others who share similar circumstances

this is how some of us learn and learned

the confrontation of ego has a self projected dynamic involved so it does not exist unless both contribute in some form or fashion

truly I respect and love you all because of the sanctity of life and I can extend it without having to agree or even contribute to the same vibe

the title of the original post is not a solicitation for a sword fight but someones quest to share how information changes perspectives and how it is manipulated to manipulate perspectives

you obviously know this and still have your own ego issues or you would have been simply smart enough not to create that energy

and not for nothing if everyone thinks head is on an ego trip why do you bother spending energy on pointing it out unless its the same personal quirk (better than defect ehh ) you posses

id take sides but IMHO on a pot site such as this, i first judge a man by his works with the plant and how he interacts with it

i guess this is why i understand that there is a fine line between perceiving someone as possessing the passion to share what helped you versus the perception that in someones self discovery they are somehow casting judgement on you when they share their testimony

in heads case I know it is his passion, not that there may not be a pinch of ego (love ya head) but hes the type of dude that if he feels there is something the world could use to make things right and its in his power to bring it

hes bringing it

maybe if we all put our energies in the direction of problem --> solution instead of problem ---> cause (which only results in blame or denial) we could have some harmonious results

we all came for like reasons

 

[dagnabit]

it all started from a definition
and the piece you quoted was strictly about politics..

what i mean...

i dont want the thread closed never my intention.

believe it or not i find the OT very interesting.
i just would enjoy discussing both sides of the OT.
the man who coined the term agrees that there are several uses for "scientific denialisim"
head does as well.

but it's not really denialisim we want to discuss...

herein knowledge IS being suppressed.

so when i said that your political statements were more likely to get the thread closed that is what i meant.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Heat from undersea volcanoes...

Ok... I'll do some of your homework for you this once.
Here's some of the easily obtainable information to refute that hypothesis.





One way of addressing your question, is to examine the vertical distribution of enhanced ocean heat in a warming world. The variation in distribution of added heat over time will be quite different if the heat penetrates the ocean from the atmosphere, compared to a situation of increased undersea volcanic activity (a notion which completely lacks evidence - one would have to postulate that undersea volcanic activity has all of a sudden increased by a truly vast amount).

There's a fair amount of analysis of enhanced ocean heat distribution, and this is consistent with ocean warming as a result of heat penetration from the atmosphere not from the depths. One such paper can be found at:
Barnett, T. P. et al. (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans Science 309, 284-287

Regarding the leaking of heat from the Earth's interior, from volcanoes, rifts, and everything else, both above and below water, here are some sources of info:

A summary is in section 17.4.1, Global heat flow, of Mussett & Khan's Looking into the Earth: An Introduction to Geological Geophysics (2000, Alan E. Mussett & M. Aftab Khan, page 279, free online partial preview).

71% of the Earth interior's heat loss is from ocean-covered surface; you can see a breakdown in section 7.4, Worldwide heat flow: total heat loss from Earth, especially Table 7.3 on page 286, of Fowler's
The Solid Earth: An Introduction to Global Geophysics (2nd Edition, 2005, C.M.R. Fowler, free online partial preview). An even more detailed breakdown, even across types of undersea crust, is in Pollack, Hurter, & Johnson (1993, Heat Flow from the Earth's Interior: Analysis of the Global Data Set, Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 31(3), pages 267-280, full text available for free). A more recent source that is just as technical as the 1993 Pollack, Hurter, and Johnson article is the 2005 book chapter by Jaupart and Mareschal, Constraints on Crustal Heat Production from Heat Flow Data (in R.L. Rudnick (Ed.), The Crust, pages 65-84, free online partial preview).

A summary of how the experts calculate the heat flow from the crust that is covered by oceans are in that same Fowler book, section 7.5, Oceanic Heat Flow, starting on page 288 (free online partial preview). Details are in that same 1993 Pollack, Hurter, & Johnson article (full text available for free) and that same 2005 book chapter by Jaupart and Mareschal (free online partial preview).

Those experts say that the total heat from the Earth's interior arriving at the Earth's surface (covered by land plus covered by sea) is about 0.09 watts coming out of each square meter from the Earth's interior. That's about 10,000 time less than the energy from the Sun (1,370 watts/m^2 on the sunlit side). That is such an inconsequential amount that any changes in it since 1850 cannot possibly have any significant effects on global temperature, compared to the other forcings such greenhouse gases and even solar variability. Furthermore, the observations of heat loss from the Earth's interior have not revealed any significant changes in the time frame of anthropogenic global warming.

So heat emission from the Earth's interior simply does not seem to be a significant player in the era of anthropocentric global warming.

John Cook quite rightly pointed out to me that the best comparison of the total amount of heat leaking from the Earth's interior (0.09 watts/m^2) is comparison against known forcings rather than against any total. For example, it's better to compare against forcing from variations in the Sun's radiance rather than against the total of the Sun's radiance. Or against the forcing from CO2, which is 2.66 watts/m^2.

Comparison to forcings show that any forcings from variations in the amount of heat from the Earth's interior will be tiny in comparison to the known forcings from variations in other factors such as CO2 or solar radiance. Suppose that the heat from the interior had doubled without us noticing (a ridiculous supposition). That would mean the heat from the interior would have increased by only 0.18 w/m^2--a tiny fraction of the current CO2 forcing of 2.66 watts/m^2.

 

[Weird]

it all started from a definition
and the piece you quoted was strictly about politics..

what i mean...

i dont want the thread closed never my intention.

believe it or not i find the OT very interesting.
i just would enjoy discussing both sides of the OT.
the man who coined the term agrees that there are several uses for "scientific denialisim"
head does as well.

but it's not really denialisim we want to discuss...

herein knowledge IS being suppressed.

so when i said that your political statements were more likely to get the thread closed that is what i meant.

fair enough I know we are on the same page





its almost like when we come to this house to gather we forget to wipe off the distaste of babylons dust from our mouths

we all do it, especially cause these are copic times for pot heads

FOR ME

the real conspiracy the real cover up and the real Illuminati is the unbridled greed driving the evolving science of chemistry and medicine which is enslaving all of us with designer benzos, opiates, anti-psychotics and anti-depressants

it is not calculated but just part of the "curse"

the best addicts simply pay a grand tax to do the mundane things that started the process of addiction in the first place (i.e. construction worker who hurts back and uses opiates to keep on working )

and add the workings of montasano and other like corporate interests and the truth be told

our underground genetics and resins may be the last refuge for man to free himself of chemical slavery and save the race

the one reason everyone should be a fucking nut job here is cause of simple concept of human homeostasis

garbage in garbage out

peace and love and protect those sacred genes whether you know it or not they are saving yOUR lives

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

Thanks for the info on undersea volcanism greatful. With all the books and everything it really would be time prohibitive, so there is really only so far I am willing to examine this data at this time. I don't dismiss it, but I don't accept it on faith.

It looks like I have been accused of trolling. I thought I was being a perfect gentleman. I've ignored countless snide remarks and have really tried to be polite. What more do you want? For me to be more accepting of the current state of scientific knowledge being extremely accurate overall? I don't think that is correct. Certainly if knowledge is so advanced, much of it is suppressed. Consider the point about radioactive isotopes in tobacco being the primary cause of lung cancer that I brought up earlier.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

It looks like I have been accused of trolling. I thought I was being a perfect gentleman. I've ignored countless snide remarks and have really tried to be polite. What more do you want?

For you to dig into the information that would answer the questions you claim to have, instead of nitpicking insignificant details of my semantics which wouldn't change the meaning of the statement you nitpick by one iota.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Consider the point about radioactive isotopes in tobacco being the primary cause of lung cancer that I brought up earlier.

Radioactive isotopes are one of the ways tobacco smoke cause lung cancer, but to believe that radioactive isotopes are the primary cause of lung cancer is to ignore a big portion of the "tobacco/lung cancer link" of the jigsaw puzzle, and the high probability that the 20 or so other carcinogens in tobacco smoke also play a major role.

This report is fairly detailed, but might contain more words than you care to bother reading... http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/91/14/1194

here is an excerpt.

The complexity of tobacco smoke leads to some confusion about the mechanisms by which it causes lung cancer. Among the multiple components of tobacco smoke, 20 carcinogens convincingly cause lung tumors in laboratory animals or humans and are, therefore, likely to be involved in lung cancer induction. Of these, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone are likely to play major roles. This review focuses on carcinogens in tobacco smoke as a means of simplifying and clarifying the relevant information that provides a mechanistic framework linking nicotine addiction with lung cancer through exposure to such compounds. Included is a discussion of the mechanisms by which tobacco smoke carcinogens interact with DNA and cause genetic changes—mechanisms that are reasonably well understood—and the less well defined relationship between exposure to specific tobacco smoke carcinogens and mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes.

Tobacco smoke contains a number of poisonous gases and chemicals, including hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), and toluene (found in paint thinners).

Some of the toxic metals contained in tobacco smoke include arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), and cadmium (used to make batteries).

There are more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals in the smoke that fall into different chemical classes, including:

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (such as Benzo[a]pyrene)
N-Nitrosamines (such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines)
Aromatic amines (such as 4-aminobiphenyl)
Aldehydes (such as formaldehyde)
Miscellaneous organic chemicals (such as benzene and vinyl chloride) and
Inorganic compounds (such as those containing metals like arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, nickel and radioactive polonium-210).

Eleven compounds in tobacco smoke (2-naphthylamine, 4-aminobiphenyl, benzene, vinyl chloride, ethylene oxide, arsenic, beryllium, nickel compounds, chromium, cadmium and polonium-210) have been identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as Group 1 (known human carcinogen) carcinogens.

Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.

Secondhand smoke is composed of sidestream smoke (the smoke released from the burning end of a cigarette) and exhaled mainstream smoke (the smoke exhaled by the smoker). Because sidestream smoke is generated at lower temperatures and under different conditions than mainstream smoke, it contains higher concentrations of many of the toxins found in inhaled cigarette smoke.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

The fact remains that doctors at the University of Michigan Cardio-Vascular Center acknowledge amongst themselves that the latest research shows that radioactivity is the primary cause of lung cancer in smokers. I heard it myself when it was (sheepishly) mentioned in a lecture. How can this be? How can one of the leading research universities be aware of this and the public never hears of it? This is suppression not only of knowledge, but of humanity itself.

 

[sac beh]

Thanks for the info on undersea volcanism greatful. With all the books and everything it really would be time prohibitive, so there is really only so far I am willing to examine this data at this time. I don't dismiss it, but I don't accept it on faith.

This seems reasonable to me, saying that you don't have the time to read through all of the information and thus suspending judgment one way or the other as you realize you don't have all the information to reasonably judge.

Its more reasonable than what I thought you were saying earlier (sorry if I misread you), namely that you're dismissing something out of hand because it hasn't been proven to you and you aren't going to read the information. Without the information its equally likely that something would be true as false, so suspension of judgment must admit ignorance on the issue until the time when a reasonable judgment can be made based on all the information available.

It looks like I have been accused of trolling. I thought I was being a perfect gentleman. I've ignored countless snide remarks and have really tried to be polite. What more do you want? For me to be more accepting of the current state of scientific knowledge being extremely accurate overall? I don't think that is correct. Certainly if knowledge is so advanced, much of it is suppressed. Consider the point about radioactive isotopes in tobacco being the primary cause of lung cancer that I brought up earlier.

As long as you're discussing the topic you can't be trolling. Others in the thread who only pop in from time to time to make fun of another post or make ad hominem comments are more the trolls.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

This seems reasonable to me, saying that you don't have the time to read through all of the information and thus suspending judgment one way or the other as you realize you don't have all the information to reasonably judge.

Its more reasonable than what I thought you were saying earlier (sorry if I misread you), namely that you're dismissing something out of hand because it hasn't been proven to you and you aren't going to read the information. Without the information its equally likely that something would be true as false, so suspension of judgment must admit ignorance on the issue until the time when a reasonable judgment can be made based on all the information available.



As long as you're discussing the topic you can't be trolling. Others in the thread who only pop in from time to time to make fun of another post or make ad hominem comments are more the trolls.

Thanks for revising your understanding of my meaning scientifical-like.

 

[redspaghetti]

We can be Knowledgeable with other men's knowledge, but we cannot be wise with other men's wisdom.

With that said, only a fool believes what he sees on tv's and read in the books, one musts travel to find his own wisdom and knowledge ...

ya;'ll have a wonderful day ...

cheers,

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The fact remains that doctors at the University of Michigan Cardio-Vascular Center acknowledge amongst themselves that the latest research shows that radioactivity is the primary cause of lung cancer in smokers. I heard it myself when it was (sheepishly) mentioned in a lecture. How can this be? How can one of the leading research universities be aware of this and the public never hears of it? This is suppression not only of knowledge, but of humanity itself.

So, they're lecturing about things they are unwilling to publish parers on?
doubtful.
They all know that none of the carcinogens is tobacco smoke aren't really what is causing most of the cancer, and they won't publish?
again, doubtful.

Please substantiate your assertion with something beyond hearsay and rumor.
If you can back up what you assert with verifiable evidence I'd be more than happy to look into it.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

As long as you're discussing the topic you can't be trolling. Others in the thread who only pop in from time to time to make fun of another post or make ad hominem comments are more the trolls.

and as long as you realize nitpicking irrelevant semantics is not discussing the topic, it is distracting from the topic.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Mezz, since you are unwilling to dig into the information, and you are suspending judgement because of your ignorance concerning said information, do you not realize that you are out of bounds criticizing the position of someone who has been willing to study and dig into the information?


It would be like someone who had never grown a plant of any kind trying to give you (assuming you are an experienced cannabis grower) grow advice based on blurbs they had read on the back cover of a few different gardening books, and a newspaper article they read once.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

Mezz, since you are unwilling to dig into the information, and you are suspending judgement because of your ignorance concerning said information, do you not realize that you are out of bounds criticizing the position of someone who has been willing to study and dig into the information?


It would be like someone who had never grown a plant of any kind trying to give you (assuming you are an experienced cannabis grower) grow advice based on blurbs they had read on the back cover of a few different gardening books, and a newspaper article they read once.

I'm criticizing the concept of Denialism and belief in the conclusions of some scientists using certain data as Verifiable Truth. It's a philosophical deconstruction of "Sanctimonious Scientism" as represented by people who would promote the idea that Denialism is a scourge.

Can you name some prominent Scientific Denialists besides people mentioned in the article? I'm not sure that AIDS is caused by HIV by the way. Has it been isolated? What if the Denier is correct?) Is there a veritable army of deniers out there or just a handful?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I can't seem to figure what's so hard for you to get.

1. At your request I have stopped using the term denialist, and then you ask me to label more people as denialist, and provide census data about said people.
2. denialism has been well defined: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. If there is actually conflicting evidence, then the debate exist.
I am always willing to consider and discuss evidence.

It is up to you to dig into the data for yourself and verify whether someone is refuting a claim or merely denying it.

Instead of asking questions about AIDS denialism, why not dig into it yourself?

Your position of being unsure is the only correct position to have If you are unwilling to dig deep enough to find out the answers for yourself... but asking questions you are not willing to seek the answers to, seems nothing but a rhetorical tactic to distract and confuse from the discussion.

All I've tried to do is push people to familiarize themselves with a subject before attempting to criticize the position of those who are familiar with it.

BTW... several of the more prominent scientists who were legitimate AIDS skeptics have repudiated their former position in light of the most recent evidence. Not that they did not have valid cause for their original skepticism, but as the jigsaw puzzle has become filled in they have been swayed by empirically verifiable evidence.

Both Joseph Sonnabend and Robert Root-Bernstein who once believed HIV was not necessary for AIDS, now favor a less controversial hypothesis, suggesting that while HIV is necessary for AIDS, cofactors may also contribute.

Walter Gilbert, winner of the 1980 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, once expressed skepticism about the role of HIV in AIDS. Like Sonnabend, he has since changed his mind in response to the effectiveness of antiretroviral treatment.

Dig deeper into AIDS denialism... the truth is out there, you just have to be willing to work for it a little.

 

[dagnabit]

i was thinking about the duplicitous nature of the concept of "scientific denialisim" and i think i have an example of what i mean.

9/11 conspiracy theory.

both sides have "scientists" to provide "data" and call the other side "scientific denialists" (not the term they probably use but the effect is the exact same).
the idea/tactic of dismissing an opponent as a scientific denialist can be just as dishonest as the denialisim itself.

all snide bullshit aside this is the point ive been trying to make i just had trouble with the example.
what i tried to do herein is to not provide my opinion on the debate of 9/11 conspiracy but just use it as an example of denialisim.
i believe that in order to objectively discuss denialisim w/o digression into debate of off topic subjects you need to divorce yourself from the actual issue and only contemplate how denialisim effects the issue as a tactic from both sides.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

So, they're lecturing about things they are unwilling to publish parers on?
doubtful.
They all know that none of the carcinogens is tobacco smoke aren't really what is causing most of the cancer, and they won't publish?
again, doubtful.

Please substantiate your assertion with something beyond hearsay and rumor.
If you can back up what you assert with verifiable evidence I'd be more than happy to look into it.

Double standard, greatful? I'm not really asserting anything anyway. I'm telling you what I heard at the hospital auditorium in a room full of probably 100+ cardio-vascular specialists.

You can always follow up this lead by searching for yourself.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3003925?dopt=Abstract

Lung cancer: is the increasing incidence due to radioactive polonium in cigarettes?

Marmorstein J.
Abstract

This paper presents clinical, experimental, and epidemiologic evidence to help explain the rapidly increasing incidence of primary lung cancer, with recently observed reversal in leading cell type from squamous cell to adenocarcinoma. It postulates that this may be due to changes in modern cigarettes, with or without filters, which allow inhalation of increased amounts of radioactive lead and polonium and decreased amounts of benzopyrene. This hypothesis is based upon measurements of increased concentrations of radioactive polonium in the lungs of cigarette smokers, in modern tobaccos grown since 1950, and in high-phosphate fertilizers used for tobacco farming in industrialized countries. Critical support for this thesis is based upon experimental animal studies in which lung cancers that resemble adenocarcinomas are induced with as little as 15 rads of radioactive polonium, equal to one fifth the dosage inhaled by cigarette smokers who average two packs a day during a 25-year period.