?? About Tar
- Thread starter sci-fi
- Start date
Did some research on the net and discoverd that it actually does have more tar. But by definition tar is only a material that is not soluble in h20. The reason tar in cigs causes cancer is becuase its radioactive. Actually 90% of lung cancer is from it being radioactive not the tar itself and also that this radioactivity is from a P fert. they use. Damn i hope none of the P boosters i use have these same radioactive isotopes. scary shit.
From: Sol Lightman
The following is the text of a pamphlet I wrote for an organization
at UMASS amherst
It is an attempt to point out some of the absurdities in the marijuana-
is-bad-for-you-like-cigarettes bullshit, as well as take a few cheap
(but well aimed) shots at the tobacco industry.
It is written from a pro-marijuana-relegalization perspective,
and if you want a copy, mail us a Self Addressed Stamped Envelope.
(we're poor.)
An address and some sources are at the end.
So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer...
Think again. Cigarette companies will have you believing
anything just as long as you continue to buy their products. The
fact is, although insoluble tars are a contributing factor to the
lung cancer danger present in today's cigarettes, the real danger
is radioactivity. According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette
Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar,
accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.
Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law
with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have
a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long
lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These
radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the
fine hairs on tobacco leaves.
Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits
accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke.
Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have three
times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non
smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and
polonium 210 in their skeletons,though no studies have been
conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is
the only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors by
itself in inhalation experiments with animals.
When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, the lungs react by
forming irritated areas in the bronchi. All smoke produces this
effect. However, although these irritated spots are referred to as
'pre-cancerous' lesions, they are a perfectly natural defense
system and usually go away with no adverse effects. Insoluble tars
in tobacco smoke can slow this healing process by adhering to
lesions and causing additional irritation. In addition, tobacco
smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time,
which obstructs the lung's ability to clear itself of these
residues.
Polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke show a tendency to
accumulate at lesions in specific spots, called bifurcations, in
the bronchi. When smoking is continued for an extended period of
time, deposits of radioactivity turn into radioactive 'hot spots'
and remain at bifurcations for years. Polonium 210 emits highly
localized alpha radiation which has been shown to cause cancer.
Since the polonium 210 has a half life of 21.5 years (Due to the
presence of lead 210), it can put an ex-smoker at risk for years
after he or she quits. Experiments measuring the level of polonium
210 in victims of lung cancer found that the level of 'hot spot'
activity was virtually the same in smokers and ex-smokers even though
the ex-smokers had quit five years prior to death.
Over half of the radioactive materials emitted by a burning
cigarette are released into the air, where they can be inhaled by
non-smokers. In addition to lead 210 and polonium 210 it has been
proven that tobacco smoke can cause airborne radioactive particles
to collect in the lungs of both smokers and non-smokers exposed to
second hand smoke. Original studies conducted on uranium miners
which showed an increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to
radon in smokers have been re-run to evaluate the radioactive lung
cancer risk from indoor air radon. It turns out that tobacco smoke
works as a kind of 'magnet' for airborne radioactive particles,
causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on furniture.
(Smoking indoors increases lung cancer risks greatly.)
It has been estimated that the total accumulated alpha
radiation exposure of a pack-a-day indoor smoker is 38 to 97 rad by
age 60. (Two packs a day yields up to 143 rad, and non-smokers
receive no more than 17 rad.) An exposure of 1 rad per year yields
a 1% risk of lung cancer (at the lowest estimate.)
Don't smoke. Or if you do, smoke lightly, outdoors, and
engage frequently in activities which will clear your lungs.
Imported India tobacco has less than half the radiation content of
that grown in the U.S.
Kicking the nicotine habit is not easy, and nobody has the
right to expect it of you. Often physical addictions are
reinforced by emotional and psychological needs. Filling or coming
to terms with those needs can give you the inspiration and added
freedom to succeed.
Most of all, inform yourself, even if the information is
disturbing. You are a lot less likely to be taken in by tobacco
advertising once you know the facts.
Nicotine, the active ingredient in tobacco smoke, has long
been known to be highly addictive. In fact, doctors and
pharmacologists are not in consensus as to which is more addictive
-- nicotine, or heroin. Physical addiction occurs when a chemical
becomes essential for the body or metabolism to function. In other
words, a substance is said to be physically addictive if extended
use results in a build up of tolerance in the body to the extent
that discontinuing use of the substance results in negative side
effects. Called "withdrawal symptoms," these consequences can
include anxiety, stress, trauma, depression and physical conditions
such as shakes or nausea. It is to avoid these consequences that
an addict will keep using his or her substance.
In addition to being addictive, nicotine is also a toxin (i.e.
lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.) Nicotine has been
shown to have a negative effect on the heart and circulatory
systems, causing a constriction in veins and arteries which may
lead to a stroke or heart attack. In fact, nicotine is so
poisonous that smokers who ignore their doctor's advice and
continue to smoke while using dermal nicotine patches have managed
to overdose and die of heart seizure.
Many people think smoking marijuana is just as harmful as
smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that
marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the
efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of
marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer
madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return
results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking,
or worse.
For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the
late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as
carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the
tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and
did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do
not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not
considered that:
1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as
tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
the small air passageways in the lungs.
In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and
actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This
is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief.
Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be
more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.
Studies even show that due to marijuana's ability to clear
the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette smoke, it may
actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung
cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non-
smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy
tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also
smoke marijuana.
Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it
does not contain nicotine and is not addictive. The psychoactive
ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain
and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproven.
In fact, the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has
declared that "marijuana in its natural form is far safer than
many foods we commonly consume."
The disturbing thing about all of this information is that
the majority of Americans are as yet unaware of the radioactive
risk in cigarettes. In fact, many professionals: doctors,
scientists and health administrators, either have never heard of
polonium 210 or consider it to be just another scare story.
Why is this information so hard to come by? When the
studies were first released in the late 70's, many magazines were
unable to print articles because their main advertisers,
cigarette companies, threatened to pull support if they published
the facts. Although network news did pick up the story,
virtually nothing came out in print. Those who heard were hard
pressed to produce collaborating evidence, and were eventually
convinced it was nothing to worry about.
The power of the cigarette industry to suppress information
goes far beyond magazines, however. A well financed tobacco
lobby has been very active in the United States Congress for
decades procuring subsidies and fighting laws and proposed
research which could hurt the American tobacco industry. Tobacco
interests practically own Senate and House seats, as many
campaign contributions come from cigarette profits. Tobacco pay-
offs also go to fund organizations such as the Partnership For A
Drug Free America, which adopt a harsh anti-drug agenda yet seem
to omit alcohol and tobacco (claiming they are harmless.)
As an example, a 1984 law which was intended to require
tobacco companies to release to the public a list of additives
used in the manufacture of cigarettes was watered down to the
extent that the list is now released only to the Department of
Health and Human Services on the condition that it not be shown
to anyone else. Companies have been known in the past to add
chemicals to cigarettes for flavor, and, many assert, for their
addictive properties. In Britain such chemicals have included
acetone and turpentine, as well as an assortment of known
carcinogens.
Tobacco companies argue that revealing their 'secret
ingredients' would hurt their competitiveness. In fact, when
Canada passed legislation forcing additive lists to be released,
one large company reformulated its recipe for its Canadian
distribution; another took its product out of Canada entirely.
Tobacco companies do not have the right to poison the
public. Don't trust them. Get the information you need to make
your own decisions, and restore government to the people.
Another destructive aspect of the Drug War is the
unreasonable measures taken as a result of "reefer madness."
Because of the long standing anti-pot-smoking paranoia begun in
the 1930's, many law enforcement agencies have taken it upon
themselves to censor and limit the marijuana culture through
whatever channels they can find. This includes the banning of
various forms of drug "paraphernalia" (pipes, clips, rolling
papers, etc.)
Water pipes, or "bongs," are quite often the target of such
efforts. Claiming that water pipes are constructed to allow
marijuana smokers to inhale "dangerous" marijuana smoke deeper
into their lungs, many states and towns have passed laws
controlling the sale, manufacture, and possession of these items
for "health" reasons.
The sad fact is, water pipes have been shown to be extremely
effective in removing harmful materials from smoke before it
reaches the lungs. They also cool the smoke and prevent injury
and irritation to lung passages. In effect, laws against water
pipes hurt all smokers, cannabis and tobacco, by preventing the
development of safer forms of consumption.
Produced as a public service by the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst Cannabis Reform Coalition
Researched and written by Brian S. Julin
Corrections, comments, inquiries should be addressed to:
UMASS CANNABIS
S.A.O. Box #2
Student Union
UMASS Amherst, MA
01003
Sources:
(radioactivity)
o E.A. Martel, "Alpha Radiation Dose at Bronchial Bifurcations
From Indoor Exposure to Radon Progeny", Proceeds of the National
Academy of Science, Vol. 80, pp. 1285-1289, March 1983.
o Naoimi H. Harley, Beverly S. Cohen, and T.C. Tso, "Polonium 210:
A Questionable Risk Factor in Smoking Related Carcingenisis."
o "Radiactivity: the New-Found Danger in Cigarettes," Reader's
Digest, March 1986.
o "Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?," Whole Life Times,
Mid-April/May 1985.
(secret ingredients)
o "What Goes Up In Smoke?," Nation, December 23, 1991.
(marijuana)
o "The Emperor Wears No Clothes," Jack Herer, HEMP/Queen of Clubs
Publishing, 1992
---------------------------------------------------------------------
More Reasearch
Winters-TH, Franza-JR, Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,
New England Journal of Medicine, 1982;
306(6): 364-365 (reproduced w/o permission)
To the Editor: During the 17 years since the Surgeon General's
first report on smoking, intense research activity has been focused
on the carcinogenic potential of the tar component of cigarette
smoke. Only one definite chmical carcinogen -- benzopyrene --
(typist note: He was later corrected on this "fact")
has been found. Conspicuous because of its absence is research into
the role of the radioactive component of cigarette smoke.
The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly con-
centrated on tobacco trichomes and insoluble particles in cigarette
smoke (1). The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer,
which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves con-
centrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and
processed.
Levels of Po-210 were measured in cigarette smoke by Radford and
Hunt (2) and in the bronchial epithelium of smokers and nonsmokers
by Little et al. (3) After inhalation, ciliary action causes the insoluble
radioactive particles to accumulate at the bifurcation of segmental
bronchi, a common site of origin of bronchogenic carcinomas.
In a person smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes per day, the radia-
tion dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation is 8000
mrem per year -- the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300
x-ray films of the chest per year. This figure is comparable to total-
body exposure to natural background radiation containing 80
mrem per year in someone living in the Boston area.
It is a common practive to assume that the exposure received
from a radiation source is distributed throughout a tissue. In this
way, a high level of exposure in a localized region -- e.g. bronchial
epithelium -- is averaged out over the entire tissue mass, suggest-
ing a low level of exposure. However, alpha particles have a range of
only 40 um in the body. A cell nucleus of 5 to 6 um that is traversed
by a single alpha particle receives a dose of 1000 rems. Thus, although
the total tissue dose might be considered negligible, cells
close to an alpha source receive high doses. The Po-210 alpha activity
of cigarette smoke may be a very effective carcinogen if a multiple
mutation mechanism is involved.
Radford and Hunt have determined that 75 per cent of the alpha
activity of cigarette smoke enters the ambient air and is unab-
sorbed by the smoker, (2) making it available for deposit in the lungs
of others. Little et al. have measured levels of Po-210 in the lungs of
nonsmokers that may not be accounted for on the basis of natural
exposure to this isotope.
The detrimental effects of tobacco smoke have been considerably
underestimated, making it less likely that chemical carcinogens
alone are responsible for the observed incidence of tobacco-related
carcinoma. Alpha emitters in cigarette smoke result in appreciable
radiation exposure to the bronchial epithelium of smokers and
probably secondhand smokers. Alpha radiation is a possible etio-
logic factor in tobacco-related carcinoma, and it deserves further
study.
Thomas H. Winters, M.D.
Joseph R. Di Franza, M.D.
University of Massachesetts
Worcester, Ma 01605 Medical Center
1. Mertell EA. Radioactivity of tobacco trichomes and insoluble cigarette
smoke particles. Nature. 1974; 249:215-7.
2. Radford EP Jr, Hunt VR. Polonum-210: a volatile radioelement in cig-
arettes. Science. 1964; 143:247-9
3. Little JB, Radford EP Jr, McCombs HL, Hunt VR. Distribution of po-
lonium-210 in pulmonary tissues of cigarette smokers. N Engl J Med.
1965; 273:1343-51.
This letter was followed up by 5 letters which appear to support Winters
and Di Franza and 2 letters which appear to not support them. I'm not
about to type all those in along with the author's rebuttal, however.
Check out NEJM 307(5):309-313.
--
Lamont Granquist
From: Sol Lightman
The following is the text of a pamphlet I wrote for an organization
at UMASS amherst
It is an attempt to point out some of the absurdities in the marijuana-
is-bad-for-you-like-cigarettes bullshit, as well as take a few cheap
(but well aimed) shots at the tobacco industry.
It is written from a pro-marijuana-relegalization perspective,
and if you want a copy, mail us a Self Addressed Stamped Envelope.
(we're poor.)
An address and some sources are at the end.
So, you thought it was the tar that caused cancer...
Think again. Cigarette companies will have you believing
anything just as long as you continue to buy their products. The
fact is, although insoluble tars are a contributing factor to the
lung cancer danger present in today's cigarettes, the real danger
is radioactivity. According to U.S. Surgeon General C. Everette
Koop (on national television, 1990) radioactivity, not tar,
accounts for at least 90% of all smoking related lung cancer.
Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law
with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have
a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long
lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These
radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the
fine hairs on tobacco leaves.
Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits
accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke.
Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have three
times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non
smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and
polonium 210 in their skeletons,though no studies have been
conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is
the only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors by
itself in inhalation experiments with animals.
When a smoker inhales tobacco smoke, the lungs react by
forming irritated areas in the bronchi. All smoke produces this
effect. However, although these irritated spots are referred to as
'pre-cancerous' lesions, they are a perfectly natural defense
system and usually go away with no adverse effects. Insoluble tars
in tobacco smoke can slow this healing process by adhering to
lesions and causing additional irritation. In addition, tobacco
smoke causes the bronchi to constrict for long periods of time,
which obstructs the lung's ability to clear itself of these
residues.
Polonium 210 and lead 210 in tobacco smoke show a tendency to
accumulate at lesions in specific spots, called bifurcations, in
the bronchi. When smoking is continued for an extended period of
time, deposits of radioactivity turn into radioactive 'hot spots'
and remain at bifurcations for years. Polonium 210 emits highly
localized alpha radiation which has been shown to cause cancer.
Since the polonium 210 has a half life of 21.5 years (Due to the
presence of lead 210), it can put an ex-smoker at risk for years
after he or she quits. Experiments measuring the level of polonium
210 in victims of lung cancer found that the level of 'hot spot'
activity was virtually the same in smokers and ex-smokers even though
the ex-smokers had quit five years prior to death.
Over half of the radioactive materials emitted by a burning
cigarette are released into the air, where they can be inhaled by
non-smokers. In addition to lead 210 and polonium 210 it has been
proven that tobacco smoke can cause airborne radioactive particles
to collect in the lungs of both smokers and non-smokers exposed to
second hand smoke. Original studies conducted on uranium miners
which showed an increased risk of lung cancer due to exposure to
radon in smokers have been re-run to evaluate the radioactive lung
cancer risk from indoor air radon. It turns out that tobacco smoke
works as a kind of 'magnet' for airborne radioactive particles,
causing them to deposit in your lungs instead of on furniture.
(Smoking indoors increases lung cancer risks greatly.)
It has been estimated that the total accumulated alpha
radiation exposure of a pack-a-day indoor smoker is 38 to 97 rad by
age 60. (Two packs a day yields up to 143 rad, and non-smokers
receive no more than 17 rad.) An exposure of 1 rad per year yields
a 1% risk of lung cancer (at the lowest estimate.)
Don't smoke. Or if you do, smoke lightly, outdoors, and
engage frequently in activities which will clear your lungs.
Imported India tobacco has less than half the radiation content of
that grown in the U.S.
Kicking the nicotine habit is not easy, and nobody has the
right to expect it of you. Often physical addictions are
reinforced by emotional and psychological needs. Filling or coming
to terms with those needs can give you the inspiration and added
freedom to succeed.
Most of all, inform yourself, even if the information is
disturbing. You are a lot less likely to be taken in by tobacco
advertising once you know the facts.
Nicotine, the active ingredient in tobacco smoke, has long
been known to be highly addictive. In fact, doctors and
pharmacologists are not in consensus as to which is more addictive
-- nicotine, or heroin. Physical addiction occurs when a chemical
becomes essential for the body or metabolism to function. In other
words, a substance is said to be physically addictive if extended
use results in a build up of tolerance in the body to the extent
that discontinuing use of the substance results in negative side
effects. Called "withdrawal symptoms," these consequences can
include anxiety, stress, trauma, depression and physical conditions
such as shakes or nausea. It is to avoid these consequences that
an addict will keep using his or her substance.
In addition to being addictive, nicotine is also a toxin (i.e.
lethal if ingested in sufficient quantities.) Nicotine has been
shown to have a negative effect on the heart and circulatory
systems, causing a constriction in veins and arteries which may
lead to a stroke or heart attack. In fact, nicotine is so
poisonous that smokers who ignore their doctor's advice and
continue to smoke while using dermal nicotine patches have managed
to overdose and die of heart seizure.
Many people think smoking marijuana is just as harmful as
smoking tobacco, but this is not true. Those who hold that
marijuana is equivalent to tobacco are misinformed. Due to the
efforts of various federal agencies to discourage use of
marijuana in the 1970's the government, in a fit of "reefer
madness," conducted several biased studies designed to return
results that would equate marijuana smoking with tobacco smoking,
or worse.
For example the Berkeley carcinogenic tar studies of the
late 1970's concluded that "marijuana is one-and-a-half times as
carcinogenic as tobacco." This finding was based solely on the
tar content of cannabis leaves compared to that of tobacco, and
did not take radioactivity into consideration. (Cannabis tars do
not contain radioactive materials.) In addition, it was not
considered that:
1) Most marijuana smokers smoke the bud, not the leaf, of
the plant. The bud contains only 33% as much tar as tobacco.
2) Marijuana smokers do not smoke anywhere near as much as
tobacco smokers, due to the psychoactive effects of cannabis.
3) Not one case of lung cancer has ever been successfully
linked to marijuana use.
4) Cannabis, unlike tobacco, does not cause any narrowing of
the small air passageways in the lungs.
In fact, marijuana has been shown to be an expectorant and
actually dilates the air channels it comes in contact with. This
is why many asthma sufferers look to marijuana to provide relief.
Doctors have postulated that marijuana may, in this respect, be
more effective than all of the prescription drugs on the market.
Studies even show that due to marijuana's ability to clear
the lungs of smog, pollutants, and cigarette smoke, it may
actually reduce your risk of emphysema, bronchitis, and lung
cancer. Smokers of cannabis have been shown to outlive non-
smokers in some areas by up to two years. Medium to heavy
tobacco smokers will live seven to ten years longer if they also
smoke marijuana.
Cannabis is also radically different from tobacco in that it
does not contain nicotine and is not addictive. The psychoactive
ingredient in marijuana, THC, has been accused of causing brain
and genetic damage, but these studies have all been disproven.
In fact, the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge Francis Young has
declared that "marijuana in its natural form is far safer than
many foods we commonly consume."
The disturbing thing about all of this information is that
the majority of Americans are as yet unaware of the radioactive
risk in cigarettes. In fact, many professionals: doctors,
scientists and health administrators, either have never heard of
polonium 210 or consider it to be just another scare story.
Why is this information so hard to come by? When the
studies were first released in the late 70's, many magazines were
unable to print articles because their main advertisers,
cigarette companies, threatened to pull support if they published
the facts. Although network news did pick up the story,
virtually nothing came out in print. Those who heard were hard
pressed to produce collaborating evidence, and were eventually
convinced it was nothing to worry about.
The power of the cigarette industry to suppress information
goes far beyond magazines, however. A well financed tobacco
lobby has been very active in the United States Congress for
decades procuring subsidies and fighting laws and proposed
research which could hurt the American tobacco industry. Tobacco
interests practically own Senate and House seats, as many
campaign contributions come from cigarette profits. Tobacco pay-
offs also go to fund organizations such as the Partnership For A
Drug Free America, which adopt a harsh anti-drug agenda yet seem
to omit alcohol and tobacco (claiming they are harmless.)
As an example, a 1984 law which was intended to require
tobacco companies to release to the public a list of additives
used in the manufacture of cigarettes was watered down to the
extent that the list is now released only to the Department of
Health and Human Services on the condition that it not be shown
to anyone else. Companies have been known in the past to add
chemicals to cigarettes for flavor, and, many assert, for their
addictive properties. In Britain such chemicals have included
acetone and turpentine, as well as an assortment of known
carcinogens.
Tobacco companies argue that revealing their 'secret
ingredients' would hurt their competitiveness. In fact, when
Canada passed legislation forcing additive lists to be released,
one large company reformulated its recipe for its Canadian
distribution; another took its product out of Canada entirely.
Tobacco companies do not have the right to poison the
public. Don't trust them. Get the information you need to make
your own decisions, and restore government to the people.
Another destructive aspect of the Drug War is the
unreasonable measures taken as a result of "reefer madness."
Because of the long standing anti-pot-smoking paranoia begun in
the 1930's, many law enforcement agencies have taken it upon
themselves to censor and limit the marijuana culture through
whatever channels they can find. This includes the banning of
various forms of drug "paraphernalia" (pipes, clips, rolling
papers, etc.)
Water pipes, or "bongs," are quite often the target of such
efforts. Claiming that water pipes are constructed to allow
marijuana smokers to inhale "dangerous" marijuana smoke deeper
into their lungs, many states and towns have passed laws
controlling the sale, manufacture, and possession of these items
for "health" reasons.
The sad fact is, water pipes have been shown to be extremely
effective in removing harmful materials from smoke before it
reaches the lungs. They also cool the smoke and prevent injury
and irritation to lung passages. In effect, laws against water
pipes hurt all smokers, cannabis and tobacco, by preventing the
development of safer forms of consumption.
Produced as a public service by the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst Cannabis Reform Coalition
Researched and written by Brian S. Julin
Corrections, comments, inquiries should be addressed to:
UMASS CANNABIS
S.A.O. Box #2
Student Union
UMASS Amherst, MA
01003
Sources:
(radioactivity)
o E.A. Martel, "Alpha Radiation Dose at Bronchial Bifurcations
From Indoor Exposure to Radon Progeny", Proceeds of the National
Academy of Science, Vol. 80, pp. 1285-1289, March 1983.
o Naoimi H. Harley, Beverly S. Cohen, and T.C. Tso, "Polonium 210:
A Questionable Risk Factor in Smoking Related Carcingenisis."
o "Radiactivity: the New-Found Danger in Cigarettes," Reader's
Digest, March 1986.
o "Would You Still Rather Fight Than Switch?," Whole Life Times,
Mid-April/May 1985.
(secret ingredients)
o "What Goes Up In Smoke?," Nation, December 23, 1991.
(marijuana)
o "The Emperor Wears No Clothes," Jack Herer, HEMP/Queen of Clubs
Publishing, 1992
---------------------------------------------------------------------
More Reasearch
Winters-TH, Franza-JR, Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,
New England Journal of Medicine, 1982;
306(6): 364-365 (reproduced w/o permission)
To the Editor: During the 17 years since the Surgeon General's
first report on smoking, intense research activity has been focused
on the carcinogenic potential of the tar component of cigarette
smoke. Only one definite chmical carcinogen -- benzopyrene --
(typist note: He was later corrected on this "fact")
has been found. Conspicuous because of its absence is research into
the role of the radioactive component of cigarette smoke.
The alpha emitters polonium-210 and lead-210 are highly con-
centrated on tobacco trichomes and insoluble particles in cigarette
smoke (1). The major source of the polonium is phosphate fertilizer,
which is used in growing tobacco. The trichomes of the leaves con-
centrate the polonium, which persists when tobacco is dried and
processed.
Levels of Po-210 were measured in cigarette smoke by Radford and
Hunt (2) and in the bronchial epithelium of smokers and nonsmokers
by Little et al. (3) After inhalation, ciliary action causes the insoluble
radioactive particles to accumulate at the bifurcation of segmental
bronchi, a common site of origin of bronchogenic carcinomas.
In a person smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes per day, the radia-
tion dose to the bronchial epithelium in areas of bifurcation is 8000
mrem per year -- the equivalent of the dose to the skin from 300
x-ray films of the chest per year. This figure is comparable to total-
body exposure to natural background radiation containing 80
mrem per year in someone living in the Boston area.
It is a common practive to assume that the exposure received
from a radiation source is distributed throughout a tissue. In this
way, a high level of exposure in a localized region -- e.g. bronchial
epithelium -- is averaged out over the entire tissue mass, suggest-
ing a low level of exposure. However, alpha particles have a range of
only 40 um in the body. A cell nucleus of 5 to 6 um that is traversed
by a single alpha particle receives a dose of 1000 rems. Thus, although
the total tissue dose might be considered negligible, cells
close to an alpha source receive high doses. The Po-210 alpha activity
of cigarette smoke may be a very effective carcinogen if a multiple
mutation mechanism is involved.
Radford and Hunt have determined that 75 per cent of the alpha
activity of cigarette smoke enters the ambient air and is unab-
sorbed by the smoker, (2) making it available for deposit in the lungs
of others. Little et al. have measured levels of Po-210 in the lungs of
nonsmokers that may not be accounted for on the basis of natural
exposure to this isotope.
The detrimental effects of tobacco smoke have been considerably
underestimated, making it less likely that chemical carcinogens
alone are responsible for the observed incidence of tobacco-related
carcinoma. Alpha emitters in cigarette smoke result in appreciable
radiation exposure to the bronchial epithelium of smokers and
probably secondhand smokers. Alpha radiation is a possible etio-
logic factor in tobacco-related carcinoma, and it deserves further
study.
Thomas H. Winters, M.D.
Joseph R. Di Franza, M.D.
University of Massachesetts
Worcester, Ma 01605 Medical Center
1. Mertell EA. Radioactivity of tobacco trichomes and insoluble cigarette
smoke particles. Nature. 1974; 249:215-7.
2. Radford EP Jr, Hunt VR. Polonum-210: a volatile radioelement in cig-
arettes. Science. 1964; 143:247-9
3. Little JB, Radford EP Jr, McCombs HL, Hunt VR. Distribution of po-
lonium-210 in pulmonary tissues of cigarette smokers. N Engl J Med.
1965; 273:1343-51.
This letter was followed up by 5 letters which appear to support Winters
and Di Franza and 2 letters which appear to not support them. I'm not
about to type all those in along with the author's rebuttal, however.
Check out NEJM 307(5):309-313.
--
Lamont Granquist
BashertofCyndi
Member
There cant be too much tar in trichomes.
G
guest8905
looks like organic ganja is the way to go!!
I hate the idea of people burning resin as well, nasty
great post Sci-fi
StickKy
I hate the idea of people burning resin as well, nasty
great post Sci-fi
StickKy
Does the temperature of the titanium plate affects the formation of tar?
sci-fi> I ve heard about that radioactive theory, but i think it is just a small part of the reason tobacco gives cancer.
The tobacco is radioactive mostly due to the use of chemical ferts that have a low radioactivity, but after a while it builds up in the soil. But if you grow your own tobacco, it will give you cancer as well !
Could be the same for the industrial mj that could contain traces of this polonium 210.
on an other hand, it is well known that they are many carcinogenic substances in the tobacco, and that the nicotin, in the presence of these substances, will trigger cancer thourgh apoptosis.
http://www.ebasedtreatment.org/drugs/treatment/nicotine/toxicology
Even chewing tobacco gives you cancer so it is definetly not only about the tars.
On the tar level of herb, i don t know much and i ll be very interested by the outputs of this thread. But one thing for sure is not all the tar are in the resin, and because of that, if you smoke concentrates, you ll get less tar at the end because you smoke smaller quantities to achieve the same effect.
And if you want to get rid of this problem, just vaporise like i m doing right now
Cheers mate, thanks for posting this interesting question!
The tobacco is radioactive mostly due to the use of chemical ferts that have a low radioactivity, but after a while it builds up in the soil. But if you grow your own tobacco, it will give you cancer as well !
Could be the same for the industrial mj that could contain traces of this polonium 210.
on an other hand, it is well known that they are many carcinogenic substances in the tobacco, and that the nicotin, in the presence of these substances, will trigger cancer thourgh apoptosis.
http://www.ebasedtreatment.org/drugs/treatment/nicotine/toxicology
Even chewing tobacco gives you cancer so it is definetly not only about the tars.
On the tar level of herb, i don t know much and i ll be very interested by the outputs of this thread. But one thing for sure is not all the tar are in the resin, and because of that, if you smoke concentrates, you ll get less tar at the end because you smoke smaller quantities to achieve the same effect.
And if you want to get rid of this problem, just vaporise like i m doing right now
Cheers mate, thanks for posting this interesting question!
I know there are many carcinogenic substances in the tobacco besides Tar. I think Tar is the only thing tabacco and mj have in commen. The reason i brought this thought to the table is the propraganda's stance that mj has so much more Tar so it's more carcingenic then tabacco which is bullshit.
My son not to long ago had to goto one of those lame drug classes. My wife was with him and said she really had to hold herself back on commenting not bring suspicion to herself. Besides the whole tar thing the actually said smoking pot changes your DNA. LOL. Reminds of cheech and chong movie where the dude starts turning into a lizard...
I'm also would like to know to what extent how many other P ferts are actually radioactive.
My son not to long ago had to goto one of those lame drug classes. My wife was with him and said she really had to hold herself back on commenting not bring suspicion to herself. Besides the whole tar thing the actually said smoking pot changes your DNA. LOL. Reminds of cheech and chong movie where the dude starts turning into a lizard...
I'm also would like to know to what extent how many other P ferts are actually radioactive.
looks like organic ganja is the way to go!!
I hate the idea of people burning resin as well, nasty
great post Sci-fi
StickKy
I think organic P ferts could be just as radioactive as any other non-organic fert?? The one problem i have with this radioactive theory is why is produce not radioactive too? Do they use a different P fert than tabacco? If the do then whey in the fuck would the feds let use radioactive ferts when others are avail.? That would be just another reason to know they are full of shit when they say they cant legalize becuase its sooooo bad for society.
interesting. i am wondering how badly i've damaged my lungs as i'm hacking soundly atm.
Radioactive buds/concentrates
Radioactive buds/concentrates
Looks like i might be going organic as chemical ferts are 2x as radioactive..
Radioactive buds?
New study shows that many fertilizers are radioactive, producing potentially harmful pot.
By David Malmo-Levine and Dana Larsen
A recent study shows that many commonly used fertilizers are high in radioactive elements. The study was performed by Dr Paul Hornby, who holds a master’s degree in biochemistry and a PhD in human pathology from the University of British Columbia.
The study analyzed 25 different types of fertilizers, eight “organic” varieties and 17 “chemical” fertilizers. The results showed that the chemical fertilizers emitted on average five times the radiation of the organic group.
There are different ways of measuring radioactivity. The table shows the “counts per minute” (CPM) of radiation detected in each sample. The average for the organic fertilizers was 140, while the chemical fertilizers had an average radiation count of 675, an almost five-fold increase.
The lowest radiation was found in the organic blood meal fertilizers, which emitted only background radiation - the normal low radiation found in most objects. On the other end of the spectrum was the 5-20-20 berry food, with a radiation level about 24 times higher than background.
These levels of radiation don’t pose a danger through simply being around bags of fertilizer. However, cannabis and other plants are known to uptake radioactive elements from their growing medium. Radiation exposure is accumulative, so that repeated inhalation would present an increasing health risk.
Radiation also accumulates in the soil. Farmers who grow chemical-fed tobacco soon face soil vitality-loss, forcing them to use more and more chemical fertilizer every year to maintain the same level of productivity. That means that tobacco land gets more and more radioactive every year.
Numerous studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine and other health, science and radiation journals have indicated that it is the radioactive elements in tobacco which lead to lung cancer (CC#35, Radioactive tobacco). Tobacco is typically fed with high-phosphate, chemical fertilizers, including heavy foliar spraying. All of these factors would produce a high-level of radioactive elements in the tobacco leaf.
Although further research is needed, this study does point the way to some simple harm-reduction techniques for pot growers. Many growers believe that using organic fertilizers produces a tastier, higher-quality bud. This study indicates that they could also be producing a less harmful product than that produced with many chemical fertilizers.
Although cannabis and cannabinoids are non-toxic, radiation is a major cause of cancer. Further research is clearly needed, but it seems likely that the best way to keep your buds as safe and harmless as possible is to use non-chemical, organic fertilizers, to eliminate any potential radioactivity getting into your stash, and your lungs.
· Dr Paul Hornby is available for testing of fertilizers and can also test marijuana for cannabinoid profiles: paulh@istar.ca
Fertilizer Type............................................Radioactivity score
Evergro Specialty Fertilizer..........................90
Blood Meal 12-0-0
Green Valley....................................................96
Blood Meal Fertilizer
12-0-0
RainGrow Organic Fertilizer.........................102
Bloom-A-Long
0-12-0
SeaSpray Organic Fertilizer..........................125
0.5-1.0-0.5
Green Valley Blood and Bone..........................154
Meal Fertilizer
7-11-0
RainGrow Organic Fertilizer..........................160
4-2-3
Homestead 100% Organic................................174
Bone Meal
4-14-0
DML Bird Guano...............................................178
NPK unknown
-----------------------------
Those above are all organic.
Those below are all synthetic.
-----------------------------
Miracid Soil Acidifier...................................248
Plant Food
30-10-10
Shultz All Purpose Plant Food.......................258
10-15-10
Miracle-Gro For Roses...................................285
18-24-16
Green Valley....................................................326
Rhododendron and Azalea Food
10-8-6
Shultz African Violet Plus...................................393
8-14-9
General Hydroponics..............................................400
Flora Grow
2-1-6
Miracle-Gro Water Soluble..................................409
Plant Food
15-30-15
Greenleaf Evergreen...............................................437
Tree and Hedge Feeder
13-6-7
Stern's Miracle-Gro..............................................538
For Tomatoes
18-18-21
Miracle-Gro...........................................................547
Plant Food Engrais
15-30-15
Greenleaf Shur Gro....................................................672
Soluble Plant Food
20-20-20
Greenleaf Shur Gro....................................................693
Soluble Plant Food
20-20-20
Shultz-Instant.............................................................740
Orchid Plant Food
19-31-17
Shultz Tomato Plus....................................................874
18-19-30
Evergro Fruit Tree....................................................1037
and Berry Food
4-20-20
Osmocote....................................................................2021
Time Release Fertilizer
18-6-12
Green Valley Berry Food...........................................2384
5-20-20
By the way, this article is in CC#40, on store shelves in early November.
Related information can be found in issue #35, and also online, in the form of an article about Radioactive tobacco at http://cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco.
Dana Larsen
Editor, Cannabis Culture Magazine
ccmag@cannabisculture.com
David Malmo-Levine
Editor, Potshot magazine, www.potshotzine.com
Host, "High Society" online video cultural TV show, www.pot-tv.net
dagreenmachine@excite.com
Radioactive buds/concentrates
Looks like i might be going organic as chemical ferts are 2x as radioactive..
Radioactive buds?
New study shows that many fertilizers are radioactive, producing potentially harmful pot.
By David Malmo-Levine and Dana Larsen
A recent study shows that many commonly used fertilizers are high in radioactive elements. The study was performed by Dr Paul Hornby, who holds a master’s degree in biochemistry and a PhD in human pathology from the University of British Columbia.
The study analyzed 25 different types of fertilizers, eight “organic” varieties and 17 “chemical” fertilizers. The results showed that the chemical fertilizers emitted on average five times the radiation of the organic group.
There are different ways of measuring radioactivity. The table shows the “counts per minute” (CPM) of radiation detected in each sample. The average for the organic fertilizers was 140, while the chemical fertilizers had an average radiation count of 675, an almost five-fold increase.
The lowest radiation was found in the organic blood meal fertilizers, which emitted only background radiation - the normal low radiation found in most objects. On the other end of the spectrum was the 5-20-20 berry food, with a radiation level about 24 times higher than background.
These levels of radiation don’t pose a danger through simply being around bags of fertilizer. However, cannabis and other plants are known to uptake radioactive elements from their growing medium. Radiation exposure is accumulative, so that repeated inhalation would present an increasing health risk.
Radiation also accumulates in the soil. Farmers who grow chemical-fed tobacco soon face soil vitality-loss, forcing them to use more and more chemical fertilizer every year to maintain the same level of productivity. That means that tobacco land gets more and more radioactive every year.
Numerous studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine and other health, science and radiation journals have indicated that it is the radioactive elements in tobacco which lead to lung cancer (CC#35, Radioactive tobacco). Tobacco is typically fed with high-phosphate, chemical fertilizers, including heavy foliar spraying. All of these factors would produce a high-level of radioactive elements in the tobacco leaf.
Although further research is needed, this study does point the way to some simple harm-reduction techniques for pot growers. Many growers believe that using organic fertilizers produces a tastier, higher-quality bud. This study indicates that they could also be producing a less harmful product than that produced with many chemical fertilizers.
Although cannabis and cannabinoids are non-toxic, radiation is a major cause of cancer. Further research is clearly needed, but it seems likely that the best way to keep your buds as safe and harmless as possible is to use non-chemical, organic fertilizers, to eliminate any potential radioactivity getting into your stash, and your lungs.
· Dr Paul Hornby is available for testing of fertilizers and can also test marijuana for cannabinoid profiles: paulh@istar.ca
Fertilizer Type............................................Radioactivity score
Evergro Specialty Fertilizer..........................90
Blood Meal 12-0-0
Green Valley....................................................96
Blood Meal Fertilizer
12-0-0
RainGrow Organic Fertilizer.........................102
Bloom-A-Long
0-12-0
SeaSpray Organic Fertilizer..........................125
0.5-1.0-0.5
Green Valley Blood and Bone..........................154
Meal Fertilizer
7-11-0
RainGrow Organic Fertilizer..........................160
4-2-3
Homestead 100% Organic................................174
Bone Meal
4-14-0
DML Bird Guano...............................................178
NPK unknown
-----------------------------
Those above are all organic.
Those below are all synthetic.
-----------------------------
Miracid Soil Acidifier...................................248
Plant Food
30-10-10
Shultz All Purpose Plant Food.......................258
10-15-10
Miracle-Gro For Roses...................................285
18-24-16
Green Valley....................................................326
Rhododendron and Azalea Food
10-8-6
Shultz African Violet Plus...................................393
8-14-9
General Hydroponics..............................................400
Flora Grow
2-1-6
Miracle-Gro Water Soluble..................................409
Plant Food
15-30-15
Greenleaf Evergreen...............................................437
Tree and Hedge Feeder
13-6-7
Stern's Miracle-Gro..............................................538
For Tomatoes
18-18-21
Miracle-Gro...........................................................547
Plant Food Engrais
15-30-15
Greenleaf Shur Gro....................................................672
Soluble Plant Food
20-20-20
Greenleaf Shur Gro....................................................693
Soluble Plant Food
20-20-20
Shultz-Instant.............................................................740
Orchid Plant Food
19-31-17
Shultz Tomato Plus....................................................874
18-19-30
Evergro Fruit Tree....................................................1037
and Berry Food
4-20-20
Osmocote....................................................................2021
Time Release Fertilizer
18-6-12
Green Valley Berry Food...........................................2384
5-20-20
By the way, this article is in CC#40, on store shelves in early November.
Related information can be found in issue #35, and also online, in the form of an article about Radioactive tobacco at http://cannabisculture.com/news/tobacco.
Dana Larsen
Editor, Cannabis Culture Magazine
ccmag@cannabisculture.com
David Malmo-Levine
Editor, Potshot magazine, www.potshotzine.com
Host, "High Society" online video cultural TV show, www.pot-tv.net
dagreenmachine@excite.com
TheGreenViking
Member
Wow... this is shocking if true.
yeah organic seems good.
but if we re talking about a slow build up of the soil radioactivity, it would seem to me that we should take in account that organic fertilizers are less concentrated and so need to be put in bigger quantities, resulting in the same result ?
but if we re talking about a slow build up of the soil radioactivity, it would seem to me that we should take in account that organic fertilizers are less concentrated and so need to be put in bigger quantities, resulting in the same result ?
http://quantumpranx.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/marijuana-versus-nicotine-are-you-sirius/
Marijuana versus nicotine? Are you Sirius?
By Jason King
SO JUST WHAT IS the difference between marijuana and tobacco? Unsurprisingly, but with an unexpected twist, the difference lies in the opposing actions of THC in marijuana versus nicotine in tobacco. To put it simply, nicotine has several effects that promote various cancers, but THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke. To put it another way, THC actually reduces the carcinogenic potential of the smoke.
As an example, recent lab research indicates that nicotine, the active and highly addictive ingredient in tobacco, activates an enzyme that converts certain chemicals in tobacco smoke into a cancer-promoting form. THC on the other hand, inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate the carcinogens found in ganga smoke.
Another major difference between ganja and tobacco is in the effects on the immune system. Smoke from either sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an inflammatory response, which includes the generation of cell-damaging substances called “free radicals”.
These particles are believed to contribute to a wide range of diseases, including cancer. But cannabinoids – those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body – have been shown to decrease this inflammatory response.
Another difference between the effects of smoking cannabis versus tabacco has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. In fact, recent research shows that in the brain, where for some not-so-strange reason there are built-in cannabinoid receptors, THC can even protect cells and keep them from dying after being damaged from an injury or stroke.
Another difference between the effects of smoking cannabis versus tobacco has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. In fact, recent research shows that in the brain, where for some not-so-strange reason there are built-in cannabinoid receptors, THC can even protect cells and keep them from dying after being damaged from an injury or stroke.
Furthermore, compounds found in cannabis been shown to kill numerous types of cancer, including leukemia and lymphoma, giloma (the cause of some brain tumors), pheochromocytoma, and cancers of the lung, breast, prostate and skin. Think about it: Science has proven that THC and other cannabis extracts-bening substances occurring in nature-destroy brain tumors. You think it would be front page news in every newspaper and medical journal in the world!
So to answer the question ” Does pot cause cancer? ” No! And not only does it not cause cancer, it can cure it too.
Marijuana versus nicotine? Are you Sirius?
By Jason King
SO JUST WHAT IS the difference between marijuana and tobacco? Unsurprisingly, but with an unexpected twist, the difference lies in the opposing actions of THC in marijuana versus nicotine in tobacco. To put it simply, nicotine has several effects that promote various cancers, but THC acts in ways that counter the cancer-causing chemicals in marijuana smoke. To put it another way, THC actually reduces the carcinogenic potential of the smoke.
As an example, recent lab research indicates that nicotine, the active and highly addictive ingredient in tobacco, activates an enzyme that converts certain chemicals in tobacco smoke into a cancer-promoting form. THC on the other hand, inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate the carcinogens found in ganga smoke.
Another major difference between ganja and tobacco is in the effects on the immune system. Smoke from either sends irritants into the respiratory system that trigger an inflammatory response, which includes the generation of cell-damaging substances called “free radicals”.
These particles are believed to contribute to a wide range of diseases, including cancer. But cannabinoids – those found in marijuana and the versions found naturally in the body – have been shown to decrease this inflammatory response.
Another difference between the effects of smoking cannabis versus tabacco has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. In fact, recent research shows that in the brain, where for some not-so-strange reason there are built-in cannabinoid receptors, THC can even protect cells and keep them from dying after being damaged from an injury or stroke.
Another difference between the effects of smoking cannabis versus tobacco has to do with cells that line the respiratory tract. In fact, recent research shows that in the brain, where for some not-so-strange reason there are built-in cannabinoid receptors, THC can even protect cells and keep them from dying after being damaged from an injury or stroke.
Furthermore, compounds found in cannabis been shown to kill numerous types of cancer, including leukemia and lymphoma, giloma (the cause of some brain tumors), pheochromocytoma, and cancers of the lung, breast, prostate and skin. Think about it: Science has proven that THC and other cannabis extracts-bening substances occurring in nature-destroy brain tumors. You think it would be front page news in every newspaper and medical journal in the world!
So to answer the question ” Does pot cause cancer? ” No! And not only does it not cause cancer, it can cure it too.
BashertofCyndi
Member
Damn Sci-Fi!
Good lookin out! Thats some GREAT information.
Id like to add one thing. If ya mix your tobaco with your herb you'l increase the negative effects of the tobaco by dialatin your bronco tubes.
In other words, its good to keep your tobaco smokin and herb smokin seperate. This is because if you smoke the herb before the tobaco, youl dialate your bronco tubes first and then while your tubes are wide open youl pump alla that tobaco smoke in. I just meen it goes deeper when you open your tubes up like that with herb first. Just think bout if it makes sense to ya. I read bout it somewheres and it made sense to me.
Good lookin out! Thats some GREAT information.
Id like to add one thing. If ya mix your tobaco with your herb you'l increase the negative effects of the tobaco by dialatin your bronco tubes.
In other words, its good to keep your tobaco smokin and herb smokin seperate. This is because if you smoke the herb before the tobaco, youl dialate your bronco tubes first and then while your tubes are wide open youl pump alla that tobaco smoke in. I just meen it goes deeper when you open your tubes up like that with herb first. Just think bout if it makes sense to ya. I read bout it somewheres and it made sense to me.
