STRIPERS NO MORE SMOKE

[100lbStriper]

At last! polonium 210 in cigarettes hits the news


http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2006/12/at-last-polonium-210-in-cigarettes_12.html

See scans of actual docs.

Basically there has been various research done over the past 30 years or so to show that there is radioactive polonium-210 and lead-210 present in cigarettes. This fact whilst little known, is well acknowledged in the scientific community and beyond dispute.


It is clear that the radioactive polonium and lead is present in cigarettes, is being consumed, and a risk – potentially a very serious one - does exist. Marmorstein, J. ('Lung cancer: is the increasing incidence due to radioactive polonium in cigarettes?' South Medical Journal, February 1986. 79(2):145-50), notes that In 1930 the lung cancer death rate for white US males was 3.8 per 100,000 people. By 1956 the rate had increased almost tenfold, to 31 per 100,000.13 Between 1938 and 1960, the level of polonium 210 in American tobacco tripled, commensurate with the increased use of chemical fertilizers. Whilst this is not an established causal link, given the terrifying extent of the death rates, It is amazing that this issue hasn’t received more attention.

It now gets more interesting conspiracy fans.

The key source of the radioactive content in tobacco is thought to be phosphate fertilisers. The radioactivity is concentrated in the plant, particularly the tiny sticky hairs on tobacco leaves, as the water is drawn from the soil and evaporates. The radioactivity is also present in lots of farmed foods but it is when the tobacco leaves are smoked and inhaled that the particular lung cancer risk emerges.

This was apparently known to major tobacco companies as far back as 1974, and by 1980 a means to remove the radioactive content was also known – by using ammonium phosphate as a fertilizer, instead of calcium phosphate. This idea is rejected on the basis of expense. This is clearly revealed in the two publically available leaked ‘smoking gun’ memos (reproduced below from the www.tobaccofreedom.com website) from Philip Morris in 1980.

The key quotes are:

"210- Pb and 210 -Po are present in tobacco and smoke."

..."For alpha particles from Po-210 to be the cause of lung cancers in unlikely due to the amount of radioactivity of a particular energy necessary of induction. Evidence to date, however, does not allow one to state this is an impossibility."

“The recommendation of using ammonium phosphate instead of calcium phosphate is probably a valid but expensive point”

Of interest....

also of interest this comment:


Peter @ Eden Lodge said...

You keep on about evidence Steve, but like so many of the anti smoking brigade of which you appear to be an enthusiastic member, you fail to cite any evidence.

If there is such conclusive evidence I challenge you to point me to a scientific paper which shows that those who smoke, but otherwise have a healthy life style, including regular exercise and sensible eating, die any sooner than those who do not smoke, and I'll donate £50.00 to any nominated charity that is not pro legislation on dangerous, psyco active illicit drugs.

In marked contrast when presented with the incontrovertible evidence that I quoted, you ran true to form with the anti smokers and ignored it, seeking to divert with rhetoric re smoky atmospheres etc; what nonsense when efficient ventilation systems can eliminate such a problem.

Insofar as the reduction of smoking is concerned, you make the same fundamental error as others, the reduction in smoking that is so widely quoted does not take into consideration the quantities that are purchased so much cheaper on the black market and smuggled into this country, therefore the vidence for claims that smoking has reduced to the extent claimed, are flawed.

Equally flawed are the NHS statistics on people who have following 'treatment' have 'ceased smoking'; the figures claimed are based on those who are just six weeks abstinent, requests for follow up figures at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months are met with the response 'not available', that can only mean that either they do not bother to follow up, which contavenes the so called 'duty of care', or they prefer not to publish them.

Notwithstanding your unwillingness to acknowledge scientific evidence, or cite similiar in support of your arguement, you talk about the 'minor cost' to personal liberty,being worth the draconian measures imposed, yet in direct contradiction you want to defend highly dangerous drugs that users become addicted to, with all the consequent degradation to their lives and those of their loved ones that such addiction involves; talk about double standards!

this propensity towards double standards continues with your use of the euphuism 'better regulated' is classic of newspeak. Smoking in all enclosed 'public' spaces, which includes private clubs is to be prohibited, banned, ergo outlawed! Yet when you refer to legisalation for illicit drugs you choose to use the word 'probibition'.

Finally Steve, throughout your response you have both implied and insisted that the evidence of the dangers of passive smoking justifys the ban; now show us the unbiased scientifc factual evidence, not conjecture and rhetoric.
December 14, 2006 11:44 AM