From: Sol Lightman
The following is the text of a pamphlet I wrote for an organization
at UMASS amherst
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
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.
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
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
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
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
lamontg@u.washington.edu
———————————————————————–
Brief Prepared
by UMASS CANNABIS verdant@titan.ucs.umass.edu
Add A Comment