Smoking Is 36 Times Worse Than Working At A Nuclear Reactor

Smoking Is 36 Times Worse Than Working At A Nuclear Reactor | smoking-449x300 | General Health Toxins

It is well-established that 25-30% of all cancer are caused soley by tobacco consumption – a completely avoidable cause.

But what if the tobacco itself were not actually the primary cause of the cancer, but something else contaminating it? And what if it the tobacco industry knew this lethal contaminant was in their product, and even knew how to remove it, but did and said nothing for over 30 years in order to conceal this deadly secret from the public?

In 1998, major tobacco industries’ internal secret documents were made available online by the Master Settlement Agreement, revealing that the industry was aware of the presence of a radioactive substance in tobacco as early as 1959.

It was discovered in 1964 that the cancer-causing radioactive substance was Polonium 210, which millions still inhale in their cigarette smoke, unwittingly. Polonium 210 is a byproduct of the decay of uranium daughter isotopes, which, while occurring naturally in the environment, are primarily found within our soil as a result of pollution from various industries. Uranium mining is one source, as are the nuclear and coal-fired power industries. In fact, “fly ash” produced from coal-fired power carries 100 times more radiation into the surrounding environment than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.1 This is, of course, when nuclear power plants properly contain their radioactive fuel and waste and don’t release massive, irretrievable quantities of radioisotopes into the environment, as occurred in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Nuclear weapons and munitions (depleted uranium), are another well-known source of global contamination.  No matter where the uranium comes from, tobacco plants selectively absorbs and concentrates the byproduct of its decay, Polonium 210, to dangerous — if not lethal — levels. The relatively high levels found within tobacco are rather consistent over time and geographical area.2

A recent review published in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research summarized this disturbing fact of history as follows:

“…[T]he industry was not only cognizant of the potential “cancerous growth” in the lungs of regular smokers but also did quantitative radiobiological calculations to estimate the long-term (25 years) lung radiation absorption dose (rad) of ionizing alpha particles emitted from the cigarette smoke. Our own calculations of lung rad of alpha particles match closely the rad estimated by the industry. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the industry’s and our estimate of long-term lung rad of alpha particles causes 120-138 lung cancer deaths per year per 1,000 regular smokers.

These findings indicate that the tobacco industry’s relationship to their consumer base was (and still is) homicidal, in the worst, premeditated sense of the word. Moreover, the industry actually knew how to mitigate the problem, but realized it would interfere with the addictive power of their product (and therefore profitability) to do so:

“Acid wash was discovered in 1980 to be highly effectively in removing (210)Po from the tobacco leaves; however, the industry avoided its use for concerns that acid media would ionize nicotine converting it into a poorly absorbable form into the brain of smokers thus depriving them of the much sought after instant “nicotine kick” sensation.”

Polonium 210 is extraordinarily toxic when ingested or inhaled. In fact, it is 4500 times more toxic than radium 226  — a startling fact considering that during the Manhattan Project (1944), the “tolerance dose” for workers was set at 0.1 microgram of ingested radium. When incorporated into the body, radioisotopes like  Polonium 210 emit alpha particles, which are the radio biological equivalent of howitzers on a cellular level, profoundly damaging, mutating and destroying DNA, as well as causing other forms of irreparable damage to the cell. Because of the fact that the dominant radiation risk model does not acknowledge the profoundly detrimental effects of low-dose, internalized radioisotope exposure (largely because it was developed before the discovery of DNA in the early 50’s and was based on external exposures to the type of gamma-radiation associated with atomic bomb blast), the true dangers associated with Polonium 210 have been largely concealed or discounted.

According to a review published in the journal Health Physics in 2010, smoking tobacco has resulted in “443,000 deaths and 5.1 million years of potential life lost among the U.S. population each year from 2000 through 2004.” Furthermore, the review estimated that the associated collective radiation dose from smoking is “more than 36 times that to the workers at all the U.S. nuclear power plants, U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons facilities, and crews of all the vessels in the U.S. Nuclear Navy.” It is no surprise then that it has been suggested that tobacco products should carry a radiation-exposure warning label.3

View the Polonium abstracts from the National Library of Medicine indexed on GMI.

1Hvistendahl M. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste. Scientific American. 2007. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
2 Polonium-210 and lead-210 in the terrestrial environment: a historical review. J Environ Radioact. 2011 May ;102(5):420-9. Epub 2011 Mar 5. PMID: 21377252

3 Waking a sleeping giant: the tobacco industry’s response to the polonium-210 issue. Am J Public Health. 2008 Sep ;98(9):1643-50. Epub 2008 Jul 16. PMID: 18633078

© May 17, 2016 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


About The Author

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

    Related posts

    • Jack Listerio

      ………….The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

      Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 15 mrem

      Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) – 300 mrem

      Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 300 mrem

      Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

      Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

      Average Annual Total
      361 mrem/year

      Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

      Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!

      or

      Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

      Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

      18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!

      • Jack Listerio

        So tonite when your eating that salad or green beans remember it packed full of polonium 210.

    • Jack Listerio

      The whole study is flat out JUNK SCIENCE of the worse kind.
      Polonium 210 is in every food grown in the earth from naturally decaying radiation in the soil……….

    • Jack Listerio

      …………..Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

      It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

      (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
      Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
      2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
      ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
      long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
      said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
      cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
      (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
      arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
      to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
      therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
      lung cancer.

      [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
      Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
      use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
      causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
      cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
      it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
      individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
      (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
      [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
      point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
      case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
      consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
      knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
      individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
      intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
      life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
      [7.181]).

    • Jack Listerio

      It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

      (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
      Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
      2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
      ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
      long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
      said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
      cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
      (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
      arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
      to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
      therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
      lung cancer.

      • Jack Listerio

        ……………………………………………..[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
        Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
        use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
        causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
        cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
        it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
        individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
        (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
        [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
        point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
        case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
        consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
        knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
        individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
        intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
        life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
        [7.181])………………

    • Jack Listerio

      JUDGE DOESNT ACCEPT EPIDEMIOLOGY AS PROOF OF LUNG CANCER as they had no proof to any end point disease connection ever……….