Cigarette Smoking Does Not Cause Cancer: II – Emitters Aren’t Quitters

bluegold radiationHalf Shave Tit Jetbluegold radiation

Cigarettes emit ionizing radiation. Is this a good thing or bad thing? Oh, moral philosophy – so much harder when trying to be fair to a cigarette company and smoker equally.

Free will … utilitarian greater good … freedom from … or freedom to … or both … informed consent … OK I’m done.

Right, lets talk “glow dust”.

“Glow dust” combo’s include, but are not limited to: Uranium-238; Radium-226; Cesium-137; Polonium-210; Thoriam-232, Strontium-90; Lead-210; Plutonium-232 – most often in combination of three or more. And there are others. And variants (8,10,3,5).

But hopefully the point is made. Is anyone else wigging out…just a little o_O. It does feel like this should have been mentioned maybe once hey?

There are people who are trying. Well, there is me. But in addition, there is a gentleman named Amos Hausner. Hausner is a lawyer, whose father was also a lawyer: in fact, the prosecuting lawyer for famed logistical expert, patriot and devoted service member Lt Col A. Eichmann. (12,1,11).

Hausner is taking to the courts, to seek Israelis some justice. Hausner is suing “Big Tobacco” for 8 billion dollars, as compensation for their purposefully irradiating the people of Israel with their cigarettes and associated products.

And there is some gusto in his case. For there are “in house” tobacco documents that have come to light, outlining, with meticulous detail, just a little bit of a lot of a half century cover up.  These documents have been unsealed from a protective court order, to now serve the public trust (12) (oh don’t worry, after half a century in the shadows, most of the evil doers will be dead; following a rich and happy life. That was the whole point). (11,1).

These secret pages document the dangers of radioactive isotopes in tobacco and have been held as “corporate memos” under intellectual property shields by companies, such as Phillip Morris.

And as it turns out, there seems to have been a lot of memo-ing required in the business days of yonder; as the number of pages released from this enterprise are  surprisingly vast. In fact, once unsealed: more than 70 million pages was the total at last count (11).

To the company’s credit, however; one executive does display that there remains in him a slither of a conscience. A conversation shows him to be considering, for a moment, if poisoning people when it is not, technically speaking, necessary for business; but it is still, genuinely, slightly cheaper – if under these conditions causing wanton misery is actually 100% “OK”. Not exactly the trolly and the tracks dilemma, but a variant.

This individual can be quoted as saying that the notion that the company should take steps to fix “the problem” [of irradiating people] (*and in doing so slowly killing them needlessly, making money from the endevour and then lying about it all, to everyone, forever, so no-one can even take mitigating steps or seek treatment) was a “valid … but [ultimately] expensive point” that had been raised.

“Valid”. Yes, it is valid to think about such things for a moment isn’t it? What a hero.

What? Well what did you want? I said “a slither of conscience”. Give him a break, the guy is still a tobacco executive. How do you sleep at night with so much hate -_-. (15)

Ultimately, however, it was decided that if it meant making nicotine potentially less physically addictive, they probably shouldn’t do it. From an ethical standpoint. That it was immoral to deprive smokers of the “little nicotine kick” that they were looking forward to. See? They aren’t all bad. (12,1,15)

And all was well in the world.

Until … a former KGB agent was killed in 2006 using, polonium-210. This sparked up the conversation again, this time in a more public arena, as to whether the presence of this particular compound in cigarettes, and the 40yr+ cover up by “Big Tobacco”, was actually a concern (13).

Another one for the ethics professors. If it is being used by KGB hitmen to kill people by exposure, should it be sold in supermarkets without a radiation warning label, as Muggli et al suggested (15), and mixed with highly addictive partner compounds? It is a puzzle alright.

An Oxford Med J investigation found that:

The evidence of lung cancer risk caused by cigarette smoke radioactivity is compelling enough to warrant its removal.” (13)

I guess Oxford medical School doesn’t give a gosh darn about our “nicotine kick”. What else must go on at Oxford? Sure, it starts with removing compounds used to kill spy’s by the KGB from public consumer products: but where does it end?

Also in the unsealed documents was new information that the tobacco industry knew about the alpha particle decay (ionizing radiation) staying in their product in about 1960.(13)

It was also evident that they realized smoking, or potentially even carrying, their product was dangerous. That “cancerous growth [in the lungs of smokers] … was not an unlikely event.“(13)

What is most interesting about this finding is that said surviving location for, and ionizing decay properties of, the afore mentioned alpha particle was not discovered until 1964, as far as the public is concerned; when Radford and Hunt made their report on the event in the journal Science for the very first time (13).

It was further apparent that the knowledge of cancer held by the industry at the time, appeared to surpass that of their mainstream medical science contemporaries (11).

This is exactly why you need a “can do” man at the helm. These fiends were not going to get away with this plot; live a rich and happy life, with their incriminating evidence sealed for nearly half a century, under the very laws that were meant to protect the people from misdeeds: no sir! Crime does not pa…OK OK, fine, you know how that one ends.

But in truth, there was a bill drafted for the president to sign into law to stop them. Drafted in 1959 no less. A bill that claimed the tobacco being produced was a “radiation hazard and that it must be “controlled as such“. And the President of the United States, being a man of great and noble character; sign it into law he did.(13)

And that man’s name was … President Barack Obama. (14,13)

Wait…wait …wait a minute, drafted in 1959… saying tobacco was radioactivesigned by … President Barack Obam…*sigh*. >:| (14)

Well, better late than never. Isn’t time relative anyway?

Still, one can’t help but feel as though “someone” should have bought “someone” an atomic clock for Christmas one year in all that time. Or … something.  I’m just saying. I mean, there is “late”, and then there is “LATE”. And then there is this.

While we are speaking about time; do you know how the half lives of the isotopes I listed above are described in the literature:

the isotope half lives are generally considered reasonably short… with the standard comparison being the age of the earth”.

See? Time is relative after all.

Cigarette Smoking Does Not Cause Cancer:

I Research Findings ~ II Cigarettes Emit Ionizing Radiation ~ III Smokin’ and Mirrors


Dr JRR, hc and JR, Lsc. (2013). Cigarette Smoking Does Not Cause Cancer: Series. J Chron Lett Sci, December. (16-18), Ed 9.


[+++] Research Blog Marker

About J.Chron.Ltt.&Sci. [JCR]

~CogSc (Humor); NeuroPsych; Philosophy (Death/Identity); Methods (Research); Intelligence/Investigation (Forensic); Medical Error~
This entry was posted in Chronicle Core and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Become part of the journey. You will be welcomed by the others and your comments thoughtfully considered.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s