Things are not always as they appear; but it appears smoking cigarettes does not cause cancer.
It is the radiation that does that.
“Glow dust”: The magic part of your cigarette that causes cancer. Uranium-238; Iodine-131; Radium-226; Cesium-137; Polonium-210; Thoriam-232, Strontium-90; Lead-210; Plutonium-232– are your basic glow dust radioisotopic constituents, most often found in combination, along with variants and other parent and decay born compounds. (12,1,11,15)
The inclusion of glow dust was a decision; and one made for you by executives. See, rather than remove the radiation, and thus cancer risk (known from about 1960), from tobacco leaves – when doing so would risk ionizing nicotine, and thus reducing its easy entry to the brain, and also impacting its addiction potential, and delaying or reducing the intensity of that initial “nicotine kick” – the vote was a unanimous one. Glow dust was in: and an addictive, but reasonably harmless nootropic compound that should never have been particularly linked to cancer at all, became forever synonymous with the illness. (12,8,11,15)
Sure, the radioactivity could be removed. It was predominantly added artificially, after all. It could be effectively removed with a chemical wash, or left to decay before allowing wholesale purchase (if the half life was amenable). In the latter case, cancer risk is severely reduced and without effecting nicotine potency. Everybody wins. (18,11,10,9)
Even so, this still isn’t done. Nothing is done. And the risk has always been known.
And it is a problem in ways at the time unimaginable. It turns out that the new genomic cancer treatments, promised to be symptom free and targeted compared to the current chemotherapy agents, are a bust. Because each cancer, even if classified the same, can be incredibly genetically variant. (16)
This is why during treatment the same cancer will shrink in one place while it grows elsewhere; “genomic chaos”. That is why some of, what we think, are the same cancer go into 20 yr remission after one round of treatment in some people, and yet in others the cancer doesn’t ever die or it becomes even more aggressive. What works for his cancer will not work for yours: with resistance seen in hours in some cases. This is all due to “genomic chaos”. (16)
Do you know the current primary cause of “genomic chaos”… yep. I’m afraid so. Cigarette radiation. It shakes down to approximately an estimated 1 additional mutation for every 3 cigarettes ever smoked. This is the 2013 Stanford data on genomic targeted neoplasm novel treatments. So, sorry I guess. (16)
Would now be a bad time to mention that of the 11 million people diagnosed with cancer worldwide each year, 8 million of them will die from the illness? In fact tobacco smoke radiation is a risk in 6 of the 8 main global causes of death. Too soon? It was too soon. Yeah, I totally should have waited for that last paragraph’s point to sink in. But genomics is hard, and I’m writing on a deadline. (18)
Again, smoking does not cause cancer – ionizing radiation does. Look at the nuclear fallout from the 2011 meltdown at Fukushima. Because this will become more relevant in the years to come. Did you know an excess ~18’000 people died in the 14 weeks following the Fukushima meltdown…IN AMERICA? (21)
Yeah, that is based on CDC data, not Japanese data. And since we are still seeing Cesium-137 from Chernobyl on tobacco today – I think the bet, that future smoking in-patients are going to have Fukushima particulates in their lungs, is a reasonably safe one. (8,20,21)
The isotopes deposit in bone & other tissue, so bloods can look normal. That’s why cigarettes were on my work’s (diagnostic medical imaging) radiation safety guide (Table 1, Section I). Not as a metaphor representing relative radiation cancer risk cf cigarette carcinogenic cancer risk; rather I was handed a literal ionizing radiation dose equivalence schedule. (19,18,11,10,9,7,5,3)
Every cigarette is (x-bar) another chest X-Ray.
It is ironic, nearly, given that smoking is going to lead to more actual chest X-Rays and higher radiation procedures…C(A)T scans…Nuclear Bone scans…PETs…ect. And it is equal to a chest X-ray and breathed into the chest… oh, you got that.
Consider; If a doctor kept screwing up on the X-ray form, & sent you back to radiology to have another & another & another chest X-Ray – 10 times in the one afternoon: don’t you think you would you flip out just a little o_0?
That is exactly the same as smoking 10 cigarettes in an afternoon, except the X-Ray machine is better at dose exposure control – for cigarettes I listed the average, not the range high end.
And I know what you are thinking – “But that would mean that every cigarette is doing me damage! Ye gaWds! Why didn’t somebody say something?“.
I totally understand. I hear that, brother, yep, loud and clear. I mean, putting corpses on packets is one thing, it is cool and that: but we aren’t scientists! We aren’t doctors! Oh … well, I kinda am. And also I don’t smoke. Hmm. But still, yeah, I mean, even so, that makes it no less um … no less kind of… I’m sorry, what were we talking about? Totally spaced. Meh. Probably wasn’t important. *shrugs*.
Oh yeah, yeah smoking. Well, wait: passive smoking radiation effects me =O! So does public health burden cost! Annnnd I’m Back ;D.
So in essence, all of this, if it is true, is also why passive smoking is so dangerous. Especially around your kids, and their fast dividing cells, – because the risk is not tar related, it is radiation related, & some isotopes, like Polonium-210, are more likely to effect nearby people passively in the environment & not be inhaled by the smoker.(19,18,11,10,9,7,5,3)
It is why the smoke off the end is more dangerous than what is exhaled; it is more likely to be more radioactive. It has been theorized the particulates don’t have to strike other particulates of similar charge & density on the way to the filter. The filter stops virtually nothing, though, isotope wise, from going into the smoker; so their bodies are still the best filter for the non-smoker (though that isn’t always true for all compounds – some smokers do breathe certain isotopes straight out into the environment in the same dose and form as when they were inhaled). (19,18,11,10,8,22, 23, 24, 25)
Ever coughed from the clothes a smoker was wearing? Well radiation particles stay on the clothes: which is why you must remove your clothes in a radiation emergency. Otherwise they continue to contaminate the body. Ever wondered why smoking harms children even when the parent only smoked outside? Radiation. (11,15, 22, 23, 24, 25)
It also means that cutting to lower strengths makes no difference either, since the radiation levels are not reduced (also they change the chemistry so that even the lower dose of nicotine hits the brain with the same potency as the higher milligram; this is, obviously, one of the reasons that people think tobacco is so addictive, and also one reason why it appears it is so hard to quit- even when you think you are dosing down. But one scandal at a time). (11)
And the isotopes gather in the lower lobes of the lung “especially in bifurcations of segmental bronchi. In this place, combined with other agents, it will manifest its carcinogenic activity“: interesting since the third leading cause of death is “Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease“ – and ahead of that is still lung and other cancers. (17,18)
I wonder if you would get a Gieger reading off an ashtray? Or a life long smoker’s chest? I’d say, depending on settings and device: probably, yes.
So, as a thought problem, pharmacologically would that put an equivalent clearance of say, Thoriam-232, at 5 x 1.405(6)×10^10 Million billion years? Just to put that in tangible terms once again; that is multiple times the age of the universe. (19)
So, bit of a wait for clearance there. I’m just glad they don’t test for it at work. Oh what? I had one puff somewhere in the cretaceous; and I didn’t even inhale. Still, long half life for something known to be toxic that I’m putting in my body. Is that a lot? That reads like a lot. Is that a lot? How long do people live anyway – yikes! No, non-smokers, non-smokers I mean. JeeZus.
Humans are exposed to more radiation from cigarette smoke than from any other source. Pretty neat huh? Where the hell has this information been? Well, mostly chemistry and physics journals, apparently, with only patches in the medical literature, for the longest time. (Nothing sus). (19,18).
So smoking should never have even been associated with causing cancer. That appears to be the truth of it. I found that a shocking revelation. That is the real reason I agreed to sign on to write this series. So few things shock me. It’s nice when it happens.
And It is all true I’m afraid – we live in a time when the flowers have been bought off, plants are not “natural” or “organic” by modern definitions, and I’m afraid mother nature just plain hates you. Radiation is natural too and these fertilizers are common place.
This is in part why growing tobacco is illegal. But that could fill another piece.
But aren’t radioisotopes in all our food & water then, I hear you ask? Yes, is the answer to that; but not concentrated as they are by the properties of this particular species crop, & no other crop is ‘smoke injected‘ directly into our lungs as a delivery mechanism. Very few, if you think about it. I eat my tomatos that way, but I am in the minority. (7)
Right. So, well yeah. Put that in your pipe. But don’t smoke it. Or do, but do so in behind lead glass, with an exhaust vent, and those arm hole gloves through the glass that you see in zombie virus outbreak movies.
It seems a reasonable precaution, given what I have laid out here. My rule is believe anything I read on the internet, unless it is in yellow font: and I go alright.
(*although QCC will only list this as a “General Science” feature collection, and not under the “Medical Reference” searchable collection, hmm…-_-).
But when the tobacco companies agree you should not buy their tobacco; excuses to do so anyway start running pretty thin. When even the government starts helping…well, that just means it has started costing money to some sector, more than it is bringing in. But it is still a bad sign.
In sum; “Cigarettes Are Not Bad For You”. Mostly. Ionizing radiation, on the other hand, so it currently appears, probably IS bad for you.
And from Chernobyl to Fukushima to cigarettes themselves en mass; why is this a problem?
I know, I feel dull even writing it.
However, corporate involvement in healthcare, prisons or food production – if not held to the utmost of stringent standards – can only lead to grievous error. It takes no conspiracy, it doesn’t even take greed; but people will cover themselves, true enough.
And there is also rationalization. Any tiny problems, that take a little bit more work, can always be re-framed as “someone else’s department“. Or “who’ll ever know…I’m tired, & the game is on at 8…I didn’t put the cigarette in their lung and light it with plutonium...”.
But also, yes, occasionally there are evil people who sit around in boardrooms, entirely honest about how little they care about what happens to you: this is exceptionally well documented (at least more than 70 million pages on the topic, well, that is just this topic. That we have currently).
So when these same wicked people have been pushed to a point when they openly tell you not to buy their product, and put decaying corpses on the packet to remind you.
When all they want to do is avoid prison, if at all possible – perhaps this is one of those exceptionally rare times where there is “truth in advertising”.
I can hardly believe I am about to say this but: perhaps there would benefit from actually listening to what the tobacco executives have to say regarding your health care in this particular case.
Cigarette Smoking Does Not Cause Cancer:
Dr JRR, hc and JR, Lsc. (2013). Cigarette Smoking Does Not Cause Cancer: Series. J Chron Lett Sci, December. (16-18), Ed 8.
Images by Jamie Hewlett (“Tank girl”).
1) Malmo-Levine (2002). Radioactive Tobacco Berkley Nuclear Lab (Engineering).
2) Jones et al (2012). Radiation Dose from Medical Imaging: A Primer for Emergency Physicians. J Emergency Med (West).
3) Yuille, CL; Berke, HL; Hull, T. (1967). ‘Lung cancer following Pb210 inhalation in rats.’ Radiation Research.
5) Winters, TH and Franza, JR. (1983) ‘Radioactivity in Cigarette Smoke,’ New England Journal of Medicine..
6) Nature (1967); Carcinogens in Chinese Incense Smoke. doi:10.1038/216612a0
7) Watson, AP. (2012) ‘Polonium-210 and Lead-210 in Food and Tobacco Products: A Review of Parameters and an Estimate of Potential Exposure and Dose.’ Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
8) Papastafenou (2009). Radioactivity of Tobacco Leaves and Radiation Dose Induced from Smoking. Int J Environ Res Public Health. PMC-2672370.
9) Neugut (1994). Research Reports Smoking, Radiation Therapy: Dangerous Mix for Breast Cancer. P&S Journal: Spring. 14 (4).
10) Fernado P etal (2006)- Polonium in cigarette smoke and radiation exposure of lungs. C J Physics. 56 (1).
11) Karagueuzian et al (2011). Cigarette Smoke Radioactivity and Lung Cancer Risk. Oxford J (Med). doi 10.1093/ntr/ntr145.
12) Phillip Morris (Acc 2013) Court Compelled Document Release Unsealed – Archive –http://www.pmdocs.com/
13) Radioactivity in cigarettes. British American Tobacco Company, Bates numbers 201816728–201816729.
14) Tobacco Control Act (Acc 2013) Made Law by Barack Obama – http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm298595.htm
15) Muggli et al (2008). Waking a Sleeping Giant: The Tobacco Industry’s Response to the Polonium-210. Am J Public Health. September.
16) Prof. G. Sledge (2013). Lessons from Clinical Trials of Targeted Therapy in Cancer. Stanford U, Lane Library Medical Grand Rounds- Oncology.
17) NSC (2013). ICD Causes of Death 2013. National Safety Council of America.
18) Zaga (2011). J of Oncology, Polonium and Lung Cancer (Review). Article ID 860103.
19) G Joyett (1971) Experimentia (Translation) The thorium-series in cigarettes and in lungs of smokers. 27 (1).
20) Sherman & Mandango (2011). Study: US Deaths Tied to Fukushima Disaster Fallout. International Journal of Health Services, RSN.
21) Sherman (2009). Chernobyl – Chemical Exposure and Disease – Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer. NY Academy of Sciences. New York.
22) Centre for Disease Control – Radiation Guidelines (2013). [Acc] cdc.gov/radiation/contamination.
23) Sammet and Burke (2001). The Tobacco Industry and Passive Smoking. Am J Public Health. 91 (11).
24) Ferrence (2010). Passive smoking and children. BMJ. 10.1136/bmj.c1680.