Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Radioactivity in Tobacco

epa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#21

Post by legulere »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #13

This is very nearly useless because it doesn't give the range of dose rates they see in tobacco (am I missing them!?). Low radiation doses are normal and natural and have been part of life forever. High doses from concentrated stuff can cause trouble. So what range are we dealing with here!? When you have detectors capable of seeing a single atom decaying, quantitative dose rates are always required to have a meaning…

Not all radionuclides are as dangerous as others. As an extreme example the body keeps the level of potassium constant in the body rendering naturally radioactive potassium completely harmless.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#22

Post by User23 »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #12
barney54 wrote: post #9

"Toxic chemicals in tobacco smoke are the main reason cigarettes cause cancer, but radiation also may play a part." That's the best that EPA can do here? Is there really no data?

No one has conclusively shown that radiation causes or does not cause cancer at low doses, on the order of the world's variation of the natural background radiation dose. There are lots of data. It is noisy.

It may even be healthy[1]. It stands to reason that organisms that evolved in a radioactive environment would have some physiological ability to compensate and that it would follow the general adaptation pattern. Mithridatism is very real after all.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#23

Post by throw_away »

> Tobacco farmers use fertilizer to help their crops grow. These fertilizers contain a naturally-occurring radionuclide, radium. Radium radioactively decays to release radon gas, which then rises from the soil around the plants. As the plant grows, the radon from fertilizer, along with naturally-occurring radon in surrounding soil and rocks, cling to the sticky hairs on the bottom of tobacco leaves, called trichomes. Radon later decays into the radioactive elements lead-210 and polonium-210. Rain does not wash them away. Polonium-210 is an alpha emitter and carries the most risk.

Isn't this true of every plant we cultivate and put into our bodies? Or is there something particular about tobacco trichromes and Radon? Or tobacco-specific fertilizers? Inhalation vs. ingestion? This is all coming on the heels of learning yesterday that everyone has like 20-60 lbs of lead in their back yard: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23039020

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#25

Post by [deleted] »

abpavel wrote: post #16
acidburnNSA wrote: post #13

This is very nearly useless because it doesn't give the range of dose rates they see in tobacco (am I missing them!?). Low radiation doses are normal and natural and have been part of life forever. High doses from concentrated stuff can cause trouble. So what range are we dealing with here!? When you have detectors capable of seeing a single atom decaying, quantitative dose rates are always required to have a meaning…

Incorrect. There is no such thing as safe dose with Radon. You're thinking of gamma rays and 50mSv/year safe limit. You won't find safe limit for Radon. There are guidelines when you should be very concerned, but there is no safe limit. It decays into radioactive lead, and once we breath it in, it's hard to get rid of, and stays in our bodies.

[deleted]

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#26

Post by BlueYoshi »

throw_away wrote: post #23

> Tobacco farmers use fertilizer to help their crops grow. These fertilizers contain a naturally-occurring radionuclide, radium. Radium radioactively decays to release radon gas, which then rises from the soil around the plants. As the plant grows, the radon from fertilizer, along with naturally-occurring radon in surrounding soil and rocks, cling to the sticky hairs on the bottom of tobacco leaves, called trichomes.…

Tobacco leaves have sticky hairs on their underside, which is what makes them different from other crops: it’s these hairs that absorb the radon and prevent it from being washed away with water. Also, the type of fertilizer used for Tobacco might be different than fertilizers used for other crops.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#27

Post by gbin »

abpavel wrote: post #16
acidburnNSA wrote: post #13

This is very nearly useless because it doesn't give the range of dose rates they see in tobacco (am I missing them!?). Low radiation doses are normal and natural and have been part of life forever. High doses from concentrated stuff can cause trouble. So what range are we dealing with here!? When you have detectors capable of seeing a single atom decaying, quantitative dose rates are always required to have a meaning…

Incorrect. There is no such thing as safe dose with Radon. You're thinking of gamma rays and 50mSv/year safe limit. You won't find safe limit for Radon. There are guidelines when you should be very concerned, but there is no safe limit. It decays into radioactive lead, and once we breath it in, it's hard to get rid of, and stays in our bodies.

I have a hard time making sense of this. Would it mean 1 atom of Rn is always fatal for any individual? The fact that it accumulates in the body doesn't mean it is fatal at any dose.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#29

Post by parineum »

Hokusai wrote: post #17
acidburnNSA wrote: post #13

This is very nearly useless because it doesn't give the range of dose rates they see in tobacco (am I missing them!?). Low radiation doses are normal and natural and have been part of life forever. High doses from concentrated stuff can cause trouble. So what range are we dealing with here!? When you have detectors capable of seeing a single atom decaying, quantitative dose rates are always required to have a meaning…

The article is just an informative piece for the general public. Adding more details would clutter the text and add little to non experts. I think that it is a reasonable approach to highlight a risk situation were the clarity of the message is important. If you want more data a Google search brings more detail: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24425555_Radioactiv...

Then they may have well just written "Smoking Bad".

If the motivation is to educate people on the dangers of smoking (which they already overestimate due to the fear based anti-smoking campaigns) they should probably tell us why.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#30

Post by xenonite »

Hokusai wrote: post #17
acidburnNSA wrote: post #13

This is very nearly useless because it doesn't give the range of dose rates they see in tobacco (am I missing them!?). Low radiation doses are normal and natural and have been part of life forever. High doses from concentrated stuff can cause trouble. So what range are we dealing with here!? When you have detectors capable of seeing a single atom decaying, quantitative dose rates are always required to have a meaning…

The article is just an informative piece for the general public. Adding more details would clutter the text and add little to non experts. I think that it is a reasonable approach to highlight a risk situation were the clarity of the message is important. If you want more data a Google search brings more detail: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24425555_Radioactiv...

The link you give links to http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6020558

"Radioactivity of Tobacco Leaves and Radiation Dose Induced from Smoking"

The gist:

> In estimating the radiation dose induced from smoking, it was concluded that the annual effective dose to lungs due to inhalation for adults (smokers) averaged to 80 μSv for 226Ra, 67 μSv for 228Ra and 105 μSv for 210Pb, that is 252 μSv in total. The annual effective dose due to 137Cs of Chernobyl origin averaged to about 200 nSv, that is three orders of magnitude lower than that of the naturally occurring radionuclides. The effective dose of 252 μSv per year must be compared with the average worldwide exposure to natural radiation sources due to inhalation 1.26 mSv y−1.

(although the source for the radioactivity is not only fertilizer, but a combination of fertilizer, natural radioactivity, and to a tiny amount Chernobyl fallout. The plants were sampled all over Greece.)

Post reply on HN