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

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#51

Post by GordonS »

DanBC wrote: post #45
Gibbon1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sticky hairs Reminds me. My ex-wifes grandmother said when she was a little girl her family packed up from tobacco country to California. And her utter joy when her mother told her that no they don't grow tobacco in California. Because picking tobacco is gross and nasty work.

It is, and the US still allows child labour in tobacco farming. https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/video/2014/05/13/made-usa-c... https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/09/teens-tobacco-fields/c... https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/05/13/tobaccos-hidden-childr... https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/05/10/dispatches-obama-bans-e-...

As a kid growing up in Scotland I worked picking daffodils in spring and berries in the summer - absolutely back-breaking work, but at least you got to eat your body weight in berries for free!

We were paid a pittance based on how much we picked. It wasn't only kids, and was never thought of as "child labour" at the time - I wonder if this is still a thing in the UK?

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#52

Post by seszett »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #44
BlueYoshi wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, many plants have these AFAIK. Tomato leaves are pretty sticky. Potatoes too IIRC. Happens that both of these are in the same family as tobacco though. I just realised your point that tobacco is a leaf crop unlike spuds and toms, so ok, point taken.

Tobacco is a lot more sticky than most other crops, to the point that it has been hypothesised to be a semi-carnivorous plant. Insects actually get caught in them, it's just unknown of the plant actually actively digests them. That's also why harvesting tobacco is not very pleasant, with all the stuff stuck on their leaves.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#53

Post by bpizzi »

smdz wrote: post #40

Every year 8 million people die because of tobacco. In the US alone, the number of deaths (due to tobacco) per year is close to half a million. Similarly between 4-7 million people die due to air pollution. Ironically, that does not alarm anyone, that does not cause lockdowns, that does not require flattening the curve. The numbers don't lie - global lockdowns that led to significant drop in air pollution may have co…

Conflating tobacco induced deaths with covid19 deaths is, for one, a giant big mental shortcut. Then throwing lockdowns in it. And finally ending of a 'mother nature is wounded' note. This is not Reddit guys.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#55

Post by DanBC »

GordonS wrote: post #51
DanBC wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, and the US still allows child labour in tobacco farming. https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/video/2014/05/13/made-usa-c... https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/12/09/teens-tobacco-fields/c... https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/05/13/tobaccos-hidden-childr... https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/05/10/dispatches-obama-bans-e-...

As a kid growing up in Scotland I worked picking daffodils in spring and berries in the summer - absolutely back-breaking work, but at least you got to eat your body weight in berries for free! We were paid a pittance based on how much we picked. It wasn't only kids, and was never thought of as "child labour" at the time - I wonder if this is still a thing in the UK?

It probably isn't still a thing in the UK, because we now have things like national minimum wage and stronger protections against child labour.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#56

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

seszett wrote: post #52
throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, many plants have these AFAIK. Tomato leaves are pretty sticky. Potatoes too IIRC. Happens that both of these are in the same family as tobacco though. I just realised your point that tobacco is a leaf crop unlike spuds and toms, so ok, point taken.

Tobacco is a lot more sticky than most other crops, to the point that it has been hypothesised to be a semi-carnivorous plant. Insects actually get caught in them, it's just unknown of the plant actually actively digests them. That's also why harvesting tobacco is not very pleasant, with all the stuff stuck on their leaves.

Actually I've heard exactly the same - including the conclusion of vegetal carnivory - for tomatoes too.

Surprising number of links here: https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=tomatoes%20carnivorous%20stick...

If you pick on, this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/attack-of-the-kil...

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#57

Post by pfdietz »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #56
seszett wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tobacco is a lot more sticky than most other crops, to the point that it has been hypothesised to be a semi-carnivorous plant. Insects actually get caught in them, it's just unknown of the plant actually actively digests them. That's also why harvesting tobacco is not very pleasant, with all the stuff stuck on their leaves.

Actually I've heard exactly the same - including the conclusion of vegetal carnivory - for tomatoes too. Surprising number of links here: https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=tomatoes%20carnivorous%20stick... If you pick on, this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/attack-of-the-kil...

Bean leaves also have sharp protrusions, I understand. Probably for defense against insects more than carnivory. Freshly picked bean leaves placed on the floor are supposed to be a defense against bedbugs.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#58

Post by pfdietz »

gmueckl wrote: post #50
saagarjha wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, ingested radioactive emitters are impossible to remove from the human body. I think that’s only true for things we don’t metabolize?

Right. I should have rather said that there are no medical treatments that can remove ingested radioactive emitters in any meaningful way.

Chelation has been used to remove ingested Am, Pu, and Cm. It takes a while, though.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#59

Post by acidburnNSA »

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.

The regulations use a linear no threshold limit to be safe. But it has not been proven that there is a linear no threshold dose response. So I am not incorrect.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#60

Post by pfdietz »

User23 wrote: post #22
acidburnNSA wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Or, it may be even more dangerous at low doses than LNT implies. The data are too noisy to tell.
Post reply on HN