Live data from Hacker News

Radioactivity in Tobacco

epa.gov

11–20 of 63 posts

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#11
post #2

Is radium only present in tobacco fertilizers? What separates tobacco fertilizers from other plant fertilizers? Am I at risk for eating tomatoes grown with normal off-the-shelf fertilizer?

Tobacco is radioactive because the radioactive particles stick to the trichromes. Tomatoes don’t have trichromes, so no, unless you’re eating the leaves.

Would cannabis treated with fertilizer have the same effects then?

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#12
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.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#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 meaningful and useful conversation.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tobacco is radioactive because the radioactive particles stick to the trichromes. Tomatoes don’t have trichromes, so no, unless you’re eating the leaves.

Would cannabis treated with fertilizer have the same effects then?

It would have radioactive particles stick to it, if that’s what you’re asking.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#15
post #2

Is radium only present in tobacco fertilizers? What separates tobacco fertilizers from other plant fertilizers? Am I at risk for eating tomatoes grown with normal off-the-shelf fertilizer?

Just hypothesizing, but there might be a difference between the accumulation of materials in the lungs vs gastrointestinal system.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#16

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.

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#17

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...

Re: Radioactivity in Tobacco

#20
post #18

Bananas are radioactive too, due to their potassium content. Nobody worries much about those.

Radioactivity derived from tobacco is significantly higher than from bananas.

There is a very nice episode of Veritasium (science divulgation YouTube channel) which shows exactly this together with other "well known" radioactive sources (e.g. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Marie Curie's office etc)

Post reply on HN