Drugs

[ephiroll]

I fail to see what point you're trying to make here, tobacco contains radioactive substances, period.

The point I'm trying to make here is that that isn't what the sources you've provided say. In fact, that's nearly the opposite. What they say is tobacco farmed with the particular heavy-metal rich fertilizer used can collect certain radioactive isotopes on its surface, and then when burned creates highly radioactive insoluable particles that concentrate the effect.

There is nothing even remotely suggesting that tobacco is inherently radioactive, and I'd be laughing really hard if there was...It's remotely possible to selectively uptake radioactives, but it has no evolutionary use I can imagine and isotopic selectivity is very difficult. And even then it could only be radioactive if it had access to radioisotopes to absorb.

This is a list of chemicals in second hand smoke and how much more of each that is in second hand smoke as compared to inhaled smoke.

Polonium-210--1 to 4 times
Benzo[a]pyrene--2.5 to 3.5 times
Hydrazine--3 times
1,3 butadiene--3 to 6 times
Benzene--5 to 10 times
N-nitrosopyrrolidine--6 to 30 times
Cadmium--7.2 times
Nickel--13 to 30 times
N-nitrosodimenthylamine--20 to 100 times
Aniline--30 times
2-Naphthylamine--30 times
4-Aminobiphenyl--31 times
N-nitrodiethylamine--up to 40 times

And of course, that means that most of the chemical released goes into the air, rather than the smoker or the cigarette. Any given second-hand smoke inhaler will only take in a small portion of that.

Yeah, most, but someone nearby only needs to inhale a small amount to get the same dose that the smoker gets from sucking down a whole cigarette.

Assumptions...what percentage of the smoke released by a cigarette is inhaled by a given person? I think it's less than you think. And the radioactives are only a maximum of 4 times as much released as delivered to the main smoker. I doubt anyone can suck up a quarter of the second-handable smoke.

Just to be clear...I don't think cigarettes have any good uses, nor do I think they are safe. What I think is that 'people' should stop throwing deceptive statistics and skipping all the facts they don't like.

Statistics speak for themselves. Millions have died from complications caused from cigarettes, if you can find one case in which pot was directly responsible for a death I'd like to know where to find it.

OK...again, you ought to read the sources you site better. Your sources actually say (in one case) that pot grown the way tobacco is causes lung cancer! All of them say that by removing the radioactive fertilizers might be enough to nearly eliminate tobacco-related deaths.

I'm much too lazy to look for my own statistics. Bring your own so I can take shots at them.

You know what I just noticed? We're both making about the same points, the difference is that what I don't say you say, and what you don't say I say, put everything we're saying together and none of it will contradict. Anyway, I'll humor one more time.

I know the articles say that tobacco farmed with certain fertilizers will contain radioactive substances, <i>but</i> even if the tobacco isn't grown using those fertilizers it can absorb <i>naturally occuring</i> radium from the ground, therefore haveing the same effect as if it had been grown with irradiated fertilizer.

Percentage of second hand smoke inhaled by a person would naturally depend on the circumstances. Outside would be less in then a building, would be less then in a room, would be less sitting in car, would be less then in a car with outside air being filtered in and so forth. In an enclosed area such as a small room or a car I'd bet that about half or more of the second hand smoke could be inadvertantly inhaled by people nearby.

Yes, pot grown like toboacco would contain the same substances, common sense says that it would. But, there is no proof that anyone has died because of that, yet. And yes, "removing the radioactive fertilizers might be enough to nearly eliminate tobacco-related deaths", but the key words are "might be" and "nearly", it's speculative at best.

Without all the chemicals added, tobacco is still a deadly, addictive drug just because of the nicotine in it. Nicotine alone causes addiction (it's believed my many scientist to be as addicting as heroin and cocaine), hardening of the arteries (which leads to strokes, heartattacks, and limp amputations due to poor circulation), and angiogenesis (new blood vessel growth, which in turn aids the growth of atherosclerotic plaques and tumors). Not to meantion that fact that the nicotine in about 3 cigaretts is enough to kill a full grown man (it takes 5mg of pure nicotine to kill an adult, you can look that up in any list of poisons, only arsenic and one or two other toxins are as deadly, not counting venom from certain fish, jellyfish, and snakes).

[The Industriallist]

You know what I just noticed? We're both making about the same points, the difference is that what I don't say you say, and what you don't say I say, put everything we're saying together and none of it will contradict. Anyway, I'll humor one more time.

No, that's not even close to the case. I disagree with at least parts of nearly everything you've said. And I've said so.

I know the articles say that tobacco farmed with certain fertilizers will contain radioactive substances, <i>but</i> even if the tobacco isn't grown using those fertilizers it can absorb <i>naturally occuring</i> radium from the ground, therefore haveing the same effect as if it had been grown with irradiated fertilizer.

Yes, it is at least suggested that tobacco (and probably other plants) can absorb natural radium.

However:
-Nowhere is it suggested that it would be anywhere near the radioactivity level of radioactively fertilized tobacco.
-Naturally occuring radium also can leak into basements and such...but believe it or not, it doesn't happen very often. There isn't all that much naturally occuring radium lying around in the soil.
-Marijuana may well have the exact same properties toward radiation as tobacco...nothing to the contrary, anywhere.

Percentage of second hand smoke inhaled by a person would naturally depend on the circumstances. Outside would be less in then a building, would be less then in a room, would be less sitting in car, would be less then in a car with outside air being filtered in and so forth. In an enclosed area such as a small room or a car I'd bet that about half or more of the second hand smoke could be inadvertantly inhaled by people nearby.

I would seriously doubt that, based on the comparison of lung volume to room volume. But I can't prove anything here.

Yes, pot grown like toboacco would contain the same substances, common sense says that it would. But, there is no proof that anyone has died because of that, yet. And yes, "removing the radioactive fertilizers might be enough to nearly eliminate tobacco-related deaths", but the key words are "might be" and "nearly", it's speculative at best.

Yes. The only parts that aren't speculative are that: the radioactives are demonstrated to cause cancer, while most of the other things actually are not (another of your sources); Adding radioactive fertilizer can cause a 'harmless' plant to cause lung cancer (which it takes some time to die of, you know); and there aren't nearly enough statistics on marijuana to make the claims that are made. Tobacco statistics work on many millions of open smokers. Marijuana statistics are based on far fewer smokers, who are using it illegally with all that implies.

Without all the chemicals added, tobacco is still a deadly, addictive drug just because of the nicotine in it. Nicotine alone causes addiction (it's believed my many scientist to be as addicting as heroin and cocaine), hardening of the arteries (which leads to strokes, heartattacks, and limp amputations due to poor circulation), and angiogenesis (new blood vessel growth, which in turn aids the growth of atherosclerotic plaques and tumors). Not to meantion that fact that the nicotine in about 3 cigaretts is enough to kill a full grown man (it takes 5mg of pure nicotine to kill an adult, you can look that up in any list of poisons, only arsenic and one or two other toxins are as deadly, not counting venom from certain fish, jellyfish, and snakes).

So I'm sure people who take their cigarettes intravenously should be worried. It isn't how much there is, or even how deadly it is. It is the rate at which a person actually takes it in compared to the rate of neutralization, with attention paid to the lethal dose. I doubt any smoker has ever been killed by nicotine poisoning. Alcohol poisoning is far more likely, even though it takes a lot more of it.

I won't contest the bad side effects. I expect that the pure, clean plant has them. But if you want to base an argument on it, show me the colonial-era tobacco-death statistics.

[Psycho Pixie]

pixies 2 cents: (or 3 cents?)

1~ tobaccoo, weather or not it has had irradiated fertilizer, is dangerous. the nicotien isnt the only problum, the smoke inhalation also damages your lungs. FACTOID from the scientists!

2~ second hand smoke, in a small room is much more likely to be inhaled by a non-smoker, thus making second hand smoke much more dangerous to people in public, hense the laws against smoking inside public buildings. FACTOID from scientists.

3~ you asked for death statistics from colonial america.... even if there were good reliable statistics, the medical field back then would not have realized that smoking caused that heart attack, stroke or cancerous growth. only today, with the studies and tests that have been conducted can we say comfortably that tobaccoo smoking KILLS.

i dont care whats in cig's, i dont smoke, one of our roomies does and he is forbidden to smoke anywhere but in his room with the windows open and his door CLOSED because i cannot stand the stench of marlboro 100's floating around MY house, getting on MY clothes.

on the other hand if a bunch of friends are outside on break at work and some are smoking, I dont really care because we are outside, and the smoke blows away. I will stand around with them, and even joke at times that i need the second hand nicotien buzz.

regardless of what you two are argueing, the point is the same.

cigarettes bad.
smoke dangerous
people die.


psycho pixie

[Pirog]

I think you forgot to put "m'kay" behind your conclusions