Talk-Polywell.org

Tobacco apparently absorbs lead when it grows, including lead-210 which is present in higher concentrations when phosphate fertilizer is used. Apparently tobacco is also contaminated with even more dangerous polonium-210 (which I believe is a daughter product of the lead). I think those isotopes are mostly alpha emitters.

All of which may largely explain the carcinogenic properties of tobacco smoke, including second hand smoke.

Out of curiousity... does anyone know if an inexpensive (say, around $1,000) radiation detector is capable of measuring the radioactivity of tobacco smoke? I'm curious, for example, whether old briar pipes would read radioactively hot. And how about walking around the local Chinatown market, with its wonderful displays of shellfish and seaweed, discretely taking readings?

paperburn1 wrote:http://www.mazurinstruments.com/Comparison_Matrix.html

Too cool! Thx for the link.

Curious, what would be the banana equivalent dose of radiation from a cigarette?

The average radioactivity of bananas is 130 Bq/kg, or about 19.2 Bq per 150 gram banana.
Eating 1,000 bananas, or 40 tablespoons of peanut butter, or smoking 1.4 cigarettes equals a dose of 0.1 mSv, or one millimort.
so eat about 700 banana

For comparison: Human adult 100 Bq/kg, carrots 126 Bq/kg, bananas 130 Bq/kg, brazil nuts 207 Bq/kg

This topic now reminds me of the XKCD post about various radiation exposure levels.

paperburn1 wrote:The average radioactivity of bananas is 130 Bq/kg, or about 19.2 Bq per 150 gram banana.
Eating 1,000 bananas, or 40 tablespoons of peanut butter, or smoking 1.4 cigarettes equals a dose of 0.1 mSv, or one millimort.
so eat about 700 banana

For comparison: Human adult 100 Bq/kg, carrots 126 Bq/kg, bananas 130 Bq/kg, brazil nuts 207 Bq/kg

This implies one mortality for every 100mSv which is just ridiculous. 100mSv is the NOAEL* for acute radiation doses, NOT the mortality level. Since the function is NOT linear, you cannot actually convert mSv to mMort.

* No Observable Adverse Effect Level

I admit I did not fact check this but just cut and pasted
but

http://cornea.berkeley.edu/pubs/misc_millimort.pdf

paperburn1 wrote: I admit I did not fact check this but just cut and pasted
but

http://cornea.berkeley.edu/pubs/misc_millimort.pdf

So they say, but they are still stuck in the Muller-Lie ages with the outdated Linear No Threshold (LNT) model.

So I am to understand your an advocate of Radiation hormesis model?

Side note: This is one reason I like these forums so much, until Kiteman brought up Linear No Threshold (LNT) model I had no idea about some of the other Models until I read up on them.

paperburn1 wrote:So I am to understand your an advocate of Radiation hormesis model?

Side note: This is one reason I like these forums so much, until Kiteman brought up Linear No Threshold (LNT) model I had no idea about some of the other Models until I read up on them.

Of the three models, No Threshold, Threshold, and Hormesis, I think hormesis fits ALL the data much better. And I also think that if there wasn't the selection bias so evident in most works, the evidense for hormesis would be much stronger.

A few links to see the data
http://radiationeffects.org
http://dose-response.org

Side note, I m not limiting myself to radiation hormesis. Hormesis seems to be the way that life responds to ANY stressor with evolutionary context.