Glowing Cigs
Cigarettes...These poison sources will be the topic of my next post. What amazes me is how integrated cigarettes are within our society. They have been popular as far back as I could remember and only recently are starting to be questioned. Yet, their poisonous side effects have been well known for quite some time as well. There is a deadly laundry list of chemicals that are inhaled when smoking. That is commonly known. However, what is probably less known is the reason why these addictive sticks fall on my random nuclear thoughts blog. So for today, we shall have some random nuclear thoughts on the nuclear exposure due to smoking cigarettes...
The average adult smoker can smoke anywhere from 10 to 20 cigarettes a day. That's a lot of smoke breaks, I know. But somehow smokers find the time to smoke that many a day, be them with meals, during breaks, and whenever things get a little too stressful. Also, the average American receives an average of 6.2 mSv of radiation exposure a year. It is generally believed as well that increases in exposure lead to increases in the possible health risks.
More exposure = Higher chance of cancer and other diseases.
All this exposure comes from natural radiation and man-made radiation sources. These sources can be cosmic rays from the sun all the way down to those CT scans you get every few years. Medical procedures count for the majority of the average American's yearly dose. 51% of your exposure comes from the excessive CT scans one chooses to get, not the reactor a few miles away. But this is the knowledge that nuclear fans have been trying to get across for some time now. Today, this post is based on this fact, the average smoker receives .251 mSv a year from their smoking habits. On top of all the toxic chemicals in cigarettes, there is a high concentration of nuclear products that are taken up by tobacco and directly inhaled by smokers. These are radioactive forms of Radium and Lead and more. This exposure can span from .151 to .401 mSv depending on the amount smoked. This is anywhere from 2.5% to 6.5% of your yearly exposure, with an average of 4%. This would be in addition to the previous average exposure, as that does not include smoking habits.
Now, in summary, some may not feel a 4% increase to be life-changing. But this is on top of all the other toxic chemicals that are introduced into your lungs and eventually your blood stream. This value is probably more than what that same nuclear reactor a few miles away is doing to anyone. Also, that reactor has provided clean energy while a smoker is poisoning themselves and also giving a dose to any nearby secondhand smokers. Finally, these are concentrated dosages to your lungs and gradually circulated through your body, As soon as those pockets of tar build up in the lungs these radioactive isotopes also get trapped in the lungs, further concentrating the exposure.
All in all, this was just random musings on the dangerousness of cigarettes and its lesser heard of nuclear effects. I recognize the strains of addictions and the comfort that cigarettes can provide. I haven't smoked but my father was an avid smoker. Yet, it's important to know the facts so one can make a decision and if I enlighten even one person this post would have been a success. --Thanks
Cited:
Papastefanou, Constantin. “Radioactivity of Tobacco Leaves and Radiation Dose Induced from Smoking.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 6.2 (2009): 558–567. PMC. Web. 1 Feb. 2016.
Creative take on this, I'd never seen anything about radioisotopes in cigarettes. I would say that a 4% increase in dose is very significant, given its localized nature. How does this cigarette-induced dose compare specifically to other exposures directly to the respiratory system?
ReplyDeletePosted this at but also thought I'd post it here. In discussion it seemed like the radioactive effects of cigaretees were kind of downplayed but they are actually kind of scary. The isotopes come from the radium either in the ground naturally or added by tobacco farmers in part of the fertilizer. This then proceeds down the radium series and I believe is absorbed into the plant and coats it. Which is then smoked and inhaled in somewhere down the line. The scary part is it is both Po-210 and Pb-210 which have decent length half-lives. Po-210 is an alpha emitter (horrible to have inside of you) and Pb-210 a beta. Also the problem is that tar that builds up in the lungs when people smoke way too much. What also gets trapped in the tar? Those radioactive isotopes. Now you have a decent half-life isotope, some of which are alpha-emitters, trapped in tar in your lungs, giving you a very localized dose with poor biological removal. Keep on smoking? Keep on trapping those elements and multiplying your dose.
ReplyDeletehttp://mymfp.blogspot.com/2016/02/unstable-cellular-division.html
ReplyDeleteThis was a very good read. I do agree, especially seeing that Po-210 is an alpha emitter, that the radioactive effects it would have in the lungs must be substantive. As a suggestion for your next post, maybe you could look in to the effects of chewing tobacco or dip? Where the product stays in the mouth or digestive system rather than the respiratory system.
ReplyDeleteCigarettes are well known for being poisonous and dangerous and all of the bad things. Did you come across any information on how weed relates and if it is as dangerous?
ReplyDeleteLol fun question. So I stated above that alot of this radiation comes from the fertilizer that is massively used in the crop production. These products are either absorbed or even coat the plant after decaying into radon gas and then daughter particles being deposited. In that sense depending on how the weed is grown and the "source" of one's weed may present safer alternatives. Home-Grown? However, it has been stated that all things equal weed can deposit four times as much tar in one's lungs as opposed to cigarettes. However, another person may say that the bud of the plant actually has less tar and that is what is smoked so its safer. Really it goes back and forth. Marijuanan users also smoke much less compared to pack-smokers. However, there is no filter on what they inhale in. Clinically, no study has been able to link marijuana use to increased cancer risk and that is truly the takeaway of this. Some claim THC and other chemicals in weed help prevent cancer from developing. Have we had the cure all along? lol. But also for the positive note at the end, any smoking is bad. Smoking always hurts your lungs, but it may not result in lung cancer. There are many other disorders whose risks increased with increasing damage to your lungs. Don't smoke. That however poses the question of other THC (non-smoking) alternatives. This one almost turned into a blog post.
DeleteThis is a really interesting take on the cancer risks associated with radiation, I had no idea that there were radioactive isotopes in cigarettes. It definitely makes me respect the fact that all medical evaluations of death sticks say that they're bad for you and definitely helps quantify the true risks associated with smoking them, especially for cancer itself. The biggest problem from my understanding is still the chemicals preventing adequate respiration and transfer of oxygen to the bloodstream, despite the presence of Polonium and Lead in cigarettes.
ReplyDeleteMy dad and I were talking about the history of Iran a few weeks ago and he reminded me that until Europeans sailed to America and cultivated tobacco for export, the Iranians smoked primarily opium and marijuana. It would be neat to see what individual cultures have smoked over the last few millenia and understand why, if for any reason at all, what they were smoking was the norm. (side note: Iran has also recently legalized recreational use of marijuana)
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts or sources on the radioactive dangers of smoking opium?