BlueEyedMonster 0 #51 September 10, 2003 QuoteI'm curious as to what radioactive elements and their respective natural abundance that would be present in tobacco but not marijuana. From Pro-Pot PropigandaQuoteTobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the fine hairs on tobacco leaves. But ONE BIG HOLE in this argument.... Don't you think the Tobbacco companies would have changed fields and stopped with the phosphates if it would make for cancer-free cigarettes? That would be a really cheap solution that would insure increased profits for generations. Unfortunately... the tar is just one of MANY carcinogens Personally I don't care if people smoke pot. Just admit the health risks like smokers do, and the imparement that alcohol would cause.... and just say that the Buzz is worth the risk. You don't have to spread the crap like a farmer with a slurry truck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #52 September 10, 2003 No I did a quick search and it comes down to phytoremediation of the tobacco. Looks like the tobacco farmers use fertilizer with trace radioactive elements in it that are uptaken by the tobacco. Apparently the dope heads that grow marijuana don't use the same fertilizer. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #53 September 10, 2003 QuoteHow old are you? Were you around when AIDS first hit the public light? Do you think everyone was being contacted by a doctor to advise them of the new risk they faced? There's a huge difference between public disemination of truthful information (what I'm calling education) and government propaganda. and aids and hiv are self inflicted,(other than rape, ect ) anyone can walk into the public library and get all the info they need. and why do you want to throw tax money on something that has no need? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #54 September 10, 2003 QuoteLooks like the tobacco farmers use fertilizer with trace radioactive elements in it that are uptaken by the tobacco. When I was young.... many of our neighbors farmed tobbacco. Its an easy crop to grow, and none of them used any fertilizers. So saying that all tobbacco has radioactive fertalizer is also an incorrect generalization. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #55 September 10, 2003 OK... So "Short Version"... WE'RE ALL GONNA' DIE!!! We all suffer from a fatal condition known as life. Those that O/D on life are likely to die sooner. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #56 September 10, 2003 I did a quick search and found that myself. I also found other data that was stating that there are throat cancers caused by marijuana. Looks like the different smokes effect different parts of the throat and lungs. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #57 September 10, 2003 QuoteWe all suffer from a fatal condition known as life. Those that O/D on life are likely to die sooner. Cool... then there might actually be some Social-Security funds left for me when I retire? YESS! More jumping money! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #58 September 10, 2003 I was making the link between fertilizer and the radioactivity. I didn't intend to make a generalization. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #59 September 10, 2003 QuoteI'm confused about the radioactive part of your argument and I'd love to see a source. I'm curious as to what radioactive elements and their respective natural abundance that would be present in tobacco but not marijuana. I would believe that the discrepency in cancer could be a result of a carcinogen present in the tobacco and not the marijuana. David http://www.angelfire.com/ego/americanzero/weedandciggs.html Tobacco crops grown in the United States are fertilized by law with phosphates rich in radium 226. In addition, many soils have a natural radium 226 content. Radium 226 breaks down into two long lived 'daughter' elements -- lead 210 and polonium 210. These radioactive particles become airborne, and attach themselves to the fine hairs on tobacco leaves. Studies have shown that lead 210 and polonium 210 deposits accumulate in the bodies of people exposed to cigarette smoke. Data collected in the late 1970's shows that smokers have three times as much of these elements in their lower lungs as non smokers. Smokers also show a greater accumulation of lead 210 and polonium 210 in their skeletons,though no studies have been conducted to link these deposits with bone cancer. Polonium 210 is the only component of cigarette smoke which has produced tumors by itself in inhalation experiments with animals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #60 September 10, 2003 QuoteI don't pay for it. I provide funds for someone else to pay for it. This sounds like a purely semantic difference to me. If I build myself a house, or pay someone else to build me a house. Will the results be the same? QuoteI'm not sure what your definition of that time frame is, but I was living in Northern California from 1989 on (before that in central California). It was a fairly large issue there. Gasp!!! You mean people were spreading information about it? How horrible of them to control your mind like that!!! QuoteI bet all those folks on the opposite end of politics from you think what they're doing is "education" by their definition, too. Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot. Black? You have a choice. Smoke cigarettes or don't smoke cigarettes. Here's the effect of cigarettes. Now make your choice. That's a bit differen than political ideologies. I think you're being pedantic. Do you really think that educating the public about the risks of certain activities, and then allowing them to choose whether to participate in those activities or not is a bad thing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #61 September 10, 2003 Thanks. I did a quick search in the meantime and found the answer. I still think that there are other carcinogens that can cause cancer and there are carcinogens in marijuana smoke that cause throat cancer. J Clin Pharmacol. 2002 Nov;42(11 Suppl):103S-107S. Related Articles, Links Marijuana smoking and head and neck cancer. Hashibe M, Ford DE, Zhang ZF. Department of Epidemiology, UCLA School of Public Health, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, 90095-1772, USA. A recent epidemiological study showed that marijuana smoking was associated with an increased risk of head and neck cancer. Among high school students and young adults, the prevalence of marijuana use was on the rise in the 1990s, with a simultaneous decline in the perception that marijuana use is harmful. It will be a major public health challenge to make people aware of the harmful effects of marijuana smoking, when some people view it as the illicit drug with the least risk. The carcinogenicity of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is not clear, but according to laboratory studies, it appears to have antitumor properties such as apoptosis as well as tumor-promoting properties such as limiting immune function and increasing reactive oxygen species. Marijuana tar contains similar carcinogens to tar from tobacco cigarettes, but each marijuana cigarette maybe more harmful than a tobacco cigarette since more tar is inhaled and retained when smoking marijuana. More molecular alterations have been observed in bronchial mucosa specimens of marijuana smokers compared to nonsmokers. Field cancerization may be occurring on the bronchial epithelium due to marijuana smoking exposure. Several case studies were suggestive of an association of marijuana smoking with head and neck cancers and oral lesions. However, in a cohort study with 8 years of follow-up, marijuana use was not associated with increased risks of all cancers or smoking-related cancers. Further epidemiological studies are necessary to confirm the association of marijuana smoking with head and neck cancers and to examine marijuana smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer. It will also be of interest to examine potential field cancerization of the upper aerodigestive tract by marijuana and to explore marijuana as a risk factor for oral premalignant lesions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #62 September 10, 2003 Quoteand aids and hiv are self inflicted,(other than rape, ect ) anyone can walk into the public library and get all the info they need. and why do you want to throw tax money on something that has no need? If noone was aware that there was a risk in the first place....for what possible reason would they go look up information about it? Remember the 80's? Hey, there's this new disease that homosexual men and drug addicts are getting. I'm neither one of those, so I don't need to worry about it, right? But I think I'll go do some research on it anyway? Get real. You think there's no need to prevent a killer that has claimed exponentially more lives than terrorism, but the war on terror is ok. The difference is people want revenge. They can't take revenge against a virus, or a lifestyle choice to smoke. But hey, there's some people that I can kill to feel all warm and fuzzy. That's where I'll spend my money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueEyedMonster 0 #63 September 10, 2003 QuoteI was making the link between fertilizer and the radioactivity. I didn't intend to make a generalization. David You didn't make the generalization... PhillyKev did in his argment that lung cancer is caused by radioactive tar... because all Cigarette Tobbacco then must have been sprayed with these radioactive chemicals... When I know (personally witnessed) that they have not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #64 September 10, 2003 QuotePhillyKev did in his argment that lung cancer is caused by radioactive tar. I said that. Quotebecause all Cigarette Tobbacco then must have been sprayed with these radioactive chemicals Didn't say that. Passive Smoke Damages DNA Solutions of tar isolated from passive smoke (environmental tobacco smoke) contain the same tar semiquinone radical found in an aqueous solution of cigarette tar from mainstream smoke. Bermúdez et al. (p. 870) found that tar isolated from either source binds to DNA in rat alveolar macrophages and causes dose-related, single-strand breaks in rat thymocytes. Both tar products produce hydrogen peroxide, which appears to be necessary for DNA damage, as catalase, glutathione, and chelators all provided varying degrees of protection in this in vitro cell system. The data show that water-soluble components of cigarette tar from either passive or mainstream smoke can enter cells, bind to DNA, and cause genetic damage. http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1994/102-10/iti.html For over 35 years, researchers and tobacco corporations have known that commercially grown tobacco is contaminated with radioactive elements (1). The contamination is sourced in naturally occurring radioactive radon gas (2) which is absorbed and trapped in apatite rock (3). Apatite is mined for the purpose of formulating the phosphate portion of most chemical fertilizers(4). Polonium releases ionizing alpha radiation which is at least 20 times more harmful than either beta or gamma radiation when exposed to internal organs(5). http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/ The radioactive compounds found in highest concentration in cigarette smoke are polonium-210 and potassium-40. Other radioactive compounds present include radium-226, radium-228 and thorium-228. Radioactive compounds are well established as carcinogens. http://www.quit.org.au/quit/FandI/fandi/c05s1.htm In a 1964 report in ``Science,'' Harvard scientists announced discovery that tobacco contains relatively high concentrations of a natural radioactive material called polonium-210. It forms from a natural radioactive gas, radon. Radon forms from another natural radioactive material, uranium, found in small amounts in soil. http://www.no-smoking.org/may00/05-19-00-1.html That enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #65 September 10, 2003 QuoteIf noone was aware that there was a risk in the first place....for what possible reason would they go look up information about it? Remember the 80's? Hey, there's this new disease that homosexual men and drug addicts are getting. I'm neither one of those, so I don't need to worry about it, right? But I think I'll go do some research on it anyway? Get real. and how much at risk would you have been if you would have abstained from sex till you were married? the fact then as it is now, 0 no tax money, no risk. Like skydiving if you want to enjoy the thrill, you have to accept the risks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #66 September 10, 2003 So much for the debate on legalizing pot...the begining was good, complaining about the expenditure of 300B$ in the fight against terror. I guess that Kevin wouldn't mind jumping with a pot head, base to what I read on this thread... Yep, it does not impair you and is totally harmless smoking pot. Better yet, why don't we get him to jump with a load full of people that are high on dope... As to the war on terror, one of the differences is that they do not care who they kill. One nuke from them will be sufficient to kill millions with just one of them, and in one day. The risks are far greater than just the fact of complaining of how people die, and all the causes for it. Hell why not campaining about living a veggie life? Meat kills.."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #67 September 10, 2003 QuoteI guess that Kevin wouldn't mind jumping with a pot head, base to what I read on this thread... Yep, it does not impair you and is totally harmless smoking pot. hell why stop there, why not a pot head jump pilot and use pot head packer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #68 September 10, 2003 QuoteI guess that Kevin wouldn't mind jumping with a pot head, base to what I read on this thread... Yep, it does not impair you and is totally harmless smoking pot. Never said any of that. I said it's not a direct cause of death, and doesn't have the same health effects as cigarettes. QuoteAs to the war on terror, one of the differences is that they do not care who they kill. One nuke from them will be sufficient to kill millions with just one of them, and in one day. I didn't say stop the war on terror. I'm saying 300billion to fund invading other countries and rebuild them, create ultra secret surveilance of US citizens, etc. is going over board. QuoteThe risks are far greater than just the fact of complaining of how people die, and all the causes for it. Hell why not campaining about living a veggie life? Meat kills.. That's my poing. Meat kills, cigarettes kill, alcohol kills, diabetes kills, aids kills, terrorists kill, muggers kill, bathtubs kill. Does the % risk of dying from terrorist attack justify the money spent on mitigating that risk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #69 September 10, 2003 There was always the possibility of bood borne infection via transplant and heamophilia treatment. Also there was a recent case in Australia were a 16 year old virgin was infected by sharing a razor blade with her sister. I'll agree that sex was the major mode of transfer but not the only one. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #70 September 10, 2003 QuoteAlso there was a recent case in Australia were a 16 year old virgin was infected by sharing a razor blade with her sister. Didn't she go research AIDS at the library before she started shaving? The best part is, I'm sure bodypilot is all in favor of those damn liberal librarians using tax money to stock sex education books. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usmcdannyboy 0 #71 September 10, 2003 QUICK!!! who said this: EAT, DRINK AND BE MERRY. FOR TOMORROW WE SHALL DIE!!!I am the light my son...What you seek is fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #72 September 10, 2003 Jeezus...talk about thread creep. All I was trying to point out is that people should consider what their tax dollars are being spent on. If you think 300billion is justified for the war on terror this year. Fine. If you think it's immoral to educate people about the risks of aids and diabetes and smoking. Fine. Hopefully people will at least take a look at what the powers at be use your money for. Make sure they are accountable and are using it for you believe is the justified. That's the point I was trying to make. But I guess it's easier to attack what I think is justified expenditure than to make sure your elected officials are using the money as you see fit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #73 September 10, 2003 QuoteQUICK!!! who said this: EAT, DRINK AND BE MERRY. FOR TOMORROW WE SHALL DIE!!! Usually attributed to Epicurius, but I think it was compiled from a couple different quotes in the bible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #74 September 10, 2003 Interesting argument that you have going here and while I think that a government has to defend its population against terrorists there are a few screw ups that could be looked into. Two examples that directly effect my dropzone. 1 Some idiot ( i forget his name) wanted to ban aircraft flying over the Quabbin reservoir in MA incase terrorists dropped something to contaminate the water. A quick bit of arithmetic would have concluded that the volume of water is such that several tanker trucks would have been required to have the remotest chance of success. Not to mention the water treatment plants etc. But we would have to have changed flights jump run etc. had he got his way 2. They are building a fence to stop people getting to the parked aircraft now this costs a bit of money. Heaven forbid they are teaching people how to cut fences at terrorist training camp. Not that it matters as you can walk around the fence anyway as it doesn't have to enclose the entire ramp area. Look at the list of things the TSA wouldn't allow on a plane. I don't know that there is calm realistic leadership as all I see is paranoid people covering their own arse should something else occur. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #75 September 10, 2003 QuoteLook at the list of things the TSA wouldn't allow on a plane. Strangely enough, shipping live humans in crates on airliners is perfectly acceptable, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
