Serious Tobacco Research Question /health Issues

[Hassouni]

OK, before anyone says "well of course it's bad for you," I know. But many of us here, myself included adhere to the theory that since we're not BURNING the tobacco per se, many of the tars, etc produced in, say, cigarettes are not present in our nargile "smoke" (vapor, etc). We often back this up by saying "go smoke a few cigs back to back then a hookah and see which one makes you sick."

However, I came across, from several sources, information indicating it is not the tar per se, but radioactive compounds in tobacco smoke that are by far more carcinogenic. From Wikipedia:
[indent=1]"In addition to chemical, nonradioactive carcinogens, tobacco and tobacco smoke contain small amounts of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-210"]lead-210[/url] ([sup]210[/sup]Pb) and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_polonium#Polonium-210"]polonium-210[/url]([sup]210[/sup]Po) both of which are radioactive carcinogens. The presence of polonium-210 in mainstream cigarette smoke has been experimentally measured at levels of 0.0263–0.036 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie"]pCi[/url] (0.97–1.33 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becquerel"]mBq[/url]),[sup][[i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/url][/i]][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-39"][40][/url][/sup] which is equivalent to about 0.1 pCi per milligram of smoke (4 mBq/mg); or about 0.81 pCi of lead 210 per gram of dry condensed smoke (30 Bq/kg).[/indent][indent=1]Research by [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Atmospheric_Research"]NCAR[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiochemistry"]radiochemist[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Martell"]Ed Martell[/url] determined that radioactive compounds in cigarette smoke are deposited in "hot spots" where[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchus"]bronchial tubes[/url] branch. Since tar from cigarette smoke is resistant to dissolving in lung fluid, the radioactive compounds have a great deal of time to undergo [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay"]radioactive decay[/url] before being cleared by natural processes. Indoors, these radioactive compounds linger in secondhand smoke, and therefore greater exposure occurs when these radioactive compounds are inhaled during normal breathing, which is deeper and longer than when inhaling cigarettes. Damage to the protective [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithelium"]epithelial[/url] tissue from smoking only increases the prolonged retention of insoluble polonium 210 compounds produced from burning tobacco. Martell estimated that a carcinogenic radiation dose of 80–100 rads is delivered to the lung tissue of most smokers who die of lung cancer.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-40"][41][/url][/sup][/indent][indent=1]Smoking an average of 1.5 packs per day gives a radiation dose of 60-160 [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSv"]mSv[/url]/year,[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-fusrap-41"][42][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-42"][43][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-43"][44][/url][/sup] compared with living near a nuclear power station (0.0001 mSv/year)[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-epa-44"][45][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-pbs-45"][46][/url][/sup] or the 3.0 mSv/year average dose for Americans.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-pbs-45"][46][/url][/sup][sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-bbc-46"][47][/url][/sup] Some of the mineral apatite in Florida used to produce phosphate for U.S.A. tobacco crops contains uranium, radium, lead 210 and polonium 210 and radon.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-47"][48][/url][/sup] [sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#cite_note-48"][49][/url][/sup] The radioactive smoke from tobacco fertilized this way is deposited in lungs and releases radiation even if a smoker quits the habit. The combination of carcinogenic tar and radiation in a sensitive organ such as lungs increases the risk of cancer. If the smoker also breathes in the asbestos fibers which commonly occur in urban and industrial environments, the risk of cancer is greatly increased."

I want to know if anyone has studied whether these radioactive particles exist in the tobacco leaf intrinsically, or are only produced by combustion. Frankly, if they're isotopes of certain atoms, it sounds like it's intrinsic.

If it turns out our beloved nargiles really are that bad, I may be quitting or SEVERELY scaling back the frequency with which I smoke.
[/indent]

[grock]

Very interesting. I wish I had the knowledge to take part in this conversation, but I definitely will be following it closely.

[DrSmokes]

I haven't studied it but the way I look at it is the way I look at everything else...in moderation, you should be at minimal risk.

[Hassouni]

Just dug up some stuff by Chaouachi....


[i]The alpha-radioactive Polonium 210 (Po-210) is one of the most powerful carcinogenic agents of tobacco smoke and responsible for the histotype shift of lung cancer from squamous-cell type to adenocarcinoma. According to several studies, the principal source of Po-210 are the fertilizers used in tobacco plants, which are rich in polyphosphates containing radio (Ra-226) and its decay products, lead-210 (Pb-210) and Po-210. Tobacco leaves accumulate Pb-210 and Po-210 through their thrichomes and Pb-210 decays into Po-210 over time. With the combustion of the cigarette and smoke becomes radioactive and Pb-210 and Po-210 reach the broncho-pulmonary apparatus, especially in bifurcations of segmental bronchi. In this place, combined with other agents, it will manifest its carcinogenic activity, especially in patients with compromised mucous-ciliary clearance. Various studies have confirmed that the radiological risk from Po- 210 in a smoker of 20 cigarettes per day for a year is equivalent to the one deriving from 300 chest X-rays, with an autonomous oncogenic capability of 4 lung cancers per 10000 smokers. Po-210 can also be found in passive smoke, since part of Po-210 spreads in the surrounding environment during tobacco combustion. Tobacco manufacturers have been aware of the alpha-radioactivity presence in tobacco smoke since the sixties.[/i]

[b][i]The researchers concluded that the [/i][/b]
[b][i]average concentrations of natural radionuclides in moassel [/i][/b]
[b][i]tobacco pastes were comparable to their concentration in [/i][/b]
[b][i]Greek cigarettes and tobacco leaves, and lower than that of [/i][/b]
[b][i]Brazilian tobacco leaves [105]. [/i][/b]

[i]14. How to Reduce the Radioactive Load of [/i]
[i]Tobacco Smoke? [/i]

[i]Regulating and reducing this harmful radiation, which [/i]
[i]comes from fertilizers, could help reduce lung cancer inci- [/i]
[i]dence [151]. Tobacco radiation could be reduced by applying [/i]
[i]various solutions, which may also work combined.[/i]
[i]Journal of Oncology 7 [/i]
[i](a) Use of alternative polyphosphate sources, such as [/i]
[i]organic fertilizers from animals [151]. [/i]
[i]( Use of ammonium phosphate as a fertilizer, instead [/i]
[i]of calcium phosphate [151]. [/i]
[i](c) Different storage methods. A study proved that Po- [/i]
[i]210 radioactivity of tobacco rose over time while in [/i]
[i]storage [152]. As a consequence, harvesting tobacco [/i]
[i]while it is still green and avoiding prolonged storage [/i]
[i]in silos in order to prevent an increase in Po-210 [/i]
[i]concentration due to Pb-210 slow decay could be [/i]
[i]recommended. [/i]
[i](d) Genetic modifications of tobacco plants with signif- [/i]
[i]icant reduction of trichomes concentration on the [/i]
[i]leaves, on which Pb-210 and Po-210 accumulate [71]. [/i]
[i](e) Resin filters may decrease lung exposure to alpha [/i]
[i]radiation [94]. On the contrary, common filters [/i]
[i]reduce Po-210 activity, on average, by 4.6% [93]. [/i]
[i](f ) LaRock et al. recommended a biological way to [/i]
[i]remove Po-210 by treating polyphosphate rocks with [/i]
[i]bacteria capable of reducing sulphates [153]. [/i]
[i](g) Perhaps the simplest and most applicable solutions [/i]
[i]would be the quantitative decrease in polyphosphates [/i]
[i]use in tobacco cultivations and the regulation of [/i]
[i]the maximum acceptable level of alpha radiation of [/i]
[i]cigarettes, which should also be clearly indicated on [/i]
[i]the packet [110]. [/i]

[[i]CANCER] Our comprehensive transdisciplinary (biomedical/social sciences) doctoral thesis offered the first substantial critical review of the health effects of hookah smoking. It highlighted the generally weak observed association between hookah smoking and cancer. In 2007, we published the first aetiological study on cigarette, hookah and mixed cigarette/hookah smokers. Using CEA as a cancer biomarker, we found a lower risk for hookah smokers. In 2009, we published the results of our further investigation on exclusive hookah smokers who have been using, for decades, huge amounts of tobacco in their pipes (each time, in the bowl, the tobacco-weight equivalent of up to 60 cigarettes). We found a much weaker association than that induced by cigarette smoking. These results are in agreement with the bulk of previous studies on this issue.[/i]

[u][b]but:[/b][/u]

[i][RADIOACTIVITY] We have assessed the radiological activity of various brands of moassel and compared it to that from cigarettes. We found no great difference between both products.[/i]

[i]The more the temperature is elevated, the more carcinogenic the smoke is. In these conditions, hookah tar is qualitatively very different from that produced by cigarettes. Furthermore, in the case of the fashionable shisha (using flavoured molasses tobacco with glycerol), a great portion of the calculated "tar" is expected to be made up of glycerol which has proved not "adversely alter the smoke chemistry or biological effects normally associated with exposure to mainstream cigarette smoke"[/i]


Of particular confusion is how he says mu'assal and cigarette tobacco is of equal radioactivity, but how nargile smokers have lower cancer rates. Again, perhaps this radioactive material stays in the cooked tobacco that's left when your bowl is finished, vs in your lungs when you inhale the ash from a cigarette? THIS is really what I want to know. If my leftover cooked mu'assal is radioactive, but the vapor I inhale from it isn't then I'm good to go.

[Hassouni]

by the way, didn't someone on here once contact Kamal Chaouachi about something?

[DrSmokes]

So the big thing is to find out how much fertilizers these tobacco growers use? I mean there is other stuff but that's at the top of the list.

[Hassouni]

Really I think the biggest thing is to find out how much of those radioactive particles get vaporized. Though yes, it seems fertilizer has some influence.

[vendetta_revived]

[quote name='Hassouni' timestamp='1315887597' post='523625']
by the way, didn't someone on here once contact Kamal Chaouachi about something?
[/quote]

If I am not mistaken, i think it was Dave who did.

[Hassouni]

Update:

Just read (in a book, so no quotations) that by far the worst of the radioactive particles is polonium-210, which is present in large quantities in the phosphate-heavy fertilizers used for decades in tobacco fields. Apparently shifting to cleaner fertilizer and using strains of tobacco less prone to particle absorption like this would go a LONG way into making the tobacco less radioactive. This is something Eric should be asked about - if he knows where his tobacco comes from, and the practices on the specific farms.

I also read in the same book that the stuff gets into you in the case of cigarettes when you inhale all the particles from the cigarette. Again, we mu'assal smokers aren't really inhaling that. It also said this is why second hand smoke is so dangerous - not because of the hot tar laden smoke, but because of the radioactive smoke. The book did not say whether it's released when just sitting there, or vaporized, or only when it's burned. This would be something to ask Kamal Chaouachi.

It ALSO said that the polonium-210 radiation (which is the one that causes the problems) in one cig is equivalent to 24 hours of solar radiation. So for a 2 pack a day cig smoker, that's 40 days' worth of radiation right there. Presumably this would be FAR less for a few-times-a-week nargile smoker.

[Bella]

[quote name='Hassouni' timestamp='1315983487' post='523784']
Update:

Just read (in a book, so no quotations) that by far the worst of the radioactive particles is polonium-210, which is present in large quantities in the phosphate-heavy fertilizers used for decades in tobacco fields. Apparently shifting to cleaner fertilizer and using strains of tobacco less prone to particle absorption like this would go a LONG way into making the tobacco less radioactive. This is something Eric should be asked about - if he knows where his tobacco comes from, and the practices on the specific farms.
[/quote]

Yes, I think this could make a big difference, so it may be worth finding out more about tobacco farming practices, just like it can be beneficial to get that information about the food you eat.

Cutting back on smoking frequency never hurts either, but what fun is that?

[Hassouni]

The big problem in tobacco, as it relates to food is that you can go to a farmer's market, meet the people who grow the veg/raise the animals, and at the end of the day you're buying raw ingredients so it's easier to judge. When we buy tobacco in any form it's not like that, since we're buying a finished product, and in our case it's often worse because the producer is over in the UAE or Egypt or Jordan more often than not, so we have no way of finding out.

PS I don't really shop at farmer's markets, I'm just saying that one CAN do that if one is truly concerned. There are certain things that I will try to only get organic though, mostly animal products. I know the certification is rather vague, but there are some minimum guarantees in it. I don't think anyone has "organic tobacco"

[joytron]

Thanks for looking into this Hass, I would appreciate if you keep us updated as your findings could really change the way I look at smoking. I think a lot of people would prefer to be in the dark about the negative affects of smoking moassel, but personally would like to be as informed as possible. If its true I can reduce my smoking and if its false than more power to us and another reason to separate the hookah experience from cigarettes.

[Hassouni]

100% my feeling on this Jess

[vendetta_revived]

I find this discussion very interesting as well. Most of us here know that smoking is bad for us, but still, the general consensus is that it can't be as dangerous as cigarettes because of the whole "burning vs cooking" logic, which does make sense, but not so much when you bring the radioactive particles in the picture.

Thanks for looking into it, and yes, please do keep us updated. It could definitely shape up my view on this hobby of mine.

[Satou]

In all honesty like DrSmokes' has said earlier - I believe Hookah like anything else that is deemed 'bad' for us like sugar, caffeine, fatty foods, watching too much tv and etc via the public health organizations should be taken in moderation instead of excess. However many of us know it is 'bad' for us in excess but we still do it any ways, just like cigarette smokers and alcoholics know what they are doing is poor for their health but they still do it based on their personal reasons and feeling and despite that fact.

[Hassouni]

Yeah except massive doses of radiation in moderation is still a lot. I REALLY want to know if these particles are released from heating or only burning....

[Satou]

[quote name='Hassouni' timestamp='1316026947' post='523865']
Yeah except massive doses of radiation in moderation is still a lot. I REALLY want to know if these particles are released from heating or only burning....
[/quote]

They don't have any idea on how the doses of radiation are being released at all or is that still a work in progress? Because I'd think it would be from the burning of the product rather than just heating it.....

[Hassouni]

Well all (or very nearly all) the studies have been done have been on cigarettes and their smokers, where burning is assumed by default. Remember nargile smoking here is a) new and definitely not mainstream

[Arcane]

Interesting topic...



...here's hoping for bone claws!

[vendetta_revived]

[quote name='Arcane' timestamp='1316030682' post='523876']
Interesting topic...



...here's hoping for bone claws!
[/quote]

I'd rather have Charles's powers. More practical applications when it comes to picking up girls and getting a raise (or getting mark zuckerbburg and bill gates hand their corporations to you).

[joytron]

[quote name='Arcane' timestamp='1316030682' post='523876']
Interesting topic...



...here's hoping for bone claws!
[/quote]
Claws are really only nice if you have the healing powers to go along with it.

[joytron]

[quote name='vendetta_revived' timestamp='1316032423' post='523882']
[quote name='Arcane' timestamp='1316030682' post='523876']
Interesting topic...



...here's hoping for bone claws!
[/quote]

I'd rather have Charles's powers. More practical applications when it comes to picking up girls and getting a raise (or getting mark zuckerbburg and bill gates hand their corporations to you).
[/quote]

How good is picking up girls when you cant even get an erection.

[vendetta_revived]

[quote name='joytron' timestamp='1316037816' post='523892']
[quote name='vendetta_revived' timestamp='1316032423' post='523882']
[quote name='Arcane' timestamp='1316030682' post='523876']
Interesting topic...



...here's hoping for bone claws!
[/quote]

I'd rather have Charles's powers. More practical applications when it comes to picking up girls and getting a raise (or getting mark zuckerbburg and bill gates hand their corporations to you).
[/quote]

How good is picking up girls when you cant even get an erection.
[/quote]

I said his powers, and the last time I checked, being riddled on a wheel chair didn't count as one.

[Hellz]

Honestly, if you are really that concerned about it do your own research.. the government gives grants for this type of shit. You'd be suprised about the funding you could get. And honestly. Why does it really matter? If it's something you enjoy doing why stop? You're not making it out alive in the end anyway. You can die driving tomorrow, Not really a big deal man. Atleast I think it's not something to freak out over anyway.

[Arcane]

If a bone claw starts coming out of my weiner, I'd stop smoking hookah no matter how much I enjoy it.

On a somewhat serious note, it's not just the funding that's the concern....you have to know how to conduct such tests as well, which probably requires some sort of training/education.